[skhunted]

Yes, almost everyone gets that. Then you need to explain that x is really 1 x. Then you need to explain that -x is really (-1)x. Everything is great. We all understand. Now simplify (1/2) x + 3x. You’ll lose most people at this step. Then explain (1/2) x - (2/3)x. More confusion. Now explain that ax+x is (a+1)x. You lost a lot of people at this step. Now explain that xy+ x^2y is (x+x^2)y and that this is just the distributive property “in reverse”.

Sometime later a person will really grok all this and then say, “why didn’t they just tell us this is all just the distributive property?”

[Nevermark]

Ah, I get it.

A different approach I have thought about, which would really tear the textbooks apart, is introducing every concept in its simplest form as early as possible.

Then when it is eventually expanded on, its familiarity will aid in taking further steps more quickly and intuitively.

For instance, something as simple as adding up the area of a fence of varying heights, or the area of multi-height wall to be painted, being referred to as integrating the area, in early grade arithmetic, creates a conceptual link for down the road.

Systematically going over K-12 materials, just making similar small adjustments to terminology and concepts to be highlighted, would be interesting.

[skhunted]

As I see it the issue with your integrating example is that area is the correct word for finding “area”. Integrating is not finding the area. The indefinite integral is not about area. The definite integral in dimension 1 has to do with signed area. I don’t think having people ingrained to think finding area is “integration” would be a good thing. Especially since most people don’t take calculus.

To your point, people do constantly try to tweak things to make subjects easier to understand and more intuitive.

[lupire]

That's how Riemann integrals are defined in class. Vertical slices.

Tossing the word "integral" at younger children won't make that easier or harder.