Saxon math - alternatives needed

[SuperCrissy]

Hi! I'd appreciate your suggestions -

 

I'm looking for a math program for prealgebra and above that explains conceptually why things are done, not one that focuses mainly on the methods used to solve problems.

 

We've used Saxon math all along with our three kids and supplemented with Singapore math. Last year our middle daughter (6th grade) hit a wall in Saxon 8/7. She started to consistently get about 22 out of 30 on the problem sets. I figured out that the problem is that she doesn't clearly remember the underlying concepts and can't tell you what happens in a complicated problem. Somehow she got through the other books by getting excellent grades by just following the steps, but now the problems are too difficult.

 

I switched her mid-year to Singapore math 5A/5B to review, but now what? We don't want to use Singapore's high school series.

[regentrude]

Art of Problem Solving?

 

Discovery based method, problem solving centered - but not as drill of algorithms, rather through conceptual understanding and thinking.

[Brenda in MA]

My oldest also hit a similar wall with Saxon, but it occurred much later -- in Advanced Math. I'm glad for your dd's sake that you've identified the issues sooner. After Saxon, my son used Chalkdust successfully. He really liked the instruction on the DVDs.

 

I am also partial to the Dolciani series. I've used these with my younger son, starting with Algebra 1 and the book "Algebra: Structure & Method". I've liked this series because the lessons are short and very clearly written. The problem sets come with 3 levels of problems: straight forward, thought-provoking, and very challenging so you can adjust to your child's level. I felt these books were a nice follow-up after Singapore PM. This series doesn't have a video option, though, if that's important to you.

 

HTH,

Brenda

[Jann in TX]

I switched my oldest dd to Lial (Basic College Math) when she hit a wall with Saxon 87. It was like a breath of fresh air! The 'traditional' chapter approach gave her the time to see HOW the concepts fit together and WHY we choose to use the methods we do to solve the problems. The examples are labeled with the REASONS why we are able to do each step.

 

I used to teach/tutor from Saxon exclusively--but back then it was one of the FEW choices homeschoolers had for math. Now we have a MULTITUDE of choices and can tailor our choices to fit our student's learning style.

 

I think Saxon works for SOME students 'great', and most students can learn from it 'OK'. In my 25+ years of teaching Math I've found that nearly 30% of students will learn BETTER with a different program. My dd was one of the 30%-- even though I knew and loved (understood) Saxon.

 

With most programs it is the TEACHER who is responsible for pulling the whole learning experience together. The instructor should be explaining the 'how and why' not just demonstrating the method. Back in the dark ages when I first started teaching I just showed the method-- "this is how you work a problem that looks like this". Now I know better and I make it a point to demonstrate the reasoning behind my choices for the next step(s). Text books have limited space. Lial has more 'teaching' than most programs--but even then it is still best when taught.

[HollyDay]

I'm having a love hate relationship with Saxon at the moment. It worked fairly well for us until the end of Algebra 2. I personally do not like the program, but my dc like it and have consistantly chosen it over other math programs. We hit a wall though toward the end of Algebra 2 when the instruction became geometry heavy. I'm not sure if this is topic or style conflict however. I've been looking for alternatives and suppliments but at this point, I think we had best stick with Saxon because of how the geometry is wrapped into the program not separated out.

 

I did take a few detours along the way. I like TT 7 over Saxon 67. And we used Life of Fred Fractions, Decimals and Percents when my oldest needed more explanation. My youngest however, did not need anything additional.

An IRL gf said she liked LOF Geometry as a suppliment to Saxon. I've looked at that, but I'm torn between the need for LOF Geometry and LOF Trig. I think most of dd's confusion is coming from Trig not Geometry.

 

I have heard Forresters explains things very well but I've not used it. Chalkdust has gotten quite a bit of praise in our homeschool group. Most like TT but I don't know if it is that much "better" at explaining or just a different scope and sequence. MUS is a totally different approach as well, but I don't know anything about their pre-Algebra. I've used Key To Algebra as a support with success. I do think that is more pre-algebra though than algebra.

[Sebastian (a lady)]

Hi! I'd appreciate your suggestions -

 

I'm looking for a math program for prealgebra and above that explains conceptually why things are done, not one that focuses mainly on the methods used to solve problems.

 

We've used Saxon math all along with our three kids and supplemented with Singapore math. Last year our middle daughter (6th grade) hit a wall in Saxon 8/7. She started to consistently get about 22 out of 30 on the problem sets. I figured out that the problem is that she doesn't clearly remember the underlying concepts and can't tell you what happens in a complicated problem. Somehow she got through the other books by getting excellent grades by just following the steps, but now the problems are too difficult.

 

I switched her mid-year to Singapore math 5A/5B to review, but now what? We don't want to use Singapore's high school series.

 

My kids shifted last year from Saxon Algebra 1/2 to AoPS Algebra. I've been quite happy with the shift, although it required a coordinated shift in how we approached a math lesson. The student really has to work through the AoPS sample problems. The learning in in the doing. If you just skim along, thinking, yep, got it, odds are you won't be able to actually solve the lesson problems.

 

In other words, in the process of stepping through the samples, the students discovers the how AND the why behind the problem.

 

Also, I would not move forward until you understand each of the regular problems. Dwelling is better than moving forward in confusion.

 

[it feels like 'Agree with Regentrude Day."]

 

I also found a couple copies of Dolciani. When my kids were struggling with quadratics, I ran them back through polynomials in the Dolciani book to solidiy the concepts. Unfortunately, the older (imo better) Dolciani books are harder to find teacher's editions or solutions manuals for.

[TippyCanoe]

.

[TravelingChris]

Life of Fred is another possibility.

[Ellie]

Just to throw this out there:

 

Here is Janet in WA's comments about Saxon's teaching the whys:

 

In my experience, Saxon always teaches the “whyâ€. And they always introduce new concepts by relating them to previous ones. In fact, another criticism I’ve heard about the high school level books is that the lessons are too long -- too wordy. That’s because they spend so much time explaining. However, because of Saxon’s incremental design, you won’t always find the full explanation for “why†in any one lesson. Sometimes it takes many lessons, over a protracted period of time, before the student has all the pieces to a concept, and knows why he’s learned it and how it will be applied. For example, he’ll learn and practice a particular method of solving simultaneous equations. He’ll practice it for many days, in fact, with no real certainty why. Then, when he’s gotten proficient at that technique, Saxon will introduce a new kind of word problem for which that method of equation solving is useful. The student THEN sees why he learned that method. In other more traditional texts, with concepts taught in chapter format, this connection would be made more quickly and obviously. As carol nj says, Saxon is a “parts to whole†kind of math. You need to look at the whole picture to appreciate Saxon -- not just each book as a whole, but the whole series.

Also, sometimes the “why†of a concept isn’t found in a lesson because the student has seen that concept before in a previous book -- and the “why†was explained at the time the concept was first taught, not when he sees it as review. Now and then we’ll hit a lesson that seems to just tell the student how to do something new, and never much about why, but those always turn out to be things Saxon doesn’t place much importance on, and the student won’t see them or use them much.

Now let me say, the fact that Saxon explains the “why†behind concepts doesn’t mean a student will understand that explanation -- or remember it. With Saxon’s incremental format, some students have difficulty mastering concepts, and connecting them. And the tone of Saxon’s high school books is rather “academicâ€, and the length and wordiness of the lessons turns some students off. But the content is there.

Let me also say that though I like Saxon for high school, I never recommend that someone start using Saxon for the first time at that level. It is so different from anything else that I think the chances are good that it will be difficult for a student to switch to it at that point. Some students do fine, but I’m not comfortable making that recommendation myself. So please don’t think that you should switch to it because of anything I’ve said. The only point of my posts is to reassure people that Saxon isn’t lacking.

 

She also said (and of course I don't know if this is true of you or not, but for the sake of others to whom it may apply) that Math 87/Al. ½ is where skipping problems in the problem sets begis to be a problem, which is why she (and many others, including the authors) recommend that students do every.single.problem.