Measurement homework in a math textbook… horribly out of scale.
You must log in or register to comment.
I thought its a penis at first
Then they be saying “Never let a graphic fool you.”
They probably intended it to be a centimetre but somewhere from concept to final print the squares ended up 1mm longer and wider than intended. Not really a problem as they figured teachers might need the extra space to use centimetre cubes to help with teaching but didn’t figure someone would bring a ruler along.
That math problem did not scale well…
I would settle for hypo-cube though.
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 think they intended proper ruler measurement.
I don’t like the use of the word ‘cubes’ when ‘squares’ would have been just fine though.
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.
Sadly, I think there is a lot of truth to that. They don’t develop an interest in math because they don’t know how they are going to use the math. So the “formal operations” thought process is never taken aboard and they lose what little they did have due to lack of practice.
Maybe this assignment was meant to be done with those same cubes. Like physically placing them in the boxes.
Nope. The work assignment is the transition counting a tangible 3D item to counting a 2D picture. The next step is to go from the 2D picture to using just the numbers. And all the while they are learning to use counting and basic addition and subtraction. We are teaching from real world items to more and more abstract ideas.
Remember: The numbers are real, the exact units don’t matter.
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 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.
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
I don’t like the use of the word ‘cubes’ when ‘squares’ would have been just fine though.
I don’t like either because they are actual units of measurements for volume and surface, respectively.
They’re cubes, but the scaling errors are inconsistent.
What’s the issue here? Your ruler is metric, not centimeter-cubic. 🤷
I’d like to thank all the people that think the representations in math problems should be or are to scale for my quite impressive SAT scores, it helped a lot in my college admissions to have you all for comparison, and I slept through half of high school so I really needed that.
Most of the time, those who accept the lie will go farther in society. They’re not just testing your scholastic aptitude, but also your compliance.
How many lights do you see, Picard?
Listen, it’s math homework for a child.
It’s larger, because they’re still developing their motor control, and the actual, a child that does this is very likely to count each square with their finger.
There are plenty of reasons to show measurements out of scale. Larger print is easier to read. For literally, it’s for children who’s eyes are not yet fully developed it’s important that things be larger and easier to see.
Not all printers are created equal, and these sheets are likely to be xeroxed repeatedly, larger than scale print makes it serviceable for much longer if you happen to lose the original.
The underpaid and over worried children’s educator likely does not have the energy or the time to print this crap exactly to scale.
The scale is different every page, so it’s not for finger size. It’s a bound textbook that I assume was not picked by my child’s teacher.
Am I allowed to be mildly infuriated if I blame capitalism for poor product quality?
4, but I can understand your confusion. You see the fifth light but don’t realize the question is specifically about the interrogation lamps and not the ceiling light. I mean, it was very obvious, and this is is a cognitive test for children, but you know. I get it.
(Probably a rhetorical mistake to accidentally cast me in the role of Picard btw)
there are four lamps but you coming in here brightened my day so much it’s five today interrogator
you… you were coming on to me right?
/unpicard
shit are you supposed to pronounce the slash?
kif?
Maybe someone hit the 110% size on a copy machine?
It’s a bound textbook!
Eh, could also just be ‘assume each box is 1 cm’ without intending to be accurate.
Now if they said use a ruler to figure it out and they claimed it’s 10 then there’s an issue where someone needs a new tool
That’d be my guess. Lot of potential scaling issues in print.
One of my exes was really into making clothing. I learnt second hand (via venting) how difficult it is to get a printer to print
1cm=1cmaccurately when you buy a “pattern” (basically a tracing you follow to chop up the fabric).They would check every printout, and half the time they had to print the same thing multiple times because the printer decided to be stupid and add a half centimetre here or there or subtly stretch it; which matters a lot for a good fit. It was a whole big thing, apparently. At least for cheap printers.
deleted by creator
They printed on paper to later re-trace the shape on fabric manually
But the squares that are supposed to be a cm and the ruler below it are printed on the same page, they scale together.
At least it looks like a printed ruler to me.
The ruler is very clearly cut out from a different sheet.
Ah! I remember the second grade as if it were Tuesday.
Those are squares, not cubes
The kids work with actual physical cubes in class. The consistency is way more important than pedantry
How would using physical cubes make learning measuring less confusing?
It lets them use a consistent reference for counting, as well as 1D, 2D, and 3D measurements. They also give something to learn with tactilely, rather than just an abstract set of ideas.
Basically lock the idea of measurements in with the cubes. Then, only when they are confident, split them off into counting and the dimensional concepts.
It works very well for a lot of children.
It starts by using cubes for counting
Does it really matter if you write down a length in squares or in cubes? 😂
Cubes implies you’re working in 3 dimensions as in 10 cm³
It’s definitely in the “lies to tell children to help them learn” category. The concept of length Vs counting is only just being taught here. The difference between dimensional cubes is a bit beyond most of them.
And square imply cm². Both are equally stupid to measure a length. Or are you arguing that cubes a one dimension more stupid?
Technically, they could be cubes as seen from directly above.
That’s why they took centimeter cubes.
They just didn’t draw the z axis which is where the difference is.
They provided you with the scale to measure the marker. You were not supposed to bring in a second, different scale.
I wasn’t supposed to unravel their whole conspiracy. But here we are, the truth laid bare, and I can’t unsee it.
I dont see anything wrong with it. The unit is defined as a “centimeter cube” which is a non-standard unit so while it is not really a great unit definition, it would still be correct.
I could just randomly divide the scale in equal length sections, say one section is a “squelchon ” and the marker would be 17 squelchons long.
That’s how measurements based upon human appendages came to be ;)
EDIT: of course I mean squelchons and not squenchons (completely different unit) ;)
See, inconsistent scale has you confusing squenchons and squelchons. The difference should jump out at you.
Crappy unit choice. For clarity I would cross out “centimeter cubes” and write “millilitres”, or just put the length as roughly 1/50 of a pint
Why would you write milliliters?
Good point, I corrected it
Because they CAN! hah.
