Wm, Your comment makes sense. Going further with you "serving double", perhaps they are trying emphasize the duality of the pair. I think "duality" is the word I am looking for, in the sense of them being inverses, sort of. For me, no amount of drill would be adequate, though, unless I could somehow internalize a pattern because there are an infinite number of fact families. These kids are still counting on their fingers, in the main.
I am not disagreeing with you, I am just saying that my history with lots of drill has been to learn rule-type patterns, and I think of these fact families as depending on weird patterns. Still I am getting there, especially with this groups' comments. Thanks, On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 1:21 PM, William Tanksley, Jr <[email protected] > wrote: > I don't think anyone's opposed to looking at function tables; what I > see happening in the common core is that they're describing individual > basic addition facts, but in a format that makes them serve double > purpose as subtraction facts. > > If they provide enough time and drills to make sure the children can > actually memorize the grammatical facts, that's a good thing. > > -Wm > > > -- (B=) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
