Can we talk math/dyscalculia?

[PeterPan]

Warning: I have a headache and am thinking really intensely right now.

 

Ok, I already mentioned our psych didn't LISTEN very well, and when I asked him if ds has dyscalculia he totally blew me off, saying he couldn't because he could do oral story problems.  Well OF COURSE he can, because I spent months and months and months doing "this is three, could you make a three with dots?" over and over and over and over with Ronit Bird!!!!  What a dolt.  But what do you expect from a man who thinks parents shouldn't tutor dyslexics?   <_<  And yes, for real he said that, that if ds was dyslexic (which he now says he is) "We won't let you teach him."   :svengo:   And from that same brilliant mind was the willingness to BLOW OFF everything I COULD have told him about what I had been doing with ds for his math, how concerned I was.  Idiot.

 

   So anyways.  Let's just move on.   :nopity: No more whining about idiot psychs who don't listen and who think parents can't teach.  Let's just move on to figuring out if I'm actually working with him in an IQ appropriate way.  See that was something GOOD this psych did for me was making me stinking MAD about his implication that I couldn't teach.   :smilielol5: His big thing is this stuff is NOT developmental and that you must intervene and work to get them as close to IQ-appropriate as possible.  

 

So let's say I'm nailing that now with Barton for his reading.  Let's say we're working 4 sessions a day for ~10 minutes, making terrific progress, on the cusp of being ready to start B2, and really burning rubber.  

 

What about his MATH?  I haven't stepped it up.  We're plodding along, doing little 10 minute sessions once a day some days (not every day) from Ronit Bird.  RB is STELLAR for him.  Like it would seriously be harder to get more brilliant.  It's sort of the Barton of math, with these inanely small steps, no leaps, just building visualization and language.  I think his probably is *definitely* what Sousa talks about with the language and the concepts needing to connect.  He's also going to have visual memory issues with the math and spatial strengths.

 

What I don't know are:

 

-whether we should be doing more sessions a day of math to aim for some IQ appropriate stimulation

-how many sessions a day

-what other holes their might be that we need to work on therapeutically with games or other materials to build a foundation

 

 Hmm, was it that easy?  So that's the first thing, should we up the time we're spending?  Remember, this is the dc who up until a month ago didn't wipe himself and just seemed so in a hole of littleness it was hard to PICTURE us doing more.  Now we're beating the bush, doing an hour of Barton/LIPS and an hour of OT stuff every day.  He's looking more coordinated in gymnastics, wipes himself, and honestly comes across about a year older.  It's pretty wow to me.  But he's 6, not 5.  It's a problem of the apraxia too, that they always just seem younger because their language doesn't match their insides.  That's a whole other thing I'm freaking out about, the expressive language, but right now we're solving MATH.  Focus woman, focus.   :toetap05:

 

:thumbup: 

 

Ok, so first is the question of *whether* we should be doing more.  

Then it's *how much* more we should be doing...  ADHD, yes, but terrifically engaged when it's interesting, also yes.  I've done longer sessions with him.  Sometimes he wears out if we bumped it up.  Like I tried HOE with him using the manipulatives, and he really enjoyed it.  It's just we did it on top of RB and some other things and he melted down.  With Barton/LIPS I'm doing short sessions with breaks and that seems to help meltdown.  I'm thinking we *could* do multiple sessions of math.  My gut says three.

 

That takes us to *what* to cover in those sessions.  I think he wants something MORE.  He's crazy for patterns.  He likes living math books.  I'm saying I would cover those things as sessions.  I have a friend backchannel who dies when I say I schedule things, but come on, lol, having a plan works better for me.  So the what could challenge (HOE), explore spatial stuff (I have no clue what I'm thinking of here, just have a word and know he has it), do living math.  I'm also concerned about what an article said on some dyslexia site, that there would be issues with problem-solving strategies and that doing things with *strategy* would be wise.  It's just so easy to make a plan and include components like that when you know WHY you're including them.  Clearly he also has an issue with the language of math, but RB has that nailed so far.  I guess we could do some kind of fact drill at an appropriate time, but I don't know when that would be.  He does no written math right now.  Actually I don't even have him writing his numbers.  We TALK math throughout the day (it's 34, freezing is 32, how much does it have to drop to get to freezing so we might get snow?) and that involves a slight amount of reading.  Yes the numbers for reading the clock on the stove, etc. will be really screwy.  It's the visual processing and I know it.  You never get everything done.  That's another thing I want to solve.  One thing at a time!

 

Thanks for reading.  I'm clearly just thinking aloud.  He's not going to do calculus at 8, but he really is sort of intellectually curious and distinctly enjoys patterns.  He's getting bored in RB because he wants something MORE.  Actually he wants more to life than Barton.  I'm not willing to cut back Barton because we're really making tracks and doing well there.  However I'm happy to add in MORE and satisfy this hunger he has.  It's the more thinking, probably no written, something I don't know what, for more math.  Can he jump to place value work even when his understanding of quantities is so formative?  He HAS 6 now, but if you give it a different way he might revert to counting.  

 

So we can either do multiple sessions of RB each day, bam bam, just like we're doing with Barton, OR we can run concepts parallel.  Which is more advisable?  I started teaching him as if this was a delay, so doing a session and then letting it gel.  But the idea of multiple sessions to plow through (teaching as to remediate a disability, rather than as a developmental delay or inability) hadn't occurred to me.  What says the hive?

 

If I can't figure it out for certain, I'll just try some mixes and see what happens.  It just always blows my mind how slow I am on figuring these things out.

[wapiti]

Mind if I think out loud too, while I make some more coffee?  (Was up late "helping" dd with a proof.  It turned out quite well but the girl likes to work late at night  :glare:)

 

Ok, so you have significant spatial strengths (this is an angle I am familiar with).  And the weaknesses are along the lines of visual memory and/or processing?  What about sequencing?  Can you be more specific on the weaknesses that need to be worked around, improved, whatever - RB is handling the weaknesses very well but you're wanting something more for the strengths, is that correct? When I think about teaching to spatial strengths, I automatically think Miquon or at least playing with the rods, building, etc., big-picture stuff that gets where you want to go without the sequential.

 

FWIW, be sure to keep your expectations appropriate.  For example, dd5 is in K and her math is very slow to ramp up, way way behind where my other kids were at the same age.  However, I don't think it's out of that wide range for neurotypical.  I just think her personal developmental track is a little different from her siblings.  (Plus I'm not happy with her eye checkup - our covd's office has had a lot of turnover in optometrists and I don't trust the newest one - I may switch to an entirely different office - the one down the street has a new Fcovd but, get this, doesn't do VT/refers out for it - if I decide I want to part with the hundred bucks for a re-do on the annual checkup.)

 

Eta, maybe it's because I don't have the faintest idea about the criteria for dyscalculia, but it would surprise me if someone with such spatial strengths fit that category.

[Heathermomster]

Maths disability is not dependent upon IQ.  Many extremely bright people suffer with maths disability and remediation is only going to take them so far.  Stop the thinking that because your child has xyz IQ scores, that he should be doing xyz.  Fundamentally, dyscalculia affects the ability to estimate and subitize.

 

Why not teach R math twice a day if he wants to and is not overwhelmed?  Absolutely attack basic numeracy using other materials.  Work on things that support spatial reasoning and patterns.  Try a Soroban abacus, which addresses everything that you are currently doing, in a fun and novel way.

 

My DD used Essentials A & B when she was R's age.  There are probably basic Sudoku books that use patterns instead of numbers.  Explore all of that.

[LaughingCat]

 I'm also concerned about what an article said on some dyslexia site, that there would be issues with problem-solving strategies and that doing things with *strategy* would be wise. 

OMG! In one throwaway sentence you have encapsulated what I have been struggling to conceptualize in what my DD's is currently having problems with.

[LaughingCat]

I am not sure I understand what your np was getting at with these quotes-

"this stuff is NOT developmental and that you must intervene and work to get them as close to IQ-appropriate as possible"

and

"I started teaching him as if this was a delay, so doing a session and then letting it gel.  But the idea of multiple sessions to plow through (teaching as to remediate a disability, rather than as a developmental delay or inability) hadn't occurred to me. "  

 

I'm not really understanding the difference you are delineating here -but it appears to be saying you need to be working  3-4 times a day to be remedial and that working once a day is just doing 'holding work' until they developmentally ready? The only way to get them up to level is to slap them with work?

 

Hopefully I am misunderstanding something because I completely disagree with "plowing though" == the correct way to do remedial.    I know back when I was originally doing Barton level 1 type of work with my DD (phonemic awareness stuff - not Barton/LIPS style, but the same idea) there is NO way she would have been able to do 10 minutes 4 times a day and keep moving forward. It was not that she wasn't developmentally ready to learn that - it was that just one 10 minutes a day was heavy brain work for her.    She needed some gelling time.

 

And it also seems the opposite of what your previous NP  said about NOT overwhelming with work - leaving them enough brain power and energy left to do the stuff they are good at (and the fun stuff!).  If you are doing 3 types of remedial each 3x a day with K'er - will he still have enough brain power and energy left?

 

Of course, if he is blowing through level 1 of Barton - then maybe that is not taking the heavy brain work right now -- but you need to keep close tabs on energy levels.   But his reaction to adding HOE to RB is telling  - he melted down.

 

And I would be making sure to include the stuff he loves!  Even if you have to back off on remedial.  Heck, it's just like doing audiobooks while doing Barton - you don't hold back the other language skills just because reading is a struggle.

 

 I'm not against the multiple session split at all --  if I were to do it all over again -when I hit those brain killer areas, I would have split it up more and just done less each time.  So four 3 minute sessions for example.  AND filled in the rest of the 10 minutes doing other stuff not directly related to the area with an issue.  So working forward at her speed in multiple areas and not allowing forward progress to be stopped by the one area that causes an issue.    

 

BUT OhE,  you are already doing at least 6 sessions of remedial work (3 Barton, 3 OT and 1 RB) -- continuing to just keep lumping on the remedial work does not sound like the right plan to me.   

[OneStepAtATime]

 

BUT OhE,  you are already doing at least 6 sessions of remedial work (3 Barton, 3 OT and 1 RB) -- continuing to just keep lumping on the remedial work does not sound like the right plan to me.   

I agree.  This is not a race to the finish line.  I would hesitate to add in too much more remediation.  If you wanted to add some fun mathy games and living books, maybe do cooking with measurement stuff, possibly some basic logic puzzles, etc. that might be great for him.  Additional remediation sessions?  I don't know.  

 

And what I have seen with the kids is that retention worked better with smaller sessions over a longer period of time (tight spiral with constant review over weeks and weeks or months), not tons and tons of time on one session or tons and tons of sessions in one day then rapidly moving on to the next thing.  Intellectually they might be ready for something new but skills wise the foundation wasn't sticking if we pressed too quickly through material.  They ended up upset and frustrated that the skills they THOUGHT they had mastered were not there and therefore they were unable to perform at their intellectual level in more advanced tasks.  Does that make sense?  

 

We still deal with this daily.  I have to be careful not to rush on just because they seemed to get something on that particular day or for that particular week or because I know that intellectually they are capable of something more advanced.  Certainly intellectually they need fun, interesting, challenging things that stretch their brains in something more exciting than just remediation of basic skills,  but those have to be brought in with scaffolding while still taking the turtle's path on skills mastery and retention or the work done on remediation is jeopardized.

[Lecka]

Is there a benchmark you can look at for math skills by age/grade? 

 

My little kids are almost exactly the same age (turned 6 last week) and in public school Kindergarten doing Math in Focus.  I see the K benchmarks for each trimester for our school district.  Your son sounds like he would be meeting the benchmarks for the first trimester (which just ended) right now.  It sounds like what you are doing is working, and that you don't need to worry.  If he falls below the benchmarks down the road, you will be able to address it then in some way (with many options).  You don't need to borrow trouble right now.  Right now you have a math success story, it sounds like. 

 

I think you should get on the expressive language and prioritize that as much as possible. 

 

My older son did not have an expressive language delay (only articulation, which they do not consider to be expressive language from my understanding) but he had some characteristics.  It made him have a hard time socially and made it hard for him to play with language with kids his age and at his level.  It made it hard for him to express himself.  It is important in a lot of daily life and can be foundational to social skills. 

 

Math is important, too, but I think the stakes are lower than for language, especially if the language delay is going to cause a social delay.

 

Now -- my older son is fine socially.  But at the time it was very hard on him. 

 

My younger son has a language delay, but it is at the same level expressive and receptive.  We have concerns about his comprehension.  But, he is doing well socially as it is related to his language level.  He can play with other kids who are also delayed, and they are peers for him (at school).  He can play with kids who have a higher language level than he has, in a lot of ways. 

 

But if your son is not delayed receptively, then it may not be really appropriate for him to be kept to playing/interacting with kids who are at his expressive language level.  It could get frustrating for him or he could be less interested in playing with them.  It is not the best situation to have.  It is interesting b/c I have not seen this at all with my younger son who is SO much more delayed.  But he is doing great at his level, he is not frustrated. (I don't mean it is bad to play with kids who are younger than him, I just mean, it could get frustrating or he could lose interest in it.  If he is happy and stays happy, then it is not the same situation we had.  My older son had a desire to play with kids and be involved in imaginative play, but kids would not know what he was saying, and he would get so frustrated, and it got worse and worse until his speech therapy finally started to work out.) 

 

I also have seen no issue with problem-solving with my older son.  He enjoys strategy games, too, and he is good at them for his age.   He signed up for chess club, and he is as good as the other kids who pick to sign up for it and who play chess at indoor recess.  He is not, like, better than they are, but he is on the level of kids who are interested in that kind of thing.  It is even nice b/c it is not about athletic ability, which he is (honestly) weaker in.  But you see for dyslexia -- some kids are great athletes, some kids are poor athletes, and either way can be related to dyslexia.  I think problem-solving is like that, I don't think you can draw a conclusion. If you have seen signs of this as a weak area, that is different.  But seeing it mentioned in an article about dyslexia is a weak reason to worry about it.  If you think you are seeing it, then seeing it mentioned in an article is so helpful. 

 

For my son's age, Pokémon and Yu-Gi-Oh are popular strategy games here.  My son plays Magic: The Gathering b/c my husband plays it with him (this is not my choice, but it works out).  My son is the kind of kid to be interested in them, and he is friends with other kids interested in them.  Some of those kids were early readers and/or great at sports, too, I don't know why they happen to have this interest, they just do.  They are all in chess club together, and my son plays with them at indoor recess, but at outdoor recess they split up by what sports they play outside. 

 

Here 2nd grade is the earliest kids are playing the strategy card games, and my son started Magic last year in 3rd grade.  It is meant to be edgy to teenagers, so it is not age appropriate, but my husband likes it and he could not get into Pokémon or Yu-Gi-Oh, he was just too bored to play them.  My husband is hoping my son will keep playing with him as he gets older and that it will be a hobby they can enjoy together even when he is an older teenager.  It is *really* good for my son to be good at something that requires no coordination, it is good for his self-esteem in a lot of ways. 

[prairiewindmomma]

I lost my awesome wordy post but in short:

Cook

Knit

Perler beads

Woodworking

Janice vancleave science books--chemistry requires measuring

Watch nova

Spend hours with legos

 

But please don't do lots of bookwork. It will come. It really will...but it sounds like he feels he is being pushed already and there are so many FUN things one can do that have side benefits for OT work that are going to help him lay a foundation.

 

What is HE passionate about? Follow that.... We just spent a couple of weeks researching Ebola and hemorrhagic fever. It fed his intellect and now we are unfortunately back to weaponry and poisonous snakes. So, I am going to have him measure ratios to show how snake venom compares between species. We will talk about relative distances and angles with projectiles. We will build more models.

 

The working at IQ level is a bunch of bunk, imo when it comes to sequential topics in math. Nibble at some topics he is strong in but don't push the RB. If he is still at dots, he is still at dots.

 

Do you have the crod activity cards? They do have some patterning activities there. You might also look at the Montessori pythagoras square and some Beast Academy.

 

But mostly, i would put aside books and embrace wiggly boy stuff like building trebuchets and flinging stuff or talking about bridge design while building with toothpicks and marshmallows. It shows *why* math is important.

[LaughingCat]

 

I also have seen no issue with problem-solving with my older son.  He enjoys strategy games, too, and he is good at them for his age.   He signed up for chess club, and he is as good as the other kids who pick to sign up for it and who play chess at indoor recess.  He is not, like, better than they are, but he is on the level of kids who are interested in that kind of thing.  It is even nice b/c it is not about athletic ability, which he is (honestly) weaker in.  But you see for dyslexia -- some kids are great athletes, some kids are poor athletes, and either way can be related to dyslexia.  I think problem-solving is like that, I don't think you can draw a conclusion. If you have seen signs of this as a weak area, that is different.  But seeing it mentioned in an article about dyslexia is a weak reason to worry about it.  If you think you are seeing it, then seeing it mentioned in an article is so helpful. 

 

For my son's age, Pokémon and Yu-Gi-Oh are popular strategy games here.  My son plays Magic: The Gathering b/c my husband plays it with him (this is not my choice, but it works out).  My son is the kind of kid to be interested in them, and he is friends with other kids interested in them.  Some of those kids were early readers and/or great at sports, too, I don't know why they happen to have this interest, they just do.  They are all in chess club together, and my son plays with them at indoor recess, but at outdoor recess they split up by what sports they play outside. 

 

Here 2nd grade is the earliest kids are playing the strategy card games, and my son started Magic last year in 3rd grade.  It is meant to be edgy to teenagers, so it is not age appropriate, but my husband likes it and he could not get into Pokémon or Yu-Gi-Oh, he was just too bored to play them.  My husband is hoping my son will keep playing with him as he gets older and that it will be a hobby they can enjoy together even when he is an older teenager.  It is *really* good for my son to be good at something that requires no coordination, it is good for his self-esteem in a lot of ways. 

Interestingly, I have seen no issues with my DD playing games.  She plays Ticket to Ride and Bohnanza fairly regularly (and lots of standard games too - but those two are more 'gamer' type games).  She likes to play chess more than anyone else in the family (which isn't saying much lol! - she hasn't been able to practice much because none of us want to play chess).  Still the phrase "issues with problem-solving strategies" really hit home - but I think where she is struggling is in applying learned  problem solving strategies (vs. naturally discovered strategies as in a game).  And I would not say she has trouble learning or using a particular strategy - just in applying it "in the field" so to speak- so perhaps it's more like she sticks with the first strategy that works?  I will have to think about that some more. 

[PeterPan]

I know I'm being really cryptic here, but I'm just lost in thought!  You all opened up some issues for me I hadn't considered like what paper curriculum I would do if I were and am I solid on not doing that. Laughing Cat, you're correct that Barton at the intensity we're going at is pushing him pretty hard.  He fell asleep yesterday, lol.  I've been trying to put him down for naps each day, which means requiring him to be horizontal in his room for an hour.  He never naps for me, hasn't since he was 1.  I've been giving him *breaks* between the sessions.  Per Heather, I've accepted a certain amount of fatigue as a normal part of the process and am trying to neither be afraid of it nor overload it.

 

Somebody backchannel gave me more ideas too for ways to explore non-computation math topics.  I think that was a very valid question as to whether reaching IQ-typical, NT math work would be an appropriate goal.  I hadn't factored the NT thing into it, and actually that makes it a really interesting question because he might turn out to be really GOOD at some other aspects of math.

 

I'm also really not clear, even when I jumped ahead in Sousa and read his pages on dyscalculia, as to what dyscalculia is referring to, as in what parts of the brain are affected.  In the beginning of the book Sousa talks about number symbols in the left parietal lobe, number words in the Broca's area, and finger counting elsewhere.  In other words, is a "dyscalculia" labeling lumping together various TYPES of brain disorders of math?  Or are they saying the math language issues are from the dyslexia (which is also Broca's area) and the number symbol math issues are dyscalculia?  But then why include number sense and estimation as part of dyscalculia when it seems to me those are due to the language and Broca's area?  

 

And then, a child might have issues with printed math due to dyslexia and visual processing disorders and have it *not* be due to dyscalculia?  Or is dyscalculia irrespective of print? But that means we're back to the Broca's area?

 

Or maybe they really don't KNOW?  

 

I'm just trying to tease these apart in my mind to create an action plan.  He's CLEARLY a kinesthetic, tactile learner.  I'm not sure it makes sense to push written or even reading-driven paper math with a child who is dyslexic, still in the middle of remediation, who we already know has some visual processing and visual memory issues.  I'm not sure reading into learning is a good path for him right now.  Just doesn't make sense to me.  But DOING into learning, that makes sense to me, at least for now.  Thanks to Ronit Bird he already tests through the normal computation standards for K5, so yes Lecka is correct about that.  And really that was an interesting question, whether it's my goal to enable him to perform computation at a certain grade level just because dd was at the same age.  I *think* what I'd like is ways for him to explore more intellectually appropriate concepts using kinesthetic methods.  I don't think they have to be computation, because really just plodding along in RB will get us there eventually.  

 

Lecka, you're right, I haven't stepped up on our games lately.  We have so many, but then he outgrows them!  

 

I think I may have some leads on some kinesthetic things to do with him.  I'll keep thinking about the written math.  Maybe later.  I really liked the idea of some math number tiles, so maybe at some point we'll make or get some.  I guess what I'd like to know is how they're defining math disorder and how they distinguish math issues due to dyslexia vs. dyscalculia.  It may be that what I'm seeing is entirely connected to the dyslexia, which of course would be fine.  And really, I have another hour with the psych and some quickie phone calls for questions, so I can have more time with him to sort it out.  I'm probably going to save up that list of questions before I do that though.

[MomOfABunch]

When I worked in ps I used a program called Connecting Math. It's designed specifically for kids with ID. if your DS can count to like 10 with 1:1 correspondence he can do this program. It's a SRA direct instruction program and it really works. My first year teaching I had kids that were in a higher level of this program and I was like WTH, they explain things really strangely. BUT, over the next couple years I used the program starting from the first level. It makes sense, especially to our struggling kiddos. You could probably find the pieces at a reasonable price on eBay or something. All you need are the presentation guide and student workbook. There's a placement test on the McGraw hill website. As soon as my DDs 1:1 correspondence improves, I want to use this with her.

[Lecka]

Here are the issues my son has had with math:  learning to count -- he had a hard time remembering the numbers.  Math facts.  Remembering the numbers.  Since he has remembered the numbers, he has done great.  He was really not catching on to them as expected in Kindergarten.  Everything else -- he does good.  His MAP testing comes back with Hi (yes, Hi, not high, lol) or Hi Avg on every section except Computation.  In Computation he gets Lo Avg.  His teachers have made comments to me that he has good number sense and that he will be the first one done when they do math warm-ups (which are solving a word problem for review).  They say he participates in oral math when they discuss how to solve a math problem.   I am not involved in his math that much, I just do the math "Family Activites" that come home, and help him with his homework once in a while.  It is nothing like I do for reading, there is no need.  

 

He did not qualify by score for Extended Day Learning, but they had space for him, and it did help with his math facts.  I think he had kind-of given up and was going through the motions, he had an attitude with me, and I just would not have the dedication that I have for reading, it would not seem as serious.  But that teacher helped him a lot, and I followed up with enforced Reflex Math last summer.  He is solid now on addition and most multiplication.  Subtraction got kind-of lost, he is still kind-of counting on his fingers or if not, blanking out for a bit before answering.  But he has started fractions and factors, and his multiplication is good enough that he is doing fine with it, so far.   

 

He has not gotten to long division yet, I wonder how it will go.  That is -- through early 4th grade, in Math in Focus, in a solid math program.  Our district re-did their math instruction the year he started K, their old curriculum/system was a failure and test scores were not good, so now they have a dedicated math teacher for every grade starting in 2nd grade (with kids switching classes to go to that teacher, and another teacher teaching reading), and they also have a math enrichment teacher.  They are doing lots of best practices.  I wish they did the same for reading. 

 

Oh, he is also not so hot at mental math.  They have units on mental math, and we get pages sent home for practicing, and he is not good at that.  But, he is not horrible, either.  Mostly he is slow and roams around while trying to figure out the answers.  It is not that different than how he is when he is doing math facts he doesn't know. 

 

That is what math looks like for him, so far. 

 

Laughing Cat -- the little set of kids who are into card games are also the kids who are good at math, as far as I know.  This might change when they get older -- my son is still young, he has a lot of math still left to cover.  I am hoping he will keep doing well as he gets older. 

[Heathermomster]

Here is a Connecting Math Concepts link. 

 

 

Edited May 1, 2016 by Heathermomster

[wapiti]

FWIW, OhE, I would have all the same questions.  I like to think in terms of the root of the specific weaknesses, like sequential, or visual processing, etc.  With dyslexia, I automatically think of phonemic weakness, for example.  I don't know what it is for dyscalculia.  Heather mentioned subitization, but is there a further root of that symptom/weakness that can be expressed in terms of something about the brain, or is that the root descriptor?

 

Luckily Lecka explained what I was trying to get at, that your ds sounds on grade level.  I too would also be thinking about the bigger picture, with the goal being to get his overall math performance closer to the high level of his spatial ability.

 

I don't remember about his vision processing/memory issue - what does the covd say?

 

You have RB working on the weaknesses for now, so what you are really looking to add is further development of the strengths?  I still want to say "go big-picture" for the strengths (logic puzzles/games, any and all manipulatives, c-rods/miquon, looking toward beast later).  But, then at some point a vision angle (or some other weakness) might get in the way, at least temporarily.

Edited January 12, 2016 by wapiti

[Heathermomster]

FWIW, OhE, I would have all the same questions.  I like to think in terms of the root of the specific weaknesses, like sequential, or visual processing, etc.  With dyslexia, I automatically think of phonemic weakness, for example.  I don't know what it is for dyscalculia.  Heather mentioned subitization, but is there a further root of that symptom/weakness that can be expressed in terms of something about the brain, or is that the root descriptor?

 

Luckily Lecka explained what I was trying to get at, that your ds sounds on grade level.  I too would also be thinking about the bigger picture, with the goal being to get his overall math performance closer to the high level of his spatial ability.

 

I don't remember about his vision processing/memory issue - what does the covd say?

 

You have RB working on the weaknesses for now, so what you are really looking to add is further development of the strengths?  I still want to say "go big-picture" for the strengths (logic puzzles/games, any and all manipulatives, c-rods/miquon, looking toward beast later).  But, then at some point a vision angle (or some other weakness) might get in the way, at least temporarily.

 

Just thinking out loud again - has he reached a point where he can do anything orally yet?  (A way to avoid vision? or is visual memory the key to mental math?????)  My three younger kids share a bedroom and we usually do a little "bedtime math" orally.  Ds8 is into exponents and prime numbers, ds6 is multiplying.  Poor dd5 wants to participate but at most she can count up fingers to add or subtract, but only up to around a total of 12 or so; slow progress (she cannot count all the way to 20 without messing up - maybe I should start paying attention  :tongue_smilie:).  She can do a *very few* problems mentally (2+2).

We need geoff to answer that question. 

 

When DS was younger, I had to teach the Asian system of math speak.  The number 18 is a 10-8.  Demonstrating the numbers with the 10s and 1s of the MUS block really solidified that for my DD too.  She eventually started saying the numbers correctly. We make a game of building numbers with blocks through the 100s.  I also taught DD 5s and 10s complements while working briefly with a Soroban abacus booklet and that info seems to have helped DD add and subtract.

[PeterPan]

 

Just thinking out loud again - has he reached a point where he can do anything orally yet?  (A way to avoid vision? or is visual memory the key to mental math?????)  My three younger kids share a bedroom and we usually do a little "bedtime math" orally.  Ds8 is into exponents and prime numbers, ds6 is multiplying.  Poor dd5 wants to participate but at most she can count up fingers to add or subtract, but only up to around a total of 12 or so; slow progress (she cannot count all the way to 20 without messing up - maybe I should start paying attention  :tongue_smilie:).  She can do a *very few* problems mentally (total less than 5).

Yes, we had some of that going on this summer, where ds was extending things we had done, exploring patterns.  It was good to see and appropriate to him.  I'm not seeing that now, so either he's tired or I'm not sparking it (my guess) or both.  

 

 

We need geoff to answer that question. 

 

When DS was younger, I had to teach the Asian system of math speak.  The number 18 is a 10-8.  Demonstrating the numbers with the 10s and 1s of the MUS block really solidified that for my DD too.  She eventually started saying the numbers correctly. We make a game of building numbers with blocks through the 100s.  I also taught DD 5s and 10s complements while working briefly with a Soroban abacus booklet and that info seems to have helped DD add and subtract.

See it's things like this that concern me.  Some things don't even make sense to him, like they don't click/connect.  He started doing some talking math with one ten and three ten is 4 ten this summer and surprised dh, making him think all was well.  Thing is, it doesn't CONNECT.  That pocket of language doesn't connect to any of the OTHER pockets yet.  In other words, I don't think numbers above 10 really MEAN anything to him yet, in a way he can manipulate and own, which makes sense when you consider 10 is as high as we've gone in RB.

 

I'm also trying to look at RB to figure out what it's actually covering and how far it's taking us.  I made some blanket assumptions and now I'm not certain they were correct.  Her dyscalculia Resource book seems to be supplemental games to bolster out what you're doing with the other main books.  Overcoming Difficulties seems to be aimed at older kids and reviews the basics more quickly.  I'm trying to figure out if Toolkit would be helpful to us.  I'm saying I haven't really figured out the progression and how the ebooks relate to the prior books, lol.  She does things in Toolkit that aren't in the dot patterns ebook.  The dot patterns ebook has been amazing for us, but maybe I was incorrect in viewing them as a sequential progression?  In Toolkit she seems to bring some c-rods in for earlier concepts, etc.  

 

So it's not really so much about needing more practice as about making the number words MEAN something for him.  Hmm, so the MUS blocks did it for your dd, Heather?  I guess that's what I had assumed would happen with the c-rods, but we keep plodding along trying to get there, lol.  He usually takes at least 2 days for every activity in the dot patterns ebook, so it is taking a while to work through.

 

So I think I want something more RB, something for non-computational hands-on math, and that might pretty much max us out for right now.  Maybe find/make some number tiles to use with rods so he can explore written math.

[wapiti]

 Maybe find/make some number tiles to use with rods so he can explore written math.

 

Something that pops into my mind is an Education Unboxed video with the rods and number tiles.  It might be called something about place value (maybe the first one of these).

 

I think ultimately that's where you're at with your language connection, the cusp of learning the beginnings of place value.  I really like the angle that Heather mentioned about Asian-speak, 10-8, etc.  It seems to me that the RB concentration on less than 10 will turn out to be time well-spent.

 

Eta, there are limitless possibilities for manipulatives.  I like the MM recommendation for straw bundles (of 10).  Money (exchanging nickels and dimes for pennies).

Edited January 12, 2016 by wapiti

[FairProspects]

Something that pops into my mind is an Education Unboxed video with the rods and number tiles.  It might be called something about place value.

 

I think ultimately that's where you're at with your language connection, the cusp of learning the beginnings of place value.  I really like the angle that Heather mentioned about Asian-speak, 10-8, etc.  It seems to me that the RB concentration on less than 10 will turn out to be time well-spent.

 

Your discussion here is prodding me to do something for dd.  *sigh*, it's time.  I'm very distracted and consumed with fixing my ds11's controversial issues and mostly I'm a slacker.  I've been procrastinating.  The question now is whether to go for the developmental vision eval or to get a re-do on the annual checkup that I do not trust.  I'm trying to put off the psych until she turns 6 (so we can get a WISC), but that's not until the middle of next summer, though I want to nail down vision status before we do that.  Plus she's making some progress for handwriting (she can write her name finally, by herself!  yay!) so I am hoping there is a growth trajectory getting started.

 

Yes, this is my suggestion too. Work with Miquon and Education Unboxed with c-rods. My older ds still uses c-rods often for 5th-7th grade math problems. He just has to "see" the properties with manipulatives.

[OneStepAtATime]

wapiti I'd go with the dev. vision eval while she is still young and pliable.  :)

[OneStepAtATime]

And I agree with Heathermomster and FP and wapiti, OhE, work with an abacus and maybe Miquon and Education Unboxed.

 

And here at home DD still does better if I let her grab her own manipulatives to use (she likes to make her own) but we also still do some with the pre-made c-rods.  FWIW, DD loves the wooden ones that came from Mom's 40 year old kit.  The plastic ones totally turned her off but that may just be my kid.  :)

[geodob]

OhE,

The Parietal lobes behind each ear.  Are what we use to concieve of internal and external space.

With a Parietal lobe, for each side.

At birth, their is no connection between both sides.

But as a baby does simple things, like clapping its hands together.  A connection forms between the sides.

 

Though in the Mid-brain, we have something called the Entorhornal Cortex, (EC)

Which is where we sit in the center, as the connection between the Parietal lobes.

But then, just above the EC, is the Hippocampus.

This is used to create a mini representation of 'space' in our mind.

Using a combination of what are called Grid Cells and Place Cells, that are types of brain neurons.

(The scientist who identified this, was just awarded a Nobel Prize a few weeks ago.)

 

But a crucial thing, is a way the brain uses these opposing Parietal Lobes?

Sitting in the center, in the EC?

It uses the right Parietal Lobe, to concieve of less than, smaller than, yesterday and the past.

Turning to the left, it concieve of greater than, larger than, tomorrow and the future.

 

Though it can also use these two sides, to locate a beginning and end point.

Then importantly, locate points in between them.

For example, to locate last Thursday on one side, and next Wednesday on the other side.

With these located, the days in between them, can also be located.

Where we sit in the middle on Saturday.

 

But we also use these sides, to locate and concieve of numbers/ quantities.

We sit in the middle at zero.

With 1,2,3,etc, heading off in left Parietal Lobe.

Then -1,-2,-3,etc, heading off to the right Parietal Lobe..

 

(Where our Parietal Lobes actually work with the opposite side of the body.)

 

But in terms of math?  What these sides concieve of recognize, is different sized quantities.

Where it can recognize different sized groups.

This is something that all Mammals can do, to some extent.

As well Birds and Fish.

 

But what they don't have, is some certain Fissures in the Hippocampus?

We have 2 Fissures.

One is for language, and what connects the words that are reading/seeing, with the sound of the words.

But the other Fissure, connects the words and symbols that we use for numbers.

With the quantities that they represent.

 

But this model of learning math by using visual dots, or colored rods?

Then learning to name each of them, with a word for a number.

Doesn't develop a connection to the EC, to associate them with a quantity.

 

So that at best, it can develop a meaningless way to work with numbers.

Which is really no more than learning to name a meaningless symbol.

 

Which is rather like learning to speak and read a language, without knowing what any of the words actually mean?

[MomOfABunch]

Here is a Connecting Math Concepts link.

Hey, they have a new version. I bet you could find the old (2003 I think?) version pretty cheap then!

I forgot your DS goes to school. Can you ask the school to do it, insist rather? This is the Reading Mastery for math.

[PeterPan]

Something that pops into my mind is an Education Unboxed video with the rods and number tiles.  It might be called something about place value (maybe the first one of these).

 

I think ultimately that's where you're at with your language connection, the cusp of learning the beginnings of place value.  I really like the angle that Heather mentioned about Asian-speak, 10-8, etc.  It seems to me that the RB concentration on less than 10 will turn out to be time well-spent.

 

Eta, there are limitless possibilities for manipulatives.  I like the MM recommendation for straw bundles (of 10).  Money (exchanging nickels and dimes for pennies).

 

Your discussion here is prodding me to do something for dd.  *sigh*, it's time.  I'm very distracted and consumed with fixing my ds11's controversial issues and mostly I'm a slacker.  I've been procrastinating.  The question now is whether to go for the developmental vision eval or to get a re-do on the annual checkup that I do not trust.  I'm trying to put off the psych until she turns 6 (so we can get a WISC), but that's not until the middle of next summer, though I want to nail down vision status before we do that.  Plus she's making some progress for handwriting (she can write her name finally, by herself!  yay!) so I am hoping there is a growth trajectory getting started.

The asian math counting does nothing for ds.  I might as well be saying "dog balloon".  It just means nothing to him and almost seems to confuse him.  I've given up because the SLP was SO insistent on teaching the correct pronunciation (which is of course her job) for numbers over 10.  So he can SAY them, but they don't MEAN things in a way he can manipulate, lol.  

 

We'll get there.  I ordered some things and am corresponding with RB herself.  She wrote me back super quickly and expanding my horizons on some things.  I'm picking her brain some more.  I decided to put my money into supplementing the things RB *doesn't* hit so I can feel a little more comfortable that we're working broadly.  I'm thinking about getting her Resource book as well.  Apparently the ebooks are expansions of Toolkit, so buying Toolkit wouldn't get me as far.  Yes, I actually agree with you there, wapiti, that I htink he needs more time in the dot stage.  The RB Resource book would give us that.  And we need to start playing more of the domino games in chapter 7 of the ebook.  I think to go up to rods you need to have solid the dots, and I think he's still formative on those higher numbers.  When we organize the dominoes, he doesn't yet see that there are patterns.  I want to make some transparent overlays and haven't done it.  She shows them in the ebook but you'd actually have to make them.  They'd be cool to work with, but I wish I had a thicker material to make them from than just transparancy film.

 

Wapiti, to answer your vision questions, our COVD doc said no issues with convergence etc. but probably issues with visual processing and visual memory, given what I was describing. We said we'd get him in glasses (since he actually needs them for the astigmatism) and see what happens.  Honestly we're just maxed out in every way (financially, time-wise, etc.), so my conclusion has been to do stuff for visual processing at home.  We're making our great Barton/LIPS push and frankly it just hasn't made it to the list.  I got the Kenneth Lane book and about 2/3 of the book could really apply to visual processing.  I've been using some of the ideas that are kinesthetic plus visual memory plus working memory, integrating them into our day.  I'm also doing really horrible things to him like slopping out all the letter magnets for his Barton work onto the work surface and not sorting them at all.  That way he has to flip, reorient, scan, find things quickly.  It's the kind of thing they had dd doing in VT for visual processing using games like Spot It.  Same idea, where you're looking for the j or b in a pile of things.  He seems to be getting faster at it, so my small torture is working.  Bringing in some work on tangrams and overt visual memory will be my next step.  I just haven't done it, which isn't to my credit.  My only excuse is that I, well, I get a little tired and don't get it all done, lol.  But what I can't do all at once I aim to do eventually and eventually will have to do.

 

A friend suggested to me using software for visual processing, and I think SandyKC used the Lexia Crosstrainer.  Haven't had a chance to look into it yet.  I can't do everything at once, nor can he. Right now it was more important that we get ANY working memory up than it was if it was specifically visual working memory or auditory, kwim?  I try to make sure we hit a mix in our activities.  The LIPS/Barton work definitely does, wow.

[PeterPan]

And I agree with Heathermomster and FP and wapiti, OhE, work with an abacus and maybe Miquon and Education Unboxed.

 

And here at home DD still does better if I let her grab her own manipulatives to use (she likes to make her own) but we also still do some with the pre-made c-rods.  FWIW, DD loves the wooden ones that came from Mom's 40 year old kit.  The plastic ones totally turned her off but that may just be my kid.   :)

He didn't understand the abacus AT ALL.  I see RB leads up to it in Toolkit.  I was looking at those samples again and thinking maybe, duh, nailing DOTS will lead to the BEADS of the abacus making sense.  Ding, ding, ding!   :lol:   So as much as it would be nice to jump, we're just taking our time in really obsessive fashion, because somehow RB seems to milk a ton out of those crazy dots...  He just hasn't caught onto the patterns on the dominoes, let alone taking it over to the abacus where it would be even more odd.

[PeterPan]

Geodob--Ok, you were blowing my mind here with all the brain structure stuff.  It connects and makes sense, because they're saying that's the crux of number sense issues, that the farther apart they are the more trouble the person will have conceiving them.  So for instance yesterday he could tell me 34 had to drop 2 degrees F to get to 32 (freezing, for snow, what every child wants).  Today we're in the car and I tell him to read the thermostat, where it says 37.  He COULD NOT get from 37 down to 32, even though he could get from 34 to 32.  He started guessing, couldn't actually get it.  And that's even though he now, with fledgling understanding, gets that 7 is 5 and 2.  

 

So does clapping IMPROVE the connection between the two parietal lobes, left and right?  He's been super wonky with clapping.  He *can* clap, but he couldn't slow it down and clap like a normal human (clap, clap, clap). We've been working on it each day and now he can clap while doing a simple task like reading grid of colored dots.  So once he could do that I started adding in metronome to target the EF portion of the brain.  I'm all about multi-tasking, hitting as many therapy goals at once as we can, lol.  So what can we DO to improve the connection between those two sides?

 

 

 

But what they don't have, is some certain Fissures in the Hippocampus?

We have 2 Fissures.

One is for language, and what connects the words that are reading/seeing, with the sound of the words.

But the other Fissure, connects the words and symbols that we use for numbers.

With the quantities that they represent.

 

But this model of learning math by using visual dots, or colored rods?

Then learning to name each of them, with a word for a number.

Doesn't develop a connection to the EC, to associate them with a quantity.

 

So that at best, it can develop a meaningless way to work with numbers.

Which is really no more than learning to name a meaningless symbol.

 

Which is rather like learning to speak and read a language, without knowing what any of the words actually mean?

 

Ok, so this is the part where you lost me.  Up til then everything made sense, angels were singing, the whole nine yards.  With the dot patterns ebook of RB we've spent time connecting words and quantities and the quantities are small (1-9).  We worked up very slowly, seeing the quantities, seeing smaller quantities within the quantities...  So far what we've done is golden.  Three now seems to connect for him in all facets and MEAN something.  But we don't do it written, you're correct.  She said she tries to keep it all in their head and with manipulatives till a later level because written is the most abstract and where it gets glitchy.  Actually she says to use the written notation to codify and journal what they already KNOW.  This for me was a huge lightbulb, because it just makes sense.  Like if they "get" the math in their head and eventually you show them the written for it, that should click.  But if you show them written and try to tell them to make the scrawls mean something, that would be glitchy.

 

But you're right that we haven't gone dots to written at all.  We've done dots to words and we manipulate and visualize.  Apparently he *has* connected the words and written on his own, because the psych said he did respond to simple written equations for them in the achievement testing.  It has been ages since we saw a plus or equals in a number puzzle (a foam puzzle you assemble), so I don't know if they read it to him or how it had meaning.  That was odd to me.  I've never given him a page of written math at all.

 

So I think the dots gave meaning to the words but then you have to connect the words to the symbols.  I agree the c-rods are the oddity.  Some people, like Cotter of Right Start math, think people shouldn't even use c-rods.  I was just giving Ronit Bird the benefit of the doubt on them.  I think *memorizing* them is a little odd but understanding them might be just another flexibility thing.  Are you saying you don't like ANY rods or only c-rods?

[wapiti]

The asian math counting does nothing for ds. I might as well be saying "dog balloon". It just means nothing to him and almost seems to confuse him. I've given up because the SLP was SO insistent on teaching the correct pronunciation (which is of course her job) for numbers over 10. So he can SAY them, but they don't MEAN things in a way he can manipulate, lol.

 

We'll get there.

LOL yes, you will definitely get there :). Talk about a woman on a mission...

 

Just because I like to come up with dumb ideas sometimes: on the dog balloon angle, I would think about ways to teach - or, more accurately, ways for him to learn - without the words. I think of math concepts as being primarily nonverbal, with the language part being only incidental (becoming more necessary later on). My thinking here is that I'd set the rods out for extensive playing and pattern discovery (or some other manipulatives of great number, e.g. blocks, Legos, etc.). I'm just thinking that maybe you could attach the words later on.

 

Personally, I like c-rods as convenient quantity comparison, and it seems like some kids do better with unit blocks vs the rods or vice versa. I think both are worth trying. I would be interested to hear more from geodob on this topic.

[Heathermomster]

Hey, they have a new version. I bet you could find the old (2003 I think?) version pretty cheap then!

I forgot your DS goes to school. Can you ask the school to do it, insist rather? This is the Reading Mastery for math.

I pulled DS in 7th grade.  His school was private and therefore not accountable to Wright's Law.  I'm going to stop typing now before I rant.. 

[OneStepAtATime]

Ran out of likes....the bane of my existence.  Like like like....

[Heathermomster]

Yes, we had some of that going on this summer, where ds was extending things we had done, exploring patterns.  It was good to see and appropriate to him.  I'm not seeing that now, so either he's tired or I'm not sparking it (my guess) or both.  

 

 

See it's things like this that concern me.  Some things don't even make sense to him, like they don't click/connect.  He started doing some talking math with one ten and three ten is 4 ten this summer and surprised dh, making him think all was well.  Thing is, it doesn't CONNECT.  That pocket of language doesn't connect to any of the OTHER pockets yet.  In other words, I don't think numbers above 10 really MEAN anything to him yet, in a way he can manipulate and own, which makes sense when you consider 10 is as high as we've gone in RB.

 

I'm also trying to look at RB to figure out what it's actually covering and how far it's taking us.  I made some blanket assumptions and now I'm not certain they were correct.  Her dyscalculia Resource book seems to be supplemental games to bolster out what you're doing with the other main books.  Overcoming Difficulties seems to be aimed at older kids and reviews the basics more quickly.  I'm trying to figure out if Toolkit would be helpful to us.  I'm saying I haven't really figured out the progression and how the ebooks relate to the prior books, lol.  She does things in Toolkit that aren't in the dot patterns ebook.  The dot patterns ebook has been amazing for us, but maybe I was incorrect in viewing them as a sequential progression?  In Toolkit she seems to bring some c-rods in for earlier concepts, etc.  

 

So it's not really so much about needing more practice as about making the number words MEAN something for him.  Hmm, so the MUS blocks did it for your dd, Heather?  I guess that's what I had assumed would happen with the c-rods, but we keep plodding along trying to get there, lol.  He usually takes at least 2 days for every activity in the dot patterns ebook, so it is taking a while to work through.

 

So I think I want something more RB, something for non-computational hands-on math, and that might pretty much max us out for right now.  Maybe find/make some number tiles to use with rods so he can explore written math.

Yes, the blocks made the numbers mean something to my DD.  

 

You know, I'm wacko about my son's maths disability.  Wanting to head off the issues I had with DS, I started working on counting and subitizing activities with DD when she was late 3yo-ish and able to speak clearly.  I had friends with children the same age as K counting to fifty.  Never once did I bother with anything like that.  We progressed from dot patterns to instantly recognizing fingers to MUS blocks and 10 trays.  

 

I used MUS 10 blocks and units to form two digit numbers to later three digit numbers.  As we practiced that, she learned to read numbers. ETA:  I was more interested in her mapping the value to the number...Kinda like phonogram sound mapping to a letter when reading.  Each one of those digits in a number means something.

 

DD intuited and started counting by 2s and 10s when counting objects.  I shouldn't confess this but I have not made a big deal about her sitting down and counting to 100 or anything.  I've checked her and she can.  She can also tell me that 51 is greater than 49.  I'm fairly certain she is visualizing the blocks.

 

ETA: And I am still thinking of having t-shirts made that read Stop..Visualize..Do.

[OneStepAtATime]

Yes, the blocks made the numbers mean something to my DD.  

 

You know, I'm wacko about my son's maths disability.  Wanting to head off the issues I had with DS, I started working on counting and subitizing activities with DD when she was late 3yo-ish and able to speak clearly.  I had friends with children the same age as K counting to fifty.  Never once did I bother with anything like that.  We progressed from dot patterns to instantly recognizing fingers to MUS blocks and 10 trays.  

 

I used MUS 10 blocks and units to form two digit numbers to later three digit numbers.  As we practiced that, she learned to read numbers. ETA:  I was more interested in her mapping the value to the number...Kinda like phonogram sound mapping to a letter when reading.  Each one of those digits in a number means something.

 

DD intuited and started counting by 2s and 10s when counting objects.  I shouldn't confess this but I have not made a big deal about her sitting down and counting to 100 or anything.  I've checked her and she can.  She can also tell me that 51 is greater than 49.  I'm fairly certain she is visualizing the blocks.

 

ETA: And I am still thinking of having t-shirts made that read Stop..Visualize..Do.

:hurray:

[PeterPan]

OhE,  coming back to math, their is a finger counting technique based on the Soroban.  

Which can be used to count up to 99. Perhaps you could try doing it yourself?

 

Form a fist with your left hand, and palm facing up.

For 1, extend your little finger.

Then extend the next finger alongside it for 2.

Followed by the next finger for 3, and the last finger for a group of 4.

 

Importantly, I would ask you to observe this 'feels'?

With 2,3 or 4 fingers touching each other, you would feel them as a 'group' of 2,3 or 4.

 

Then for 5, close your fingers and extend your thumb.

We can then use the fingers again, and count up to 9.

 

For 10, we carry this over to the right hand.

Extending the little finger.

So that the fingers on the right hand, can be used to count: 10,20,30 and 40.

Closing them and extending the thumb as 50.

Where the fingers on the right hand, can then be used to count: 60, 70, 80, 90.

 

This is purely a kinesthetic approach to numbers, where no doubt you could put your hands under the table and just as easily form numbers with them.

Where the numbers are felt.

With practicing this way of counting, importantly it develops a 'motor memory' of the numbers.

So that one no longer has to physically form numbers with the hands.  

As each number is associated with its motor memory.

Mental math can then be done as motor memory process.

 

Crucially, this provides a way of concieving of numbers as representing different sized groups.

This is the major issue with 'math difficulties', where numbers aren't concieved of as groups. So that 3 is seen as the name of the object, next to the object called 2.

 But if you extend 3 fingers?

Then you will sense them as group of 3.  

I just wanted to pull this over to this thread.  Geodob posted it a year ago in another thread I had going and somehow I never saw it or else never comprehended the usefulness.  Now it seems very timely!

[LaughingCat]

You might want to look at Visual Spatial Portals to Thinking, Feeling and Movement.  It has a lot of great looking exercises for visual processing.  I haven't actually tried any of them - still trying to find time to go through the book.

[LaughingCat]

I also wanted to say that Lecka's description of her son's struggles sounds pretty close to my DD's - trouble with math facts and trouble with mental math yet tests hi-avg in math on yearly testing.   She also has trouble with word problems and math was slow, slow, slow for years (she could do the calculations correctly without too many errors - just oh so slowly).  I wonder sometimes with all the problems she's had - how would she test if she didn't have any issue? Although she doesn't have any signs of particular math strength either other than the hi-avg scores- she doesn't appear to intuit math for example. 

 

 

[geodob]

These Dots are no more symbols.

Where different Dot patterns are given names.

With the words for numbers, used to name them.

But this is no more than remembering names for different dot patterns.

 

But learning the names for different Dot patterns, is really nothing to do with firstly concieving of different sized quantities?

Where the use of colored rods, and learning to associate a color with words used for numbers?

Is really absurd?

 

What really needs to focused on, is with developing a 'sense of different sized quantities'?

Where I might come back to your quote of my earlier posting?

 

I would seriously ask you to 'form a fist with your left hand, and move it under your table.'

Then extend your 'Little Finger'.

As a lone finger, you can sense this in terms of this word: One.

 

Then, extend the next finger alongside it?

Where an important thing here, is that with both fingers extended and touching each other?

I would suggest that you can feel these fingers as a 'Group' ?

 

Where I would really highlight this feeling of both fingers as a 'Group'?

As this is what Number Sense is actually all about !

 

Perhaps you could then extend the next finger?

To  form a larger group.

Which you would feel as a larger group.

 

Where this group, has the name of three, and uses the symbol 3.

 

With these 3 fingers touching each other as a group?

If you spread one finger away?

What have you actually done?

We introduce 2 concepts here?

One is the concept of 'taking away'?

The other, is the concept of 'division'?

 

Though if we extend the last finger, to form a group of 4 ?

Dividing them at the center, with 2 fingers each side?

Being equal on both sides, really provides a strong sense of 'division'.

 

Where this thing called 'Number Sense', is something that is felt.

Where Division is felt, as we spread the 4 fingers apart, down the middle,

 

Or with 4 fingers extended as group?

If we retract one finger, it can be sensed as being 'taken away/ subtracted'?

 

What I would highlight here?  Is that the fingers and hands can be used to  'concieve of numbers and math'.

 

Where the focus is with firstly developing a 'feel for numbers'.

With learning the names and symbols for them, as a secondary stage.

[Heathermomster]

I watched a c-rod demo once where the teacher had a classroom of students pick up two c-rods and place them behind their back. The teacher would direct the students to pull the longest or shortest rod by feeling alone. The teacher demonstarted other techniques where the students used the c-rods based upon touch and no sight. I'll try to find the demo and post it.

 

ETA: Found the three part video series and it is hilarious. The teacher sounds and looks like a villain from a Pink Panther movie. Start at time 2:52...

[OneStepAtATime]

Interesting thought about not using sight.  I know that DS was struggling horribly with learning his kata moves in his martial arts class until one of the instructors started giving him private lessons and keeping him blindfolded for the lessons.  Moves were demonstrated to DS, then the instructor had him practice each piece blindfolded, then sighted, then to put it all together he blindfolded him again.  It worked BEAUTIFULLY!  It helped him so much.

 

I wonder about doing that with math...

[PeterPan]

You might want to look at Visual Spatial Portals to Thinking, Feeling and Movement.  It has a lot of great looking exercises for visual processing.  I haven't actually tried any of them - still trying to find time to go through the book.

Hmm, that's interesting.  Our library doesn't have it, so I guess pass on what you learn!   :)

 

 

I also wanted to say that Lecka's description of her son's struggles sounds pretty close to my DD's - trouble with math facts and trouble with mental math yet tests hi-avg in math on yearly testing.   She also has trouble with word problems and math was slow, slow, slow for years (she could do the calculations correctly without too many errors - just oh so slowly).  I wonder sometimes with all the problems she's had - how would she test if she didn't have any issue? Although she doesn't have any signs of particular math strength either other than the hi-avg scores- she doesn't appear to intuit math for example. 

I suspect dyscalculia is like dyslexia, with symptom lists online that don't really get to the core/crux of what they're looking for diagnostically.  Lots of kids will have issues with math facts due to needing lots of repetition/context to learn and due to processing speed.  That's not really the same as a lack of number sense, which seems to be the core issue of dyscalculia.  Now this is probably an EXTREME example, but someone wrote me saying their dc is doing calculus successfully but can't tell you 5+5+5.  Diagnosed dyscalculia.

[PeterPan]

Interesting thought about not using site.  I know that DS was struggling horribly with learning his kata moves in his martial arts class until one of the instructors started giving him private lessons and keeping him blindfolded for the lessons.  Moves were demonstrated to DS, then the instructor had him practice each piece blindfolded, then sighted, then to put it all together he blindfolded him again.  It worked BEAUTIFULLY!  It helped him so much.

 

I wonder about doing that with math...

And you're adding OT eval to the list of what he needs, right?  (proprioception and motor planning)

[OneStepAtATime]

And you're adding OT eval to the list of what he needs, right?  (proprioception and motor planning)

:lol:   Yes ma'am!  On the list....

[wapiti]

But learning the names for different Dot patterns, is really nothing to do with firstly concieving of different sized quantities?

Where the use of colored rods, and learning to associate a color with words used for numbers?

Is really absurd?

 

I wonder if there isn't a misunderstanding about c-rods and how they are typically used.  They are entirely about quantity - that's the whole point - and when I read this I immediately thought of the exercise Heather refers to, in which students are given a rod in their hands behind their back, or two rods behind their back to compare.  Also, my understanding is that it usually doesn't take long, through play, for (neurotypical) students to learn the numbers represented by the rod lengths.  The colors are incidental.

 

Maybe, then, the rods would be a secondary stage, since they are outside the body?  That would make sense.  The rods are extremely useful for numbers going above 10.  My fingers, not so much.  (And yes, we have used toes, or someone else's fingers, etc.; not convenient.)

 

Eta, ok did I imagine this, or isn't there a post where geodob explains something about using the fingers to go over 10, or was that an abacus exercise.... I keep looking above and I'm not seeing it but... (this is what happens when I skim)

Edited January 12, 2016 by wapiti

[PeterPan]

Geodob, so where would you take that finger number sense next?  You'd transfer it over to beads on a soroban abacus?  You're correct that his connection between the dots and fingers is sketchy.  Heather had said to flat drill them and we did a bit.  I like your soroban-style finger counting because the regular finger counting doesn't seem to do much for him.  He can't use it to comprehend relationships or derive things.  I'm thinking your method would be better because it's rule-driven.  Thing is, in nothing we've done are we over 10.  Well we count by 10s and he can remove 1 from say 50 to get to 49.  I'm just saying I think he'd like to go over 10, lol.  

 

What RB does is get them familiar with c-rods as another way to solidify math facts (3+2 kind of thing) and then start using the c-rods to work on place value.  C-rods for place value are basically what beads on a slavonic abacus reduce to anyway (10 beads, 1 rod, visually identical save for coloring).  So for instance RightStart will use the pictures interchangeably.  It's a pretty traditional way of doing things and makes place value make sense.  Heather has been trying to turn me onto the Soroban abacus and I found one on a sale.  Are you saying the soroban is dramatically preferable to the slavonic for developing number sense?  

 

Do you not think there's value in approach things from multiple perspectives?  You're correct btw that RB is *very* careful to make sure they maintain the dot patterns precisely, mainly I think to make them visualizable, something they can manipulate spatially in their minds.  You see it break down when you show him a quantity and he reverts back to single counting.  It's also fascinating to think of a *need* to use fingers for quantity sense.  I hadn't really thought through it that way, but it's the obvious point of what you're saying, that the brain research shows number sense and fingers are connected in the brain so you actually NEED to use them.  

 

And here I was supposed to be RESTING today!  I swore to my husband I'd think no math, no reading, just endless stupid movies on the Hallmark channel about elves falling from sleighs, Santa's daughter falling in love with mortals, and other such stupidity.  Thanks.   :lol: 

[PeterPan]

I wonder if there isn't a misunderstanding about c-rods and how they are typically used.  They are entirely about quantity - that's the whole point - and when I read this I immediately thought of the exercise Heather refers to, in which students are given a rod in their hands behind their back, or two rods to compare.  Also, my understanding is that it usually doesn't take long, through play, for (neurotypical) students to learn the numbers represented by the rod lengths.  The colors are incidental.

 

 

This is encouraging - this is what I've been doing with dd this week for our bedtime math, subtracting numbers by putting the fingers down (she is a bunny and they are carrots and she eats them and then we want to know how many are left).

 

Maybe, then, the rods would be a secondary stage, since they are outside the body?  That would make sense.  The rods are extremely useful for numbers going above 10.  My fingers, not so much.  (And yes, we have used toes, or someone else's fingers, etc.; not convenient.)

 

(Disclaimer:  I haven't had to use the rods to teach anyone math as all my older kids did quite well with the Montessori materials in their classrooms, except maybe for my oldest dd, who had a tracking problem that got fixed and is now well ahead again.  Dd5 might have to be my first experiment.)

If you read the other post I brought in of Geodob's, he shows how the fingers begin doing trades that transfer over to a Soroban abacus.  

 

The c-rods vs. whatever else debate has been going on as long as I've been homeschooling, doubtless much longer, lol.  I think, and this is just my peace pipe thing, that for many kids it won't matter a jolly lick.  I think, not having used it yet but finally having spent more time looking through it, that Ronit Bird uses c-rods to present her bridging technique.  Her bridging, btw, is conceptually identical to what RightStart does with beads.  

 

What geodob is saying is a little more abstract, that you can do all that, visualize those symptoms, and not REALLY have dug in on the actual disability, the issue with how they conceive quantity and connect number sense in their brain.  It's really a separate question and you won't even notice it in most of the population since most of the population HAS that number sense inherently, developmentally, already.  

 

So yes, I agree with you that for the general population, knock yourself out.  I love that RB uses the c-rods to do her bridging.  I think the same exercises could be done with the beads of a slavonic and they are in RS.  It just doesn't matter.  You could find infitessimal advantages (beads could be slid one by one in the mind, etc.) but eventually most students will get there.

 

I think the important points are that if there's not number sense, well pushing forward without it doesn't make sense and that a child might be very bright and able to do OTHER sorts of math and that you shouldn't withhold other types from them by merely tying yourself to the computation-driven hyper-focus of current math instruction.

[PeterPan]

Wapiti, it's post #31 in this thread.  :D

[wapiti]

Wapiti, it's post #31 in this thread.   :D

 

LOL, I knew I saw it somewhere.  Duh.

 

That's an interesting technique, but once we have gone beyond conceiving of each finger as a quantity of one (interrupting to chuckle at the meaning of "digits"), if we're using a thumb for 5 and the other hand for 10s, is that not just as abstract as using something else (abacus or whatever)?  Or is the difference again that they're attached to the body vs the counting object that is not, but then, in that case, I wonder whether the issue isn't the math itself but the ability to perceive the counting object for reasons of, say, some sort of vision or spatial or other sensory-related issues.

[PeterPan]

I found this  http://www.amazon.com/Abacus-Mind-Math-Level-Workbook/dp/1941589014/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&qid=1416152490&sr=8-7&keywords=japanese+abacus  but basically you're not ready to do it until you've finished the the c-rods book of RB and understand place value.  I found another thread http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/topic/493238-anyone-taught-their-kids-anzan-mental-sorobanabacus-math-and-vedic-math/  from a year ago where Heather and others were talking about this.  The concensus seemed to be to use the soroban as the *follow-up* once they've been taught the concepts other ways, not the driver of instruction.  There were also some good pdf links there.

 

So Geodob's finger soroban method would be a good follow-up to RB dots and moving to the actual soroban would be the follow-up to c-rods.

[PeterPan]

LOL, I knew I saw it somewhere.  Duh.

 

That's an interesting technique, but once we have gone beyond conceiving of each finger as a quantity of one (interrupting to chuckle at the meaning of "digits"), if we're using a thumb for 5 and the other hand for 10s, is that not just as abstract as using something else (abacus or whatever)?  Or is the difference again that they're attached to the body vs the counting object that is not, but then, in that case, I wonder whether the issue isn't the math itself but the ability to perceive the counting object for reasons of, say, some sort of vision or spatial or other sensory-related issues.

Well that's what I'm pondering and it does make sense to me that it's *worth* pondering.  The parietal lobes, per Sousa, have fingers and written math.  The number module in the brain is separate from that.  Hmph, I think that just contradicted everything.  But see that's why I keep answering, because I don't have it straight in my brain.  I think the research isn't complete maybe?  I mean, dude, if a guy just won a nobel prize for trying to figure it out I don't feel so bad that I don't know either, lol.

 

So if fingers and written math are parietal lobe but number sense is in the number module and separate, then you'd need to (or benefit from) go through fingers to written but actual number sense should be able to be gotten other ways, right?  

 

I don't know, sigh.  When in doubt, I'd just gonna do it enough ways that eventually something sticks.  I'm sure not moving forward on some banal, dog-like memorization approach.  We'll either understand it or do it more ways till we do.  Meanwhile I've got things coming to work on other aspects of math (geometry, probability, etc.) and will pick back up with HOE.  Multi-pronged.  When I don't know, that's my call.

[PeterPan]

Wapiti part 2--Yes, I agree.  The more I thought it, the more abstract the abacus (slavonic or soroban) seems.  I don't think it's ideal as an instruction tool because it's already too abstract. The books I'm finding are saying they should basically already know the concepts before they attempt them on the soroban, so then it's basically representational and improving visualization and speed for what they've already explored OTHER ways.

 

But I think geodob's point about letting the math be kinesthetic or tactile in addition to visualizable is incredibly well-taken and novel.  My ds is first and foremost a kinesthetic learner and secondarily visual with almost nothing showing up in his scores for other methods.  Now to split kinesthetic and tactile, the testing didn't go that far and actually technically it was tactile (not kinesthetic) methodology being used.  But it was an alternate person, not me, doing the testing, so I think it's very informative.  I'm definitely excited to try it on him since regular fingers have been worthless.  He likes rules, complexity, etc., so a finger soroban should appeal to him.

[wapiti]

But I think geodob's point about letting the math be kinesthetic or tactile in addition to visualizable is incredibly well-taken and novel.  My ds is first and foremost a kinesthetic learner and secondarily visual with almost nothing showing up in his scores for other methods.  Now to split kinesthetic and tactile, the testing didn't go that far and actually technically it was tactile (not kinesthetic) methodology being used.  But it was an alternate person, not me, doing the testing, so I think it's very informative.  I'm definitely excited to try it on him since regular fingers have been worthless.  He likes rules, complexity, etc., so a finger soroban should appeal to him.

 

What is novel to me is this bit (that I skimmed and have to go back and read again :tongue_smilie:) about the fingers in the brain.  Tactile and kinesthetic are what manipulatives are all about, touching the quantities, but the fingers being attached and doing something very specific in the brain - feeling the quantities in a different way - is the important piece that I'm getting from geodob's explanation.

 

I do think that going over 10 has got to be a "stage 2" situation no matter what is being used, after there is a certain understanding of the numbers under 10.  Thinking out loud, I wonder whether it's worth spending time working with just one hand for some time, as five-and-four-ones.

[PeterPan]

What is novel to me is this bit (that I skimmed and have to go back and read again :tongue_smilie:) about the fingers in the brain.  Tactile and kinesthetic are what manipulatives are all about, touching the quantities, but the fingers being attached and doing something very specific in the brain - feeling the quantities in a different way - is the important piece that I'm getting from geodob's explanation.

 

I do think that going over 10 has got to be a "stage 2" situation no matter what is being used, after there is a certain understanding of the numbers under 10.  Thinking out loud, I wonder whether it's worth spending time working with just one hand for some time, as five-and-four-ones.

That's pretty much what I was thinking, that we can do the finger soroban techniques now that we've done those things in RB dots.  

[geodob]

Though a really essential element of this method using fingers?

Is that the 'extended fingers are pressed against each other'.

Where rather than reading about?

I would suggest that you try doing it?

If with your left hand, you extend your little finger and next finger.

So that they are pressed against each other?

 

They form a group.

A group that we call two 2.

Where the crucial factor, is with developing a sense and feel, of this sized group.

Which we can then learn to name as two 2.

 

Where 'group sense' is really more accurate, than number sense.

As numbers  are just the words and symbols.

For what are different sized groups.

 

This idea groups, is highlighted when we come to 5 ?

Where the fingers are retracted, and the Thumb is then extended.

 

Where this single Digit, the Thumb, is used to concieve of group of 5.

 

So that the fingers can then be extended again, and added to Thumb. To form a larger combined group, of: 6,7,8,9.

 

Though the left hand uses one of our Parietal Lobes.

So that when we use the Little Finger on the other hand, to concieve of ten 10 ?

This actually shift over to the other Parietal Lobe.

 

So that 'Place Value', actually shifts in place, to the other side of the brain.

Where Place Value makes physical sense.

 

Thousands can then be concieved of, using the Toes.

So that Place Value can be made sense of.

 

But I would highlight, that moving the fingers to form these different sized groups?

Is just used temporarily.

Where after doing it for a while?

It develops a motor memory, of the different hand/finger positions for each group/ number.

So that moving the hands/fingers is no longer required.

As numbers have become associated with different Motor Memory positions.