A Comparison of Teaching Textbooks and Math Mammoth

[zenjenn]

I just thought I'd share...

 

Background - both my kids did Math Mammoth 1, and then went to TT3 (so my experience is MM is a little 'advanced' if you will, TT is a little 'behind', but that's just semantics.)

 

I primarily started using Teaching Textbooks for my older one who is dyslexic and really benefits from the audio/visual aspect. MM2 was getting frustrating for her, frankly, and TT was great.

 

The youngest (3rd grader) is very mathy, and I did not feel TT was the best curriculum for her because it spirals way too much for her needs and she learns way more from reading than from audio/visual. But, she is also very computer-oriented and REALLY wanted to do it, so I let her. For years. Because it was interest-driven. Even though I really didn't think it stretched her abstract mathy-mind. Occasionally I'd try to sell her on Math Mammoth a little, but no, she wanted to use the computer. I'd always back off, wondering whether I was really doing her a service, but she is young and I wanted her to continue to think math was fun, that she wasn't being punished with more "boring" math compared to her sister, etc. I just had her do more and more lessons, and read Life of Fred books in her spare time (which there was a lot of, because she zoomed through TT lessons). She accelerated TT to 2 1/2 grade levels ahead, and increasingly complained that it is too repetitive and easy.

 

She finally made a decision (on her own!) a few days ago to use Math Mammoth. Making the switch, this third grader switched from halfway through TT5, to Math Mammoth 4b, so the "1 year apart" assessment seems to translate.

 

MM is definitely more conceptual and requires more critical thinking - BUT - it's clear that she is no worse for wear for having done used TT for 2 1/2 years. She still learned the core of what she needed to know, even though it wasn't challenging to her. The transition to MM4b has been seamless.

 

 "How are you liking Math Mammoth?" I asked today. "It's more work, but it's better for me." 

 

I think it would have been fine if she continued with TT too, but it would have been a little boring. TT continues to work well for my dyslexic 5th grader who I know would be driven into stressed-out mental fits by some of the abstract problems in MM. More abstract and challenging is not necessarily better for every kid, and TT still gets you where you need to go. I just thought I'd share the comparison and experience making the switch.

[Jess4879]

Thanks for sharing this!  This is our first year using TT.  We still have MM handy, but so far TT is working.  I do really, really wish the problems in the text were different than what is on the CD though.  I would like the option to add in extra problems for trouble areas, if needed.  Small pet peeves.  LOL

[shinyhappypeople]

 

I think it would have been fine if she continued with TT too, but it would have been a little boring. TT continues to work well for my dyslexic 5th grader who I know would be driven into stressed-out mental fits by some of the abstract problems in MM. More abstract and challenging is not necessarily better for every kid, and TT still gets you where you need to go. I just thought I'd share the comparison and experience making the switch.

 

 

Exactly!   My 10 yo DD needs the simple, traditional, "slow and steady" approach of TT.   She is making huge strides with it.  

[Murrayshire]

Thank you for your post!  Yesterday was a BAD math day for us...... So, seeing your post this morning made me feel a little better & now ready to start math first thing this morning!  This is our first year using TT for my oldest (Alg.I) and for my 5th grader (TT6)..... so far, so good here for my oldest!  My 5th grader just loathes math at times......we do have MM on the side to add in for extra practice and for lessons on Fridays.  It's reassuring to hear from someone that has been using it a while comment on how their child will still get where they need to be using TT.  Thanks again!

 

[shell0830]

I am so happy that you took the time to post. I am in the same boat with a 5th and 1st grader. 5th uses TT because she needs it and 1st uses a combo of mm2, rs b games only, and k12 book 2. She thinks it's boring and wants to do fun math like sis. I think I'll let her do tt3 as practice/fun math, but also do mm with her for her lessons.

[shell0830]

I do really, really wish the problems in the text were different than what is on the CD though.

I completely agree!!!

[Haiku]

TT saved math for my son, who has some learning delays and processing issues. He was in MM before TT, and he got to the point where he believed he was stupid because he didn't understand MM. Nothing I did to help him understand helped him. He just doesn't think about math the way Maria Miller does. He started in TT3 (which was too easy for him, but I wanted to build his confidence) and zipped through in 4 months. He then did TT 4 in less than a year and rounded the year out with the some workbooks that focus on word problems and mathematical logic. He's now begun TT5, and I see a lot of growth and maturity in his thinking and problem-solving skills. I know that there are people who love to hate TT, but imo, the best math program is the one your child learns from, and not every child is going to reach AP calculus in high school (or even needs to).

 

My dd, on the other hand, thrived with MM. She is very mathy and really enjoyed it (except for the geometry chapter in 5th grade, which is very bizarre). Instead of doing MM6, she switched to Dolciani Pre-Algebra for 6th grade. It's perfect for her, and she's really enjoying it. I think that MM gave my dd a solid grasp of math.

 

I think that TT and MM are both fine programs that may each have strengths for different children. I gave up on math snobbery years ago.

[MyLittleBears]

Beacause of all the negative reviews of TT, I had reservations also, until I let my ds try it. A friend had it and sang it praises. She let us borrow it, so we thought, well why not? This was last year. My ds went from scoring below grade level on the SATs to two grade levels above. The format just seems to appeal to very visual kids. I think it was really just a matter of using his learning style, to his advantage. There is just no sense in using a program that frustrates them, no matter how wonderfully "academic" it is supposed to be.

 

Great review! Thanks for posting!

[zenjenn]

I'm glad this has been helpful! I'm into my 5th year of homeschooling now, and I well remember agonizing about math curricula, especially in regards to TT.

 

My takeway is - yes. Everything almost everyone says about TT is true. It is behind other curricula in many ways, and not quite as in-depth. It is also fabulous and it helps kids succeed in math.

 

What is left out of this analysis is that if you give a more 'advanced' and 'conceptual' math curriculum to a student who doesn't have the mental resources to absorb the information, it doesn't matter that it's more 'advanced'. They'll still probably take away about the same as they'd take away from TT (maybe even less), and their experience with math will be peppered with frustration. True, it is probably not the best curriculum for a gifted math student, but a gifted math student will probably let you know pretty quick that they need something more. (And at least with my daughter, it didn't really matter that TT was less advanced.. the 'mental math' and other conceptual early-arithmetic concepts were intuitive to her anyways, without ever having to have been taught, or in response to simple casual questions.)

 

I think this applies to other subjects, too. For example, some advocate very young kids reading classic literature with outdated language. Others prefer to use children's classics that are updated and/or abridged. Reading the original is fabulous for kids who can process the outdated language - for others, their eyes will glaze over and they will just hate literature time. For the latter group, a modified classic that makes the literature accessible and enjoyable may actually accomplish more in terms of enriching the student, even if it is 'simpler'.

[Jess4879]

I'm glad this has been helpful! I'm into my 5th year of homeschooling now, and I well remember agonizing about math curricula, especially in regards to TT.

 

My takeway is - yes. Everything almost everyone says about TT is true. It is behind other curricula in many ways, and not quite as in-depth. It is also fabulous and it helps kids succeed in math.

 

What is left out of this analysis is that if you give a more 'advanced' and 'conceptual' math curriculum to a student who doesn't have the mental resources to absorb the information, it doesn't matter that it's more 'advanced'. They'll still probably take away about the same as they'd take away from TT (maybe even less), and their experience with math will be peppered with frustration. True, it is probably not the best curriculum for a gifted math student, but a gifted math student will probably let you know pretty quick that they need something more. (And at least with my daughter, it didn't really matter that TT was less advanced.. the 'mental math' and other conceptual early-arithmetic concepts were intuitive to her anyways, without ever having to have been taught, or in response to simple casual questions.)

 

I think this applies to other subject, too. For example, some advocate very young kids reading classic literature with outdated language. Others prefer to use children's classics that are updated and/or abridged. Reading the original is fabulous for kids who can process the outdated language - for others, their eyes will glaze over and they will just hate literature time. For the latter group, a modified classic that makes the literature accessible and enjoyable may actually accomplish more in terms of enriching the student, even if it is 'simpler'.

 

If I could like this over and over, I would.  :)

[OneStepAtATime]

I'm glad this has been helpful! I'm into my 5th year of homeschooling now, and I well remember agonizing about math curricula, especially in regards to TT.

 

My takeway is - yes. Everything almost everyone says about TT is true. It is behind other curricula in many ways, and not quite as in-depth. It is also fabulous and it helps kids succeed in math.

 

What is left out of this analysis is that if you give a more 'advanced' and 'conceptual' math curriculum to a student who doesn't have the mental resources to absorb the information, it doesn't matter that it's more 'advanced'. They'll still probably take away about the same as they'd take away from TT (maybe even less), and their experience with math will be peppered with frustration. True, it is probably not the best curriculum for a gifted math student, but a gifted math student will probably let you know pretty quick that they need something more. (And at least with my daughter, it didn't really matter that TT was less advanced.. the 'mental math' and other conceptual early-arithmetic concepts were intuitive to her anyways, without ever having to have been taught, or in response to simple casual questions.)

 

I think this applies to other subjects, too. For example, some advocate very young kids reading classic literature with outdated language. Others prefer to use children's classics that are updated and/or abridged. Reading the original is fabulous for kids who can process the outdated language - for others, their eyes will glaze over and they will just hate literature time. For the latter group, a modified classic that makes the literature accessible and enjoyable may actually accomplish more in terms of enriching the student, even if it is 'simpler'.

 

[OneStepAtATime]

Sorry, I goofed that up.  I quoted but didn't attach my message. I was going to say I agree with Jess4879.  Your last quote is awesome!  And I really appreciate the review of the two systems. 

 

I have a child who struggles mightily in math and one that does pretty well (neither is mathy).  Teaching Textbooks gave them both a sense of independence that they desperately needed since both are gifted dyslexics and get frustrated at being dependent on me for the bulk of their more advanced reading.  We also used Math Mammoth as a supplement to give them more practice and another viewpoint.  When we hit snags, I step in with other materials until the concept is better understood.  My oldest has needed additional instruction through the Ronit Bird books (she is dyscalculic) but Teaching Textbooks has been great for giving her some sense of accomplishment and independence.  Self-esteem is so critical.  If a child believes they cannot learn something, then they probably won't be able to learn it.  Self-fulfilling prophecy.

 

I would add for anyone interested that Math on the Level is also a terrific program and can easily be used by itself or with other systems to add more depth and practical application, real world math.  It also has a wonderful tracking system for ALL math concepts through 8th grade, so you can see which concepts may need to be covered in more depth, or if you use another system as your primary or have dumped another system and switched to Math on the Level, you can see where gaps are and fill those in.  The purchase is one time, can be used with multiple children, and covers all concepts through 8th grade, even some that public schools do not emphasize.  It also has a simple, easy to use system of quick review so no concept is lost through disuse.

 

Teaching Textbooks, Math Mammoth and Math on the Level have all been helpful to us.