[learnstats2]

This article defends multiplication marked incorrectly because of a semantic difference between 5x3 and 3x5. I recognise there is semantic difference (although I don't think the Wikipedia reference is correct about its nature).

If the marker's motivation is to identify that difference, then this is horribly misguided. In my opinion the marker has just made an error.

Note the stated goal of the exercise: "I can use multiplication strategies to help me multiply".

Using commutativity is a multiplication strategy and it's an essential goal for students at this level to learn this as part of their work with number.

[sophacles]

Teaching necessarily forces a rigor not seen in most actual usage. This is because there is a need to build concepts on top of one another. So while 3x5 and 5x3 are the same in practical usage, it this method helps in later steps like algebra:

5x = x + x + x + x, i can't rearrange that into terms of 5+ without involving even more concepts (like recursion etc)

[aninhumer]

>Teaching necessarily forces a rigor not seen in most actual usage. This is because there is a need to build concepts on top of one another.

To be honest, what I take away from this is "It's easier for the teacher to keep track of progress if everyone takes the same path to understanding". This might be true, but is precise knowledge of progress more important than the benefits of allowing different paths? I'm inclined to think it will stunt their creativity and exploration in ways that slow them down overall.