dereksurfs
-
Posts
2,117 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Classifieds
Store
Posts posted by dereksurfs
-
-
I'm not using aops prealg as intended by the authors. I skip around. We do it together on the white board. Sometimes dd is the teacher. Some days I am. Regardless of how we use it, it is still beneficial.
This is good to know that there is more than one way to use AoPS.
The aops police didn't come confiscate my text. There really is no hard & fast rule as to how to use aops prealg. Otherwise I'm in big trouble.
Haahaa, glad you didn't get arrested or anything. That is definately the funniest comment of the thread! :lol: Humor is a good thing when things get so serious during such discussions.
HTH you, Derek. For $57 it is worth it to purchase aops to use it as reference and for variety if you don't choose to use it as your main program. I know you just purchased HoE so it may seem you are spending your dc's college fund on math products. I know how it feels.
I am not an aops expert like the other moms here. My older dc didn't use this method and do extremely well in high school math. Dd8 is graphing equations and learning function, domain, range, etc in her other math programs. Aops prealg doesn't cover that yet so we are really turning the typical prealg time line on it's head here. Oh, well. We're having fun in the journey.
I'm glad to see you are having fun with it, even if tailored to use in a different way that works for your family. I'm thinking there may be value in using AoPS even when not according to the official approach. Many have stated that if its not fun/enjoyable/interesting for the child then its not really good to use anyway. So I don't think it has to be all or nothing. I am surprised to hear some using it only as a supplement to keep things interesting with their regular curriculum. I think I may ask our library to order Algebra or Pre-A just to check it out. They are pretty good about that when given a valid reason to purchase it.
-
I have the 1985 pre-algebra book (which I am really enjoying working through myself - it's more challenging than it looked at first glance!). I believe it was Quark who posted pics of the 2000 pre-algebra book? Or maybe someone else. Anyway, the page layout was quite different. The 2000 book had random pictures and such. The 1985 book has no pictures, except where the picture is used as part of the math involved. It's clear, plain text, with boxes around important definitions and such, and then you have your problem sets.
I don't know how the math itself compares - whether there were any changes or not. The presentation is quite different though.
Thanks, this is good to know. There are obvious tradeoffs. I imagine the various editions have different appeal to different parents/children. IMO content is more important than color/pretty pictures, etc... But I also think there is a bit of a psychological hurdle for some students using an ancient 1960s textbook for example vs. something a bit more modern looking.
-
Well, she died in 1985, so anything newer than that wasn't written/revised by her.
Yes, I know. But there were a lot of Algebra books published and written by her beyond the 60s up until the 80s when she died. And even the books after her death continue to use her content as a contributing author. I'm not saying there aren't differences. I'm simply saying the newer aren't necessarily bad books either. Of course some will prefer the vintage copies. I did read some those threads tagged dolciani mentioned below.
When people speak of the "old" editions, I believe they're generally referring to the 60s-mid-70's editions. I have 1965 editions. There have been threads here discussing the differences between the various editions, if you click the "dolciani" tag, it should pull up some of them.
ETA: Some useful info in this thread.
Jackie
So is the general idea that 60s > 70s > 80s > 90s > 2000? I more curious about the 1980s-2000+ differences.
-
I am also researching pre-algebra/algebra books, and have the same question.
If I may reask the question--
Which Dociani editions do you consider good? Which editions would you recommend?
By the "old" editions, do you mean 1960's? Are the 1980's editions considered the "old" editions?
Or would 1980's editions be considered the newer ones, or just the 2000's editions?
Sorry, but this seems a bit ridiculous to me.:tongue_smilie: I know some aficionados would only use the 1960s editions. But many other people use the newer editions including Derek Owens for his classes and seem happy to use them. I guess I can also understand how some ppl feel the earlier 60s editions are classics based on the 'New Math' of the day. But I don't think that invalidates the quality of the newer ones also written by Dolciani. I wonder what her opinion would be regarding all these various editions if still alive? I somehow have a feeling she wouldn't be quite as hung up on the older vs. newer books for her own students.
-
:bigear: I am looking for the same thing! Love MUS but need a little extra on the side stuff.
...
I had forgotten about Math Mammoth teaching on the individual concepts.. Off to check that out... but still keeping an ear out for more ideas:bigear:
Yeah, we're in the same boat with all three children using MUS as the spine. Because the scope and sequence is so different from other programs I don't want to switch to CLE, SM or MM, etc... midstream. And we do like the instruction. However there are known holes which need to be filled. So far we have used LOF and Hands on Equations which are worth a look. Our two youngest dds love Dreambox also, although it is very pricey. And I'm not sure its the best bang for the buck. We are exploring other computer based suppliments such as xtramath and ixl.
MM is something I will be trying next as they offer a lot of supplimental materials which are topic specific. So for example you can do Geometry, Statistics, Money, etc... And best of all they are having a big sale starting today for the next couple of days (23% off). So I've give them a try.
I do plan to switch once we get to Algebra. And I'm researching those options right now for our oldest ds10 who will be finishing Zeta soon.
-
I just found a 1988 Dolciani prealgebra on my shelf. I had forgotten that I bought it, duh. It looks really good. I think we have a winner.
Glad to hear Nakia. How does your dd like it so far? I know you mentioned that you had an older Doliciani version. You compared to Lials in terms of its looks. Was that older than the 1988 version or was it the same one? I don't think I would go looking for a 1960s edition either even though it is regarded a classic.
-
Derek--Dolciani can get sorta religious around here, so watch out. :) Seriously, it's good, I was taught with it, blah blah. But, having been taught with it (and being in the 5%, not the 1%??) I always felt there was a little something missing. It builds concepts in a very theoretical way, and you have to be willing to live with that and think her way. Word problems are low compared to Foerster. Foerster's explanations will be very, very similar on some points, but Dolciani is more this fountain for mathematical thirst and Foerster the gym swimming pool (don't drink, blah, just paddle).
Personally, I suggest you try your library system and see if you can get both of these on ILL. Or buy inexpensive copies. They're easy to sell off if you change your mind, and sometimes you can snag them for $5-10. I think Derek Owens has classes using Dolciani. Has he recorded them on dvd yet? He did his pre-algebra.
Thanks for discussing differences. I noticed the somewhat religious love for the Dolciani books, especially the 60s editions. I would probably go with the *somewhat* newer ones. I may pick one or two up just to queck and compare with Foerster. I don't know Derek Owens used Dolciani. Thanks for that info.
Now this is me and only me. I think there's something *more* that a teacher or person who has a clue can bring to the math instruction when you get to this level. If you want to do Saxon independently and just crunch as it says, fine. I think Foerster can be crunched that way. But once you get to Dolciani, where they're really trying to get you to scratch your head a bit with those C level problems, I think it's good to be working through it with someone who has a clue or loves it. I suppose you can do without, but I'm just saying I think the results will be better.
Yes, my dw and I are aware of our limits in terms of what she feels comfortable teaching. Math was never her passion in school although she did ok with it. So I am definately looking for ways to help her out either with online classes (e.g. Derek Owens) or instructional video (Math w/o Borders) once we hit Algebra.
-
Just for the op's trivia, Derek Owens has all the videos for his pre-algebra class online and viewable for free. http://www.LucidEducation.com/Prealgebra.php
Yes, I saw that. Its like a freeby for your first Pre-A class with him. It seems like many ppl are happy with the quality of his classes. And this may be a good fit for our family as well since my wife needs some help with secondary math instruction during day. His courses are much more expensive than going the Foerster/Math without Borders route. But it may be worth it.
-
Derek, how is the Hands on Equations working?
Rhonda in PA
Hi Rhonda,
We just got it last week. So its a bit too early to really tell. But initial impressions have been positive from both childern and parents (us).
-
Having a bit of insomnia tonight so I thought I'd attempt answers :D. Hopefully, you'll have better answers in the morning!
We used a private tutor for Algebra I and Dolciani was the tutor's text of choice. After purchasing the text and trying it for a couple of weeks, son and I really liked the straightforward format. Clean, non-cluttered text (although we like AoPS, we find it very visually cluttered) and the concepts are presented very clearly. So clearly that my son could use it independently whenever I was too busy to work with him or we took a few weeks off from using the tutor due to life events. We liked Dolciani so much that we've decided to continue with Dolciani for Algebra 2 and are currently using the very similar Jurgensen/ Brown text for Geometry (without a tutor for now).
Thank you for sharing your experience with it. I'm also glad to hear from those who use and like the newer versions. Although I have read some threads on the 1960s books being great I'm not sure I would go that route in search of such buried treasure.:D Though it may be fun trying. One parent here mentioned her dc not being too keen on using such an ancient looking book. While only the content should matter, there probably is a psychological hurdle for some students in using 50 y/o books to learn from, not to mention the difficulty in obtaining the teacher's manuals and solution manuals. Its pretty amazing to me that they are so sought after, like collectors items almost. I think of an Indiana Jones type Holy Grail search.
Ours is the 2000 ed. I believe so can't answer this. Am curious what others have to say. Since we used a tutor for Alg1, we didn't need the manual. I just looked and found a few used ones here. Seems inexpensive at $18-$20 (at time of writing this reply) but I'd check with the seller just in case that it's the product you are looking for. I know you didn't ask but I found the Geometry and Alg2 solutions manuals on Amazon to be much more expensive than the Alg1 solutions manual linked above.
Thanks for the link. I've also heard its hard to get accurate info on what you are actually buying vs. something which looks similar. And the older books don't even have ISBNs.
I personally find the Brightstorm site easier to navigate than Khan but no, sorry, we didn't use them. You could also investigate the Teaching Company videos to see if the Algebra aligns with whichever edition of Dolciani you decide to buy.
I'll check these out, thanks. This is more important to us since we don't want to pay for private tutors for each child and my wife doesn't feel comfortable being the only teacher, though I do help them at night after work.
Thank you,
-
For those who use Dolciani for Algebra:
1. What do you like about Dolciani over other textbooks such as Foerster? Why is this your curriculum of choice?
2. Do you intentionally have a really old version? Is it that much better than the newer versions such as this in your opinion: http://www.amazon.com/Algebra-Structure-Method-Book-1/dp/0395430526
3. How hard was it to get the solutions manual, expensive?
4. Are you aware of any instructional videos which align fairly well with the text such as Khan Academy, Math without Borders, AoPS, etc..? If so have you used them with any success? I'm not talking about private tutors.
5. Do you suppliment the text with other materials?
I am primarily considering Foerster coupled with Math without Borders. But it seems like there are a lot of positive comments made about Dolciani as well. So I am weighing the pros/cons of these along other top rated textbooks.
Thanks,
-
I don't have the answer, but we should start a "I'm confused about my choices for Pre-Algebra Social Group". :lol:
Hahaa, good one!!! Where do I sign up? :tongue_smilie:
-
Just chipping in with my 2 cents here. My DD lives and breathes numbers, and we've been doing AoPS Pre-Algebra since August. She's been doing extremely well and has had no major problems with the regular exercises and gotten about half of the challenge problems right on the first try.
This week, I switched *my* math program from AoPS Algebra (so I can keep up with her for next year) to Dolciani Algebra 1. She asked me if she could do it with me instead of AoPS this week for a break. Now after a week, I think she wants to make a permanent switch - she's hasn't brought it up directly but she's said several times how much more SENSE Dolciani makes than AoPS, and how much she's ENJOYING her 'break'. She loves the AoPS videos, but I think she's not liking the discovery method and the roundabout ways of AoPS as a daily diet.
So, there's an example of a very mathy kid who's neither thrilled with AoPS or hating it. She's in sixth grade, and she has always wanted to be an engineer. She likes the step by step, and while she likes to work the puzzles and creative stuff in math, I think the steady diet of it in AoPS is wearing her down.
So I think at this point what we are going to do is do mostly Dolciani, and supplement with some of the relevant AoPS videos or parts of chapters for fun. We may not ever go back to AoPS full time, or maybe we will when she gets a little older, I really couldn't say - I can't really tell if this is something that she will change as she becomes more mature, or if it's just her 'engineering-brain' personality getting irritated with too much round and round :001_smile: Time will tell. (I just wish she'd quit confusing ME! :lol: )
This is an incredible story. Thank you for sharing your experience. Just to clarify are you saying you jumped ahead to Dolciani Algebra 1 to practice for next year. Then your DD decided to jump ahead with you from AoPS Pre-Algebra to Dolciani Algebra 1 (not Pre-A) and liked it better? If thats the case that is quite a jump IMO. :tongue_smilie:
Does she mind so far not having all the extra goodies that come with AoPS such as the instructional videos, alcumus, etc..?
Any reason why you chose Dolciani over Foerster for Algebra 1? I wonder if there is a way to combine some type of video instruction with Dolciani like AoPS, Khan Academy, Math without Borders, etc?
-
Wow, this thread is so rich with interesting views, differing perspectives, nuances and personal experiences from the Front Lines of math education that I am loving it!!! Thank you all who have contributed. I am glad intellectual discussions can occur with differing views and outcomes. After all every child is uniquely gifted in the way they learn and every parent different in the way they teach and guide their children. We sometimes guide toward similar goals (e.g. STEM careers) in very different ways. I find your individual journeys facinating.
Thanks again,
-
Since you now have both textbooks and have had a chance to look at them do you have a sense yet which would be eaiser to teach from? Which book do you think provides the best explanations 'built-in' vs. the student having to ask you more Qs or use supplimental materials to understand concepts presented?
I have a feeling this will be very subjective based on your teaching style (how much you want to teach, explain concepts, etc...) as well as your dd's learning style.
Bottom line question: While Lial might look more modern on the cover and offer more colorful pages will the content be the best to meet both of your needs? That is the question I wrestle with in picking a companion text for our MUS Pre-A program we will be doing. For me at least I prefer clearer, cleaner content and explanation. And our kids are used to B&W paged textbooks from MUS. So I don't think the color or modern looks will matter as much. We'll see.
Derek
-
I can't decide which one to use. The Dolciani we have is an older edition, but I can tell I like the way it flows. Lial's looks more user-friendly, and my dd thinks it looks better.
I love math, but my dd doesn't, even though she is great at it.
If you had to pick between these two, which would you pick?
What did you use before? I'm surprised your dd thought Lial's looked more user-friendly.:001_huh: After purchasing it and reviewing it with my wife we were not impressed with the layout at all. I guess its the small print and busy nature of the text. But it may work fine for some students. The sample someone posted from Dolciani Pre-A looked a lot more straight foward.
Did you also purchase Lial's Student Solutions Manual? We bought that along with the accompanying lectures on CD.
Derek
-
I am ready to make the switch from MUS Algebra over to Foerster's Algebra 1 and use the Math Without Borders dvd along with the textbook.
Which textbook did you use? (An ISBN number would be appreciated.) On the Math Without Borders site, it states that you can use this book or earlier versions. I will most likely purchase the newer version.
I plan to do many of the problems alongside my son. Do I need both the Teacher Manual AND the Solutions Manual? If so, what are the ISBN numbers for these texts that will match up with the most recent Foerster's Algebra 1 book? Do I purchase them through Oasis?
Thanks for any help you can offer! :)
Seewah, I'm looking to do the same thing with my son after he finishes MUS Pre-A. Except I'll probably suppliment MUS Pre-A with something else to build his basic skills, possibly Dolciani. Then on to Foerster & math without borders.
How do you think your ds will do switching from MUS to a more formal text and rigorous program such as Foerster? I look forward to hearing how the transition goes.
-
Yes, I've pretty much come to the same conclusion. Even kids that eventually go into STEM careers aren't necessarily going to be studying AoPS Algebra in 6th & 7th grade. :tongue_smilie: That's pretty much the extreme end of one spectrum of study.Derek, your thought process is right on track. Now I want to say this nicely, but you have to teach the child you have. It's not your job to teach someone else's child or figure out what would work for Regentrude's (who are admittedly quite high), etc. Your only job is to look at YOUR children and figure out what will make them thrive. And if you saddle them with something that is too big a step or is too hard or overwhelming or doesn't fit their gifts/bents/personalities, all you're going to do is ruin your time and their lives. You have to look at your kids.So your kids? I see you saying they're happy with MUS but you want to step it up a bit. I don't think it was nuts to supplement with SM. That sounds like a very good idea. Some people will alternate curricula, doing say MUS during the school year and SM during the summer. That might work great for you. If the Singapore methods aren't the way you naturally think of math or were taught math, then yes it would help you to go back and get the texts. The CWP (or whatever they call them now, mine are CWP) books *do* explain the basic theory on the problem-solving at the beginning of each chapter. It's imperative to back up till your in stuff that's easy. Like back up all the way to the level 1 if needed, kwim? Just do it. If you back up that much, the concept clicks, and then they can apply it to harder problems. So that's where I'd start, just with the first level of CWP, and see if any lightbulbs come on.
I will probably order the earlier years of CWP to try them out. However while they do explain *some* of the concepts and problem types, they don't explain all. A perfect example of a seemingly simple Q is the second one in Chapter 1 of CWP5. "A two digit number is three times the sum of its digits." Nothing in MUS or CWP covers splitting a number into separate parts and then solving for an unknown, especially prior to Pre-A. This seems similar to what I've seen with AoPS -> throw something out there which has never been taught, then try to figure it out. That's why I'm thinking Singapore may go over things like this in their textbooks.
...
I don't know if she said this in your thread, but 8Fills has the older version of the MUS algebra 1 that she uses with her kids as a pre-algebra before Foerster. So it's not like you can't keep going and get to where you want to be. Math though is one of those individual things where no one can really help you. It's just you looking at your kids, trying the materials on them, and seeing what you think. Use your best judgment, and you'll be fine.
Yeah, I am looking at MM and CLE, however I've noticed some do fine with MUS as their spine to certain points such as 8Fills. Another big consideration is that I don't want to be switching curriculum back and forth, especially midstream if it seems to be working. Our younger daughters (6,7) seem to be doing alright with MUS. And it has a completely different scope and sequence than most other programs. So supplementing would probably be better. I may look into other things to supplement if CWP isn't the best fit, maybe MM. They have a lot of nice subject specific self contained books - Blue Series. I'm on Maria's mailing list. So I've heard about the big sale coming up. It may be a good time to pick up some these books just to compare.
Thanks again,
-
Derek, you're new to the boards, so I'll just give you one little bit of advice: every curriculum gets a heyday here for a while. Earlier it was Lials. Before that it was RightStart. Before that... AOPS is awesome, I have the pre-algebra, and like it. As in *I* like it. Doesn't really fit my kid (who gets certain things, doesn't care to grapple with others), and it's NOT a mainstream text. So if you're new to the boards and have come on looking for the BEST text for your bright students, this is not on the mainstream list. This is for the 1-2%, the really extremely out there kids who would really rather think about why than solve a ton of problems to get it over with. It's not something you make them do but something they internally crave.
It's not necessary to pick the most out there curriculum for the most math-gifted to teach your dc algebra and give them a good education. It's great that it's out there for the kids that need it, but it's NOT the mainstream choice for the majority of kids. If you have Foerster and aren't finding it to be what you want, Dolciani is a bit more theoretical, still mainstream. (It's what I was taught with.)
As for my dd (bright, doesn't particularly care about math, good at problem-solving), I've rebought Foerster. I bought and sold it earlier based on *my* taste. Now I'm hoping that it will work for her as it may fit *her* personality and bent. AOPS is just like the samples. You might find it helpful to buy a number of these texts and just look at them yourself. Or sometimes the library can get them for you. It's the transition from theoretical to which program has the parameters that fit this particular child.
This is some of the best advice I've heard yet. Thank you for sharing your perspective. It helps to hear these words of experience. I *am* new to the board and when I saw all this excitment about AoPS I thought it must be great. But the more I research it, hear from various families and look at samples including Alcumus online I am beginning to think it may not be the best fit. Although it works great for some, I think the type of student described who thrives with it is not necessarily any of our kids.
I am also struggling a bit with the fact that we started them with MUS which they really like. However it is not the most rigorous I'm finding. I did buy some suppliments recently such as Singapore CWP. However I think I got the wrong level as they are *really* hard. I was warned afterwards that this would be the case and that getting the earlier year may be a better option. The thing is they are presenting problems based on techniques which I don't think MUS would ever cover. So I would probably need to order the Singapore textbooks as well to really teach the concepts tested in CWP.
At this time I am thinking AoPS is just too much of a jump from MUS = opposite ends of the difficulty spectrum. I think meaty direct instruction coupled with its associated problems will be plenty for them to chew on and wrestle with as they enter secondary math.
Thanks again for everyone's input. I feel like I have a clearer picture of AoPS which helps me in making the best decision for our children. :D
-
AoPS is completely different than Foersters. Foersters is direct instruction and builds concept upon concept for the student to understand. AoPS does not provide the student the little steps but guides the student to discovering the process behind the steps. While Foersters is a solid program and will definitely prepare students for STEM majors, it is not in the same ballpark as AoPS. (and the only AoPS course that I can see needing any supplementing is the calculus course if your student wants to take the AP exam b/c the course doesn't cover details like how to write free-response questions the way CollegeBoard graders are going to want to see them written. So, the necessity is simply for prepping according to how the exam works, not math concepts.)
I do not view AoPS as geared toward math competition students when you are discussing their core courses. I do think it is geared toward kids who like the challenge of really thinking through complex problems. Some of the problems take hrs to figure out.
I personally would never take the approach with AoPS that is often discussed on this forum. I would not use it with a student that needs to be taught the material. My personal POV is that AoPS is designed specifically for the student that needs and wants to struggle and work through concepts on their own. Giving occasional hints that do not give away the process that they are supposed to be discovering is not the same as working with them on the problems. I think a lot is lost from the program with direction/teaching/assisting. (I think Ruth's description is probably the most intervention I would personally want to see.)
I also think that this is a program that is better w/maturity vs. pushing younger kids ahead into it. The program is hard. It is meant to be. It is meant to challenge. W/o the maturity to accept that joyfully and as the fun of it, students are being short-changed from the program's beauty.
As far as what students, I posted about that on the thread quark linked.
ETA: I forgot to address part of your post that I meant to: Do some hate it and simply do it because they have to? That is not an approach I can see being at all successful if using AoPS as intended. Pondering the problems for hrs is how it meant to be done. I can't imagine a student who hates it spending the mental energy required to solve the problems on their own. (FWIW, my perspective is from the higher level courses of AoPS. I have never seen the pre-alg book, so I have no idea how it compares to their upper level texts. The online courses challenge sets, well, let's just say they are named appropriately! ;) )
Thank you for comparing and contrasting these two very different approaches. And I especially like what you said in response to this last Q above. I can't imagine using it in a way which shoehorns kids into doing this who do not like it or enjoy this kind of learning approach. It seems like one almost has to try it with each child to see how they do with it, then evaluate the learning experience. Not every child wants to ponder a question for hours bottom line. It simply not something they would enjoy. Heck, some adults don't even like to do that. :tongue_smilie: I have to as its apart of my job as a software engineer. So I can see the value in it. But it becomes very clear even in the workplace when certain folks just have no interest in this - never did and probably never will.
-
I decided not to use it with my eldest dd. While she is good in math, she does not enjoy the discovery process. She likes the structure of being taught formulas and applying them. She finds math useful and is quite good at memorizing and applying formulas, but she does NOT consider math "fun." We switched to Saxon and LOF. She does not enjoy LOF either and would prefer to do only Saxon, but I wanted to make sure she could think through the math beyond memorizing the formulas. LOF was the least painful program I could find to supplement Saxon. Now she puts in her 90 minutes of math each day and moves on. :)
I see this as a very common reason not to use AoPS for some children. I am not even sure I would like learning this way and I'm in a STEM career. Although I can definately see its benefits in stretching the brain.
-
Hem, no exception for Foerster. My dd was going to use AoPS Algebra this year (she did half of the Number Theory book one summer, and did well), but then balked and asked to do Foersters instead (She's also doing Algebra-based Physics this year and said she didn't want to spend her whole day on math). Foersters, while a great book, is still a cakewalk next to AoPS. I'm having her do Alcumus on the side to flesh things out.
I just signed my younger dd up for AoPS Prealgebra online. She'd rather do math than any of her other subjects, so it may be a better fit for her. We'll see!
This is an interesting comparison in terms of difficulty level. I didn't realize AoPS was *that* much harder than Foerster. This is something to definately consider for dc who do not relish problem solving as some kind of enjoyable activity. From what many have stated Foerster is still one of the strongest traditional approaches for STEM oriented students.
-
Hello All,
I am researching Algebra and beyond for my three children - ds10, dd7, dd6. We use MUS currently, but plan to change to something else from Algebra onward. In reviewing exsiting threads as well as the sample text from AoPS I am uncertain whether or not it will work for our children.
Here are things which are commonly accepted regarding AoPS:
1. More rigorous than most math curriculum with a few exceptions such as Foerster, possibly better for STEM directed students.
2. Discovery approach
3. Wordy text
Based on its unconventional nature I am wondering from those who it worked for what you did to prepare for it? Maybe some tips on how to prepare for success with AoPS. Once using it did you hit a wall at certain pressure points because it was so *other than*? Is the layout and wordiness of the text something that the student eventually just accepts? Yeah, mom/dad, I know, I need to eat my peas.:glare: Do some hate it and simply do it because they have to? Do you sometimes suppliment with other materials? Unlike other curriculum I don't see many that suppliment with AoPS.
And for those who tried it and didn't like it for whatever reason(s), can you share why and also what has worked better for you? I am seriously considering Foerster coupled with Math without Borders as an alternative approach, or something else possibly for a less mathy child.
Hearing both sides I think is important to get a fuller picture of this very interesting program which even the biggest fans admit isn't for everyone.
Thank you,
-
If the holes are that bad, I do think backing up in MUS is a great way to fill in gaps and get a strong base level of math. You can move at his pace spending time on things he doesn't know and quickly passing what is solid. My only warning is not to let him go through so fast that he doesn't get anything from it.
Wishing you wild success and your nephew a true understanding of math that will serve him forever.
Yes, I agree with this as well. That is one of the beauties of MUS. You can really move through quickly when the student has demonstrated mastery in an area. Unlike Lial or other textbooks it is not as cluttered. Simply master a subject then move on. And you can suppliment with word problems from other sources like Singapore if need be to increase rigour as needed.
Have to share a funny about our switch from AoPS Pre-Algebra to Dolciani Algebra!
in Logic Stage & Middle Grade Challenges
Posted
:lol: :D LOL... That is too funny!!! Maybe we should all start with AoPS Pre-A. Then anything afterwards will be easy by comparison... except maybe more AoPS. :tongue_smilie: