Math People: Why does RS disagree with Cuisinaire rods?

[FairProspects]

What is it about the Right Start philosophy that discourages the use of Cuisinaire rods? The intro to the A level specifically states not to use them. I had always thought they were just another way of getting kids to "think" in math. Can anyone explain the rationale?

[Haiku]

The RS manual says it's because there is no intuitive reason to link a color with a quantity. There is nothing about a brown rod that hints at its quantity vs. the differing quantity of a red rod, for example.

 

(I just grabbed those colors out of the air, btw, as I have never used Cuisenaire rods. For a long time I thought they had something to do with blenders ... Cuisenart and all that. :D )

 

Tara

 

ETA the direct quote: "Americans think the more [manipulatives], the better. Asians prefer very few, but insist that they be imaginable, that is, visualizable. That is one reason they do not use colored rods. You can imagine the one and the three, but try imagining a brown eight--the quantity eight, not the color. It can't be done without grouping."

Edited January 30, 2010 by TaraTheLiberator

[PeterPan]

Well I wouldn't really have worded it that way. RS uses the abacus because it allows the dc to visualize quantities and see patterns without counting. The dc can break the beads apart in their mind and move quantities more readily than rods (which of course can't be broken). But if you talk with Kathleen, Dr. Cotter's dd, she'll tell you flat out she'd rather see someone use MUS (if they're not going to use RS) than to go to a math with no manipulatives. In other words, RS doesn't villify the cuisinaire rods. They just think their abacus, combined with their other manips, is a better tool for visualizing the math.

 

Now the most detailed comparison I've seen was on the RS yahoo group ages ago when a mom with a special needs dc took the time to consider rods vs. abacus from a lot of angles. But you're mainly just trying to understand the tm comment? Well they're just clarifying that it won't help you visualize and move around the quantities mentally quite the same way (or well to their minds) as the abacus. As you move forward with the abacus, you can see this and decide for yourself. Personally, cuisinaire rods leave me mystified. I spend a lot of time at a booth when I was thinking through dd's math plans (way back when, hehe), and the guy in the booth just could not explain them in a way that made sense to me. The abacus and RS methods fit with how I think of math, so I just left it at that.

[Crimson Wife]

One of the reasons why I chose RS over MUS is because the abacus struck me as such an intuitive manipulative. Visualizing 8 as 5 blue + 3 yellow beads just makes sense to me. Visualizing 8 as a brown rod doesn't.

[forty-two]

Well I wouldn't really have worded it that way. RS uses the abacus because it allows the dc to visualize quantities and see patterns without counting. The dc can break the beads apart in their mind and move quantities more readily than rods (which of course can't be broken). But if you talk with Kathleen, Dr. Cotter's dd, she'll tell you flat out she'd rather see someone use MUS (if they're not going to use RS) than to go to a math with no manipulatives. In other words, RS doesn't villify the cuisinaire rods. They just think their abacus, combined with their other manips, is a better tool for visualizing the math.

 

As a note, MUS rods are scored, so they indicate quantity in a way that Cuisenaire rods do not.

 

Anyway, I think that the cuisenaire rods are a great complement to the abacus. The rods are great for exploring and seeing relationships and the abacus is an excellent tool for seeing place value and calculating. The fact they are so different is why, imo, they go so well together.

[Heather in VA]

As a note, MUS rods are scored, so they indicate quantity in a way that Cuisenaire rods do not.

 

Anyway, I think that the cuisenaire rods are a great complement to the abacus. The rods are great for exploring and seeing relationships and the abacus is an excellent tool for seeing place value and calculating. The fact they are so different is why, imo, they go so well together.

 

I agree. i don't know anything about the MUS rods but I use Shiller manipulatives and they are unit blocks, 10 rods, hundred flat and thousand cubs - all scored. While the abacus is good for seeing 8 as 5 + 3, I do not find the abacus good for understanding the relationship of place value and calculating. You can see that 10 10s are 100 and that 10 100s are 1000. Etc. I'm using RS because right now the layout is working better for my youngest but I find myself using the Shiller manipulatives for much of this stuff.

 

Heather

[Jill- OK]

What is it about the Right Start philosophy that discourages the use of Cuisinaire rods?

 

...I chose to use MUS blocks, instead, since they're marked with individual units. ("Five" block has five units, etc.) That just made more sense to me.

 

We used to have some manipulatives that were similar to Cuisinaire, but were marked (Montessori materials, maybe?).

 

Just a personal thing that made sense to me at the time.

 

(If I'm remembering wrong, that Cuisinaire rods are marked, then, disregard this, lol.)

[PeterPan]

Forty-two, the scoring doesn't affect what I was talking about. With the RS beads and the color change (5 blue, 5 yellow per row) and the way they can be individually moved, the student can, in his mind, move one bead over, then the next, to think through strategies and visualize them. RS has lessons on this in the early levels where the dc is told to close their eyes, visualize the beads, and mentally move beads.

 

Also, if you think about it, RS uses pictures of blocks and even 3D paperfold blocks (100's, 1000's) that are probably pretty similar to certain MUS blocks. If I had MUS blocks and manips around, sure I'd probably bring them in. The more the merrier. The whole point is to go from concrete to pictures to abstract (written). Anything that helps in that process is good.

[nmoira]

What is it about the Right Start philosophy that discourages the use of Cuisinaire rods? The intro to the A level specifically states not to use them. I had always thought they were just another way of getting kids to "think" in math. Can anyone explain the rationale?

As a computational aid, it makes sense to favour the alabacus over Cuisinaire rods. Dr. Cotter's position is that most people visualize easily up to groups of five, and I've seen from the experience of my eldest that the alabacus can be visualized in its entirety for the purposes of computation. However, IMHO Cuisinaire rods are good conceptual aids: for example, we use them with Miquon and MEP (in lieu of number strips) to partition 2, 3, etc. While this can be done with the alabacus, as soon as you move past sums of five, there's the spurious yellow beads, which have no meaning *within* a partition (certainly one can see the sum at a glance):

 

bbbbb + y = bbbbby --------> 5 + 1 = 6

bbbb + by = bbbbby --------> 4 + 2 = 6

bbb + bby = bbbbby --------> 3 + 3 = 6

bb + bbby = bbbbby --------> 2 + 4 = 6

etc.

 

contrasted with:

 

yellow + white = dk green ------- 5 + 1 = 6

purple + red = dk green ---------> 4 + 2 = 6

light green + light green = dk green -------> 3 + 3 = 6

red + purple = dk green -----------> 2 + 4 = 6

etc.

The partitioning is symmetrical with respect to not only shape, but colour.

 

Now I get that the approach in Right Start is to think of 4 + 2 as 5 + 1, and 3 + 3 as 5 + 1; and, as far as I know, Right Start is unique in its having the student think in terms of grouping 5's as well as 10's. However, as users of Singapore and other Asian math programs will attest, it is not a *necessary* concept for the achieving of mental addition and subtraction mastery. So, if you're using Right Start, introducing Cuisinaire rods could very well prove counter productive because of the nature of the program, but I think it's too much to say that they don't have a use outside it.

 

My eldest did Right Start until early in Level C. I'd intended to do it with my younger, but its strictly prescribed approach would not be a good fit for her (never mind her propensity to stage epic battles with the beads of the alabacus). She's thriving with the discovery approach in Miquon and the "puzzle" approach of MEP.

[PeterPan]

Nmoira-That's really interesting! See it has been SO long since I looked at this, I wasn't aware of these subtleties. Cool. RS indeed spends time going through the things that make (whatever number) and looking at patterns, but they usually use the math balance for that. I think that's a cool idea to build them. It would be even better to do it with interlocking cubes, all of the same color, that you could break apart at different points. That way you'd remove the color thing. Or for 6 do 5 of 1 color, 1 of another. In any case, I like the idea of building them and pulling them apart. Don't like the idea of (inadvertently) memorizing lots of colors. But maybe some kids get into that. But building them as a length of things you could break apart, that would be cool.

 

No one program is the ultimate, and, as you say, each dc may have their own program they sync with best. Mine never did connect with the way RS explains multiplication. I mean it just entirely fell flat. Sure she can multiply, but she could multiply before we ever did it in RS, kwim? So there were all those lessons on it that were supposed to be helping things gel, and they were just WAY off from the way she thought of math. Yet for some people it might have been perfect. So absolutely it's good to look for flexibility and more ways to visualize, more approaches, more ways to attack it.

 

And that was straight from the horse's mouth, that thing I said about Kathleen and MUS.

[Haiku]

While the abacus is good for seeing 8 as 5 + 3, I do not find the abacus good for understanding the relationship of place value and calculating. You can see that 10 10s are 100 and that 10 100s are 1000. Etc. I'm using RS because right now the layout is working better for my youngest but I find myself using the Shiller manipulatives for much of this stuff.

 

 

RS does include manipulatives for understanding place value if you buy the complete A or B package.

 

Tara

[Heather in VA]

RS does include manipulatives for understanding place value if you buy the complete A or B package.

 

Tara

 

I do have the full B package. I just prefer the Shiller manipulatives.

 

Heather

[FairProspects]

Ok, this is all starting to make sense. Ds is doing really well with the mental math on the abacus and grouping by 5s & 10s, so maybe I don't want to introduce the cuisenaire rods at this time.

[Ellie]

The RS manual says it's because there is no intuitive reason to link a color with a quantity. There is nothing about a brown rod that hints at its quantity vs. the differing quantity of a red rod, for example.

Hm. I suspect the author(s) has never actually spent much time using the rods; also, he (they?) wants to sell his product and so has to have a good reason for inventing it and promoting it over another. Reminds me of how Scott-Foresman promotes its D'Nelian penmanship, using negative-sounding terms like "ball and stick" for tradtional manuscript.

 

Children learn the relationships of the sizes to each other and easily learn to do all math functions with them; the colors are just handy visuals.

[Spy Car]

The values described by the rods are based on length, not upon color. There ought to be no confusion about this.

 

Length is an outstanding method for young people to conserve value. In terms of offering a concrete means of determining a value without "counting," the Cuisenaire Rods are superior even to the clever bi-colored AL abacus.

 

An AL abacus showing the value "8" as 5 blue beads and 3 yellow beads is prone to encourage "counting" no matter how much the method may try to discourage the practice.

 

C. Rods are immune to this problem. And what is encouraged is re-grouping values (concretely) in every possible combination, with length aiding a young mind in making the relative values real. So they can visualize not only re-grouping to 5s and 10s, but every combination.

 

The knock on C Rods that they somehow get children thinking in some sort of "color dependent" way is absurd. A child who starts with Miquon-style play with the rods moves very naturally to Singapore-style number bonds, and regroups values easily.

 

Cuisenaire Rods are an amazingly effective learning tool and the criticisms of them don't seem to me particularly well-informed.

 

Bill

[nmoira]

Length is an outstanding method for young people to conserve value. In terms of offering a concrete means of determining a value without "counting," the Cuisenaire Rods are superior even to the clever bi-colored AL abacus.

For a child doing Right Start, the alabacus is best because it's the tool which reflects the program's conceptual model. For a child doing Miquon, Cuisenaire rods are best for the same reason. ;)

 

An AL abacus showing the value "8" as 5 blue beads and 3 yellow beads is prone to encourage "counting" no matter how much the method may try to discourage the practice.

This isn't our experience, nor is it experience of a number of families in my homeschooling circle who went through Right Start A or B around the same time. As much time as necessary is spent -- with the song, games, the abacus, fingers, tally sticks, and flashcards of abacus beads, fingers, tally sticks, etc. -- so the child recognizes 5 blue + 3 yellow as 8 as naturally as they would recognize "3." This is the whole point of grouping by fives. However, I don't recall it taking a considerable time for recognition to become automatic for any of the kids.

[Spy Car]

For a child doing Right Start, the alabacus is best because it's the tool which reflects the program's conceptual model. For a child doing Miquon, Cuisenaire rods are best for the same reason. ;)

 

No argument there.

 

But in terms of discouraging counting, while making values "concrete", the rods can't be beat.

 

This isn't our experience, nor is it experience of a number of families in my homeschooling circle who went through Right Start A or B around the same time. As much time as necessary is spent -- with the song, games, the abacus, fingers, tally sticks, and flashcards of abacus beads, fingers, tally sticks, etc. -- so the child recognizes 5 blue + 3 yellow as 8 as naturally as they would recognize "3." This is the whole point of grouping by fives. However, I don't recall it taking a considerable time for recognition to become automatic for any of the kids.

 

I'm not knocking the RS method. But the truth remains that a tendency to "count" beads with the abacus (or with the finger groupings) remains that may have to be worked against with diligence by the parent/teacher.

 

I know. We use the AL abacus. And while I realize this tendency can be overcome, it didn't come all that easily for my child, who was not a "counter" at all due to early exposure to rods, but tended to count beads when using the abacus.

 

With C Rods I never had to "correct" counting behaviors.

 

Bill

[Jumping In Puddles]

 

An AL abacus showing the value "8" as 5 blue beads and 3 yellow beads is prone to encourage "counting" no matter how much the method may try to discourage the practice.

 

Bill

 

It hasn't been my experience that the abacus encourages counting. I can't even imagine a child in RSB counting 5 blue beads plus 4 yellow beads to make nine. A child working the entire RS math program will know that 5 and 4 is 9. If they don't then this is not a program for that child. This is absolutely automatic. Side B of the abacus is also excellent for place value.

 

 

I'm not knocking the RS method. But the truth remains that a tendency to "count" beads with the abacus (or with the finger groupings) remains that may have to be worked against with diligence by the parent/teacher.

 

I know. We use the AL abacus. And while I realize this tendency can be overcome, it didn't come all that easily for my child, who was not a "counter" at all due to early exposure to rods, but tended to count beads when using the abacus.

 

With C Rods I never had to "correct" counting behaviors.

 

Bill

 

Maybe if you started with RS A and moved to RS B, your son would be able to see the quantities on the alabacus without counting? I doubt that I spent more time on my RS lessons with my kids than you did with yours and I doubt I'm more diligent than you are with math. :D

 

My kids, following RS don't have to correct counting behaviors and the counting tendency hardly needs to be overcome.

 

Bill, have you seen the RS A or B manual or just the activities for the abacus and RS games?

[stripe]

Let me preface this by saying a friend of my mom's was actually somewhat of a Cuisinare rod guru, and my mom seems to think I used them at Montessori school, so I was inclined to use them, but I've never actually used them with my own kids.

 

About RS - there are VERY SPECIFIC exercises to get the child to see numbers 1-5 without counting. Starting with 1, then moving up. Noticing the "middle" (for odds) as well. That's, in fact, why she likes the color to change after 5, because it provides a visual "chunk" that becomes too hard after 5. That is also why the "Yellow is the Sun" song came in.

 

I have observed with my son that when we used the abacus a lot, the 5+n way of visualizing numbers 6-9 in particular became second hand. Since "mixing up" my math program with some other things, and only bringing in the abacus occasionally (or when needed for a calculation), I have seen him change to counting things, and counting the individual beads to make, say, 5, whereas before he moved over a chunk of 5 in an automatic fashion. This obviously is going to require some "reconditioning."

 

There is a detailed anti-Cuisinare rod discussion in Ron Aharoni's "Arithmetic for Parents." (He was involved in bringing Singapore's Primary Mathematics to Israeli schools.) I can't clearly remember his specific arguments, but he doesn't like them at all.

 

(That being said, I've also seen a discussion in John Holt's book "How Children Fail" where he seems to think they are great.)

[PeterPan]

SpyCar, is it possible you simply didn't use the abacus enough to develop that auto-recognition, sans counting? As the others said, RS specifically discourages counting and has lessons on this. There's no counting. And it's not that the student would have to memorize colors with the manips (rods, etc.) but that some kids WOULD. In school I could tell you on what page and in what location on the page the answer was to the history question on the test, but I sure wouldn't know the answer, lol. I'm not a history person. Visual learners find ways to pick up the visual and miss the point. ;)

 

Although I think the Alabacus is great and strongly prefer it to rods and the MUS manips, I wouldn't be so ill-sporting as to say it's the best and slam everything else. As you know, different strokes for different folks.

 

Heather, have you done the station game in RS B where you change from oral to abacus to place value cards to written? You could even inject your manips in there. That's a great exercise for bringing it full circle. It's been so long since I looked at Shiller, I can't remember what their manips are like. I do remember some of their things being very whitty.

[nmoira]

 

With C Rods I never had to "correct" counting behaviors.

Nor did I with the alabacus. The lesson sequence is structured in such a way that this just isn't an issue for most kids. It simply never came up. However, if a child had already taught some math in a program which encouraged counting, I think it could be an issue. This is why I recommend against pairing programs like Singapore's Early Bird with Right Start A.

[Haiku]

In reading many, many threads here on TWTM about RS, I have noticed that people who start RS with B tend to be less happy with it than people who start it with A. I know that RS says that kids at a certain age or skill level can skip A and go directly into B, but having used both A and B (and C, too), I would never recommend that so someone. B's coverage of the skills needed to properly conceptualize numbers and use the abacus is not, imo, adequate. It is a review of what was taught in A but not in-depth or lengthy enough to provide the type of automatic response that makes the RS method successful. I think A is absolutely necessary to RS's success with a young child.

 

I know that people will disagree with me. :)

 

In then end, I would imagine that, just like nearly everything else in the history of the universe, the AL abacus and the C rods are right for some kids and not for others.

 

Tara

Edited January 30, 2010 by TaraTheLiberator

[PeterPan]

Tara, I hadn't noticed that, but it makes sense!! I've recommended A for years now and discouraged skipping it, and people have slammed me, saying going to B is just as good, a great way to save money, etc. A is a particularly well-done level and builds so many foundational skills in mental math and visualizing and automatic recognition. As you say, just slowing down B doesn't quite get you to the same place. I still have happy memories of the games matching up things (tally sticks, finger cards, the handshake game, etc.) and look forward to doing it again with ds!

 

I didn't realize Singapore EB encouraged, even if only inadvertently, counting. That makes sense that with as much as people pair stuff you could have some backfiring where methods contradict.

[Kuovonne]

The values described by the rods are based on length, not upon color. There ought to be no confusion about this.

 

If the color isn't important, could you have rods all the same color and tell at a glance if a rod is an 8 versus 9, without comparing it to another rod? Although the value of the rod is determined by its length, the child identifies the value of a rod by its color for at least some rods.

 

Length is an outstanding method for young people to conserve value. In terms of offering a concrete means of determining a value without "counting," the Cuisenaire Rods are superior even to the clever bi-colored AL abacus.

 

I agree that C-Rods are immune to counting. However, associating a quantity of beads with a number (AL-Abacus) makes more sense to me than associating a length/color of a rod with a number (C-Rods).

 

Oh, and the AL Abacus does use length to show quantity. Five beads are one bead longer than four beads.

 

 

An AL abacus showing the value "8" as 5 blue beads and 3 yellow beads is prone to encourage "counting" no matter how much the method may try to discourage the practice.

 

I have not found this to be true for my children.

 

With the RS abacus, the child can tell the difference between a 8 and a 9 based on the arrangement of the beads without comparing or counting. The *change* in color at 5 is important, not the specific colors. I restrung my non-AL_abacas to match the pattern of my AL Abacus, and my daughter can recognize quantities on it even though the colors are totally different.

 

Children are taught to recognize quantities 1-5 without counting. This is really easy for quantities 1-3. Quantities 4 and 5 are a bit harder, but still doable on the abacus. Then children memorize values 6-10 as the sum of 5 + the other number. The child recognize the quanties in each color and know the total without ever counting. Once children understand the concept, recognizing the values is much faster than counting, and children had no incentive to do the slower counting method.

 

Children are then taught to recognizing rows of ten so that they can see any quantity up to 100 on the abacus without counting, in a way that emphasizes place value. Once taught, children can identify 78 versus 87 on the abacus at a glance without counting. You can't do that with C-rods or even base ten blocks.

 

 

And what is encouraged is re-grouping values (concretely) in every possible combination, with length aiding a young mind in making the relative values real.

 

Do the rods themselves encourage re-grouping in every combination, or is it the math program that uses them which guides the child to try every combination? My daughter is not math minded, and she would not have tried to discover every combination on her own without being told to, regardless of the manipulative.

 

The RightStart program also has students regroup values in every possible combination using various manipulatives (not just the AL-Abacus).

 

I see teaching regrouping of numbers as a strength of the math program, not of the manipulatives themselves.

 

Cuisenaire Rods are an amazingly effective learning tool and the criticisms of them don't seem to me particularly well-informed.

 

 

I agree with you that C-rods can be effective when used in combination with the appropriate math program. However, I feel that as a stand-alone manipulative the AL-Abacus is superior for the reasons I stated above.

Edited January 30, 2010 by Kuovonne

[nmoira]

Do the rods themselves encourage re-grouping in every combination, or is it the math program that uses them which guides the child to try every combination?

I'd characterize Miquon as guided discovery. There are other programs that use Cuisenaire rods, but Miquon was the only one appealed to me as it is based in the original New Math of the early 60's.

 

The RightStart program also has students regroup values in every possible combination using various manipulatives (not just the AL-Abacus).

I don't think it does, and it's by design. There's no inherent "sixness" in Right Start, only "six" in relation to "five"... i.e. "fix plus one." With Cuisenaire rods you can easily work with different number bases, and play with "sixness" to its full extent. This isn't to say one approach is necessarily better than the other, or that elementary children *should* work with different number bases... but it's a possibility with Cuisenaire rods.

 

I agree with you that C-rods can be effective when used in combination with the appropriate math program. However, I feel that as a stand-alone manipulative the AL-Abacus is superior for the reasons I stated above.

I'm a big fan of the alabacus, but I'm not sure it's much use as a standalone manipulative without adequate training.

[stripe]

If the color isn't important, could you have rods all the same color and tell at a glance if a rod is an 8 versus 9, without comparing it to another rod?

 

Which is the same problem you would have with a pile of, say, 7 buttons or 8 pennies or 9 chocolate chips or whatever -- it's basically an indeterminently large blob of stuff.

 

Although the value of the rod is determined by its length, the child identifies the value of a rod by its color for at least some rods.

And isn't this suggested by Cuisinaire rod fans as being significant?

e.g. " Color and size characteristics are systematically associated with numbers. Number, then [sic] take up a certain space and mathematics begins to take on visible, tactile and colorful meaning."

and "From the beginning, I write and encourage students to write equations with numerals, not letters. We do, however, express relationships by color orally, simultaneously with numeric value. "

and activities such as "Find a rod longer than light green by the same amount as the purple is longer than the red, and so on." and "Know the relationship of the white and red and light green rods to the others. White is 1/2 of red, 1/3 of green, and 1/4 of purple."

http://www.ttac.odu.edu/Articles/cuisenai.html

[forty-two]

Cuisenaire Rods are an amazingly effective learning tool and the criticisms of them don't seem to me particularly well-informed.

:iagree:

 

I do think that the abacus works better than c-rods for teaching place value and how to calculate in a base-10 system. And I don't think I'd use rods overmuch to teach place value and how to calculate' date=' though you could, if you wanted. But that is hardly the sum total of math.

 

The rods, with their deliberate lack of discrete quantity divisions, unlike MUS and Shiller blocks (I do think it matters a great deal, just as a plain car can be any number of things in a child's imagination, but a Lightning McQueen car is inevitably seen as just that character), can be used to illustrate any number of relationships. Certainly, you can train a child to associate white = 1, red = 2, and so on - but then you lose the ability to illustrate other relationships with the rods and they are no different than MUS blocks and the like.

 

But to do that completely ignores the possibilities afforded by the c-rods and negates their main strength. Everything I've read about using the rods says to delay associating a particular number with a particular rod as long as possible - for that very reason. You don't want kids to learn that white = 1, red = 2, but that white is 1/2 of red.

 

It's like the difference b/w classical arithmetic and geometry. Arithmetic was the study of multitudes - discrete parts - at rest, and all the things you could do with those parts. Geometry, otoh, was the study of [i']magnitudes[/i] at rest and how they related to each other. In classical geometry, there were *no* discrete numbers involved, at all. It didn't matter if line A was 6" or 5", only that it was half or a third the length of line B.

 

In that vein, I see the abacus as a great visual aid to dealing with discrete parts, and cuisenaire rods as a great visual aid to dealing with relationships - they are completely different from each other, and thus best illustrate completely different things. They are complementary, not competing, visual and tactile aids.

[Kuovonne]

I don't think [RightStart has students regroup values in every possible combination], and it's by design.

 

RightStart probably doesn't get into finding all the combinations as much as Miquon does, but it's in there in levels A and B. RightStart calls it "partitioning" a number. For example partitioning 15 is finding all the number combinations that add up to 15. Although the emphasis is on partitioning 5, 10, and 15, you also partition other numbers in RightStart. It's just burried in the lessons. Sometimes the partitioning is done on the abacus, sometimes the math balance, sometimes tally sticks, sometimes it's just done mentally using the part/whole circles. I actually discovered a lot of relationships among the numbers by playing the games (which use cards, not the abacus).

 

There's no inherent "sixness" in Right Start, only "six" in relation to "five"... i.e. "fix plus one."

 

The "sixness" in RightStart is the quantity, which is expressed most often (but not only) in the relationships 5+1=6, 3+3=6, and 6+4=10.

 

I'm a big fan of the alabacus, but I'm not sure it's much use as a standalone manipulative without adequate training.

 

I agree that the AL abacus does require training to be used as a standalone manipulative. However, I feel that the amount of training that is requires is small and math based (e.g. 6=5+1) versus color based (two whites are the same length as a red). It's also an awesome manipulative because it's a single piece with no parts to loose.

 

 

Which is the same problem you would have with a pile of, say, 7 buttons or 8 pennies or 9 chocolate chips or whatever -- it's basically an indeterminently large blob of stuff.

 

But you don't have that problem with the AL-abacus.

 

*****************

 

There are many roads to Rome, and I think both Miquon and RightStart are excellent programs. I personally prefer RightStart.

Edited January 30, 2010 by Kuovonne

[stripe]

But you don't have that problem with the AL-abacus.

Yes, and I agree that it's worth emphasizing this point because of the issue with the mysteriously long rods (basically the same effect as a mysteriously long row of beads) -- versus the RS AL-abacus style of the 5+5 bicolor bead formation. Which can certainly be made at home for cheap.

 

BTW RS does use two vertical rows of beads so one does have a sense of doubles, and even and odds.

[Spy Car]

It hasn't been my experience that the abacus encourages counting. I can't even imagine a child in RSB counting 5 blue beads plus 4 yellow beads to make nine. A child working the entire RS math program will know that 5 and 4 is 9. If they don't then this is not a program for that child. This is absolutely automatic. Side B of the abacus is also excellent for place value.

 

So I'm not misconstrued, let me make it absolutely clear that I share your doubt that a child who has been instructed in the "AL abacus" method would be "counting" when they see 5 and 4. Dr Cotter's method is very "methodical" in discouraging counting, even in the "Activities" book.

 

But it remains a fact that it takes some methodical teacher-led instruction to overcome a natural tendency on the part of "untrained" children (or parents) to "count" beads. This is not a "fatal flaw," it just mens there is a process to go through to make sure the ababus is used as intended.

 

In contrast, the C Rods can (and arguably should) be used by a child with minimal or no "instruction." It allows "discovery" of value relationships and re-grouping with no danger of "counting" to be mitigated.

 

The abacus has it's upsides, but in this measure there is an advantage (in my mind) to using C Rods with young children.

 

If one is using RS as the main program, I'd agree with Moira's comment that it might be best to stick with the AL abacus.

 

I'm highly impressed by RS, but it strikes me as a program that should be used as directed, and that was one of the reasons I chose not to use it as our main program, as I knew I wanted to do an "eclectic" mix. But I have not doubt that RS is a great math program.

 

Maybe if you started with RS A and moved to RS B, your son would be able to see the quantities on the alabacus without counting?

 

No doubt. He can do it now, but I've had to watch him like a hawk.

 

I doubt that I spent more time on my RS lessons with my kids than you did with yours and I doubt I'm more diligent than you are with math. :D

 

Well, thanks for the compliment, but the RS-style exposure has been supplementary here (which isn't to say it hasn't been highly valuable). There are elements of RS that are my very favorites in showing and reinforcing concepts.

 

My kids, following RS don't have to correct counting behaviors and the counting tendency hardly needs to be overcome.

 

If we did it everyday (or close to it) I'm sure the counting tendency would disappear here too. As it is, even with infrequent use, it has been largely overcome. I don't mean to make this out to be a bigger deal than it is.

 

It hasn't been my experience that the abacus encourages counting. I can't even imagine a child in RSB counting 5 blue beads plus 4 yellow beads to make nine. A child working the entire RS math program will know that 5 and 4 is 9. If they don't then this is not a program for that child. This is absolutely automatic. Side B of the abacus is also excellent for place value.

 

So I'm not misconstrued, let me make it absolutely clear that I share your doubt that a child who has been instructed in the "AL abacus" method would be "counting" when they see 5 and 4. Dr Cotter's method is very "methodical" in discouraging counting, even in the "Activities" book.

 

But it remains a fact that it takes methodical teacher led instruction to overcome a natural tendency on the part of "untrained" children (or parents) to "count" beads. This is not a "fatal flaw," it just mens there is a process to go through to make sure the ababus is used as intended.

 

In contrast, the C Rods can (and arguably should) be used by a child with minimal or no "instruction." It allows "discovery" of value relationships and re-grouping with no danger of "counting" to be mitigated.

 

The abacus has it's upsides, but in this measure there is an advantage (in my mind) to using C Rods with young children.

 

If one is using RS as the main program, I'd agree with Moira's comment that it might be best to stick with the AL abacus.

 

I'm highly impressed by RS, but it strikes me as a program that should be used as directed, and that was one of the reasons I chose not to use it as our main program, as I knew I wanted to do an "eclectic" mix. But I have not doubt that RS is a great math program.

 

Maybe if you started with RS A and moved to RS B, your son would be able to see the quantities on the alabacus without counting?

 

No doubt. He can do it now, but I've had to watch him like a hawk.

 

I doubt that I spent more time on my RS lessons with my kids than you did with yours and I doubt I'm more diligent than you are with math. :D

 

Well, thanks for the compliment, but the RS-style exposure has been supplementary here (which isn't to say it hasn't been highly valuable). There are elements of RS that are my very favorites in showing and reinforcing concepts.

 

Bill, have you seen the RS A or B manual or just the activities for the abacus and RS games?

 

Only the Activities and the Games (and all the videos and abstracts on the RS website) but not the RS A or B.

 

Bill (who like the RS stuff, honest :D)

[Spy Car]

SpyCar, is it possible you simply didn't use the abacus enough to develop that auto-recognition, sans counting?

 

We don't use the AL abacus as a primary manipulative (as in every day) but it does get used with some frequency and largely speaking the "auto-recognition" has been developed. Could/would it be more developed with more use? Undoubtedly.

 

But there was still a process to get to our level of "modest success." Many good things in life come with a little work, the abacus took some work that I feel was well worth the effort. I did, however, see the contrast between the teacher-led work necessary to implement the abacus (without counting) and the "discovery method" with the rods.

 

As the others said, RS specifically discourages counting and has lessons on this. There's no counting.

 

Not only have *others* said this, I've said this. But it takes a method to overcome the natural tendency to use the abacus as a "counter." Not so with C. Rods.

 

And it's not that the student would have to memorize colors with the manips (rods, etc.) but that some kids WOULD. In school I could tell you on what page and in what location on the page the answer was to the history question on the test, but I sure wouldn't know the answer, lol. I'm not a history person. Visual learners find ways to pick up the visual and miss the point. ;)

 

Kazakhstan is yellow on one of our maps and blue on another. Did it take my son a second glance to recognize the difference? Sure. Did it take a third glance? No.

 

But children are different.

 

Although I think the Alabacus is great and strongly prefer it to rods and the MUS manips, I wouldn't be so ill-sporting as to say it's the best and slam everything else. As you know, different strokes for different folks.

 

I feel the same. We don't use the AL abacus to torture ourselves with an "inferior" manipulative :D

 

It has it's plusses and minuses, and the minuses can be overcome by using it according to the method.

 

Bill

[Crimson Wife]

In reading many, many threads here on TWTM about RS, I have noticed that people who start RS with B tend to be less happy with it than people who start it with A. I know that RS says that kids at a certain age or skill level can skip A and go directly into B, but having used both A and B (and C, too), I would never recommend that so someone. B's coverage of the skills needed to properly conceptualize numbers and use the abacus is not, imo, adequate. It is a review of what was taught in A but not in-depth or lengthy enough to provide the type of automatic response that makes the RS method successful. I think A is absolutely necessary to RS's success with a young child.

 

I know that people will disagree with me. :)

 

I think it totally depends on the child. I started my oldest in RS B at age 4 3/4 and it went great. She flew through the first 40 or so lessons before slowing down, so I'm confident that I made the correct decision starting with B. Had I started with A, it would've been a total waste of money. B includes everything in A and it's a more appropriate pace for an advanced child.

 

Now with my DS, I'm planning on trying A with him at the same age. He's bright but slower to mature than his big sister. If A turns out to be too slow a pace for him, I can always switch to B since it's on my shelf.

[Jumping In Puddles]

So I'm not misconstrued, let me make it absolutely clear that I share your doubt that a child who has been instructed in the "AL abacus" method would be "counting" when they see 5 and 4. Dr Cotter's method is very "methodical" in discouraging counting, even in the "Activities" book.

 

But it remains a fact that it takes some methodical teacher-led instruction to overcome a natural tendency on the part of "untrained" children (or parents) to "count" beads. This is not a "fatal flaw," it just mens there is a process to go through to make sure the ababus is used as intended.

 

I really do see your point that you can't give a child who has no RS math experience and let him "discover" the method on his own, I just want to point out that this is such an easy thing to overcome that I don't find it anymore a process than teaching that a square is a type of rectangle. It is that simple and it starts that simply in chapter 1 of RS A.

 

In contrast, the C Rods can (and arguably should) be used by a child with minimal or no "instruction." It allows "discovery" of value relationships and re-grouping with no danger of "counting" to be mitigated.

 

The abacus has it's upsides, but in this measure there is an advantage (in my mind) to using C Rods with young children.

 

 

I was tempted to order the c rods for this reason. I think it does have an advantage for the young child. RS did make it easy for my son to learn place value and regrouping but not as young as your son, because it is not really a "discovery" process in RS but it is part of the method. So I will definitely give the advantage to C Rods for this. :)

 

 

Well, thanks for the compliment, but the RS-style exposure has been supplementary here (which isn't to say it hasn't been highly valuable). There are elements of RS that are my very favorites in showing and reinforcing concepts.

 

Your welcome, but it wasn't a compliment on how you implemented RS but for your complete thoroughness in teaching math using different methods. You set the bar high on the boards :)

 

Only the Activities and the Games (and all the videos and abstracts on the RS website) but not the RS A or B.

 

Bill (who like the RS stuff, honest :D)

 

That is too bad because I was hoping you could give me your impression of the program as a whole! :tongue_smilie:

[PeterPan]

To quibble a little more, I don't think COUNTING is the natural tendency of the child (as Spycar put it) either. Curricula and parents teach counting. We naturally group objects for observation and faster counting. When I worked booths for RS, I never had to tell a parent to stop counting when I asked them to tell me the quantities. Identifying quantities of beads (1-5) through observation comes quite readily and naturally. Counting is the foreign, pasted on concept. My two cents. :)

[PeterPan]

Two things are getting confused here. The abacus includes an instruction booklet, and it's NOT rocket-science, lol. Spycar might be able to make K5 math sound confusing, but it's NOT to must people. A buyer can read the booklet, use the abacus, and be just fine. :)

 

Next, RS *does* use discovery methodology in instruction. Math in RS is not taught algorithmically. Instead the student does it with manipulatives, does it conceptually, translates that into written work, and with time and practice (and guidance) sees the algorithm. This is especially strong at the levels we are discussing, A, B, and C.

[nmoira]

 

I think it totally depends on the child. I started my oldest in RS B at age 4 3/4 and it went great. She flew through the first 40 or so lessons before slowing down, so I'm confident that I made the correct decision starting with B. Had I started with A, it would've been a total waste of money. B includes everything in A and it's a more appropriate pace for an advanced child.

This is similar to our experience with Level B. I did start with Level A when DD the Elder was about 4, but it was obvious we'd made a mistake and we switched to B after a couple weeks, never looking back. Level B was a positive experience for her, but exasperation set in early in Level C due to a few factors: Right Start was too teacher dependent, and it wasn't a good fit for my child who wanted the big picture *now*. The unit mastery structure of Singapore proved to be a better fit... for awhile.

[Kuovonne]

In contrast, the C Rods can (and arguably should) be used by a child with minimal or no "instruction." It allows "discovery" of value relationships and re-grouping with no danger of "counting" to be mitigated.

 

I wonder if the effectiveness of "discover" versus "instruction" depends on the child. I've found through hard experience that my daughter just doesn't "discover" things on her own, in math or anything else. A new relationship between numbers (or shapes, or words, or whatever) could be right in front of her nose but she can't see it without having it pointed out to her. Although she doesn't always need much repetition, she almost always needs explicit instruction.

 

If I remember correctly, you son is very good at math and likes problems that make his head hurt with thinking. However, math is my daughter's weakest subject and she really resists problems that require thinking.

 

I'm highly impressed by RS, but it strikes me as a program that should be used as directed, and that was one of the reasons I chose not to use it as our main program, as I knew I wanted to do an "eclectic" mix. But I have not doubt that RS is a great math program.

 

I really dislike the scriptedness of RightStart and wish that I could do my own thing. However, I can't argue with the results I've seen in my daughter, I love the abacus, and don't know what else to try.

 

Only the Activities and the Games (and all the videos and abstracts on the RS website) but not the RS A or B.

 

How hard do you think it would be to put together an early elementary math program using only the Activities and Games book? I love RightStart conceputally, but I struggle with the script. I like math and feel comfortable with it, but my daughter needs lots of hand-holdling.

Edited January 30, 2010 by Kuovonne

[nmoira]

Next, RS *does* use discovery methodology in instruction. Math in RS is not taught algorithmically. Instead the student does it with manipulatives, does it conceptually, translates that into written work, and with time and practice (and guidance) sees the algorithm. This is especially strong at the levels we are discussing, A, B, and C.

But the parameters within which to work are very narrow, and there's only one way to move forward: the Right Start way. I characterize it as a prescriptive program, rather than a discovery one.

 

I completely agree with your comments about counting.

 

[My experience ends with Level C.]

[FO4UR]

We have our cake and eat it too. We use both.:D

 

I was thinking more in lines with the argument that Crods hurt your feet when you step on them and an alabacus doesn't have 101 pieces to pick up as you vacuum.:tongue_smilie:

 

Seriously though, my ds visualizes the rods more readily than the abacus and that's the reason it gets more table-time in this house. FTR - he doesn't associate the number 8 with brown at this point....that's a mental tool he can pick up and use at his disposal, but 8 is 8....1/2 of 16, 2x4, 4x2, 1+7, 6+2, ........ Those relationships are seen easily b/c of the rods ime...I haven't had to do much belabored teaching of those relationships, just showing it with rods.

 

Also - FTR - I think base ten blocks are better for teaching regrouping and place value.

 

Another FTR (LOL) - I think there is benefit to being able to mentally shift from one manipulative to the next.

 

My last FTR - I have never used a whole year of RS. I just pull from the Activities and Games manuals. That might explain why my ds visualizes the C rods better than the alabacus.

[Haiku]

8 is 8....1/2 of 16, 2x4, 4x2, 1+7, 6+2, ........

 

I just asked my dd, who has never seen a C rod in her life, to describe eight to me. She said: 5+3, 6+2, 7+1, 8+0, 4+4 ("and all the opposites"), 1+2+2+3, 2x4, 4x2, 16/2, 24/3, 32/4, 40/5, 18-10, and eight ones.

 

I'm guessing that if the material is presented well, it probably doesn't matter whether you use C rods or the abacus.

 

Tara

[FO4UR]

I just asked my dd, who has never seen a C rod in her life, to describe eight to me. She said: 5+3, 6+2, 7+1, 8+0, 4+4 ("and all the opposites"), 1+2+2+3, 2x4, 4x2, 16/2, 24/3, 32/4, 40/5, 18-10, and eight ones.

 

I'm guessing that if the material is presented well, it probably doesn't matter whether you use C rods or the abacus.

 

Tara

 

:iagree:

 

I think this is a matter that one might click better for you and another for me...my ds sees the rods, my dd may click with the alabacus. I don't think either is better across the board. And, it probably makes a big difference if you start with one or the other....spend more time with one or the other.

 

I wanted to point out that my ds is not dependent upon the C rods to do math he's already mastered...it's a manipulative to outgrow in time (just like any other).

 

It's a tool, and only one in an over-abundance of math manipulatives. If it works, use it. If not, don't.

[Julie of KY]

Like everything else, Cuisenaire rods are a tool.

 

My kids and I don't think of the rods as color, but as numbers. Playing with the rods, the kids have discovered mathematical relationships and some of my kids have "discovered" multiplication at preschool ages by just playing with the rods as I make dinner.

 

I would never add the colors as that makes no sense mathematically.

[PeterPan]

I just asked my dd, who has never seen a C rod in her life, to describe eight to me. She said: 5+3, 6+2, 7+1, 8+0, 4+4 ("and all the opposites"), 1+2+2+3, 2x4, 4x2, 16/2, 24/3, 32/4, 40/5, 18-10, and eight ones.

 

I'm guessing that if the material is presented well, it probably doesn't matter whether you use C rods or the abacus.

 

Tara

 

Sounds like your dd is learning her math solidly!!! :)

[Heather in VA]

:iagree:

 

I think this is a matter that one might click better for you and another for me...my ds sees the rods, my dd may click with the alabacus. I don't think either is better across the board. And, it probably makes a big difference if you start with one or the other....spend more time with one or the other.

 

I wanted to point out that my ds is not dependent upon the C rods to do math he's already mastered...it's a manipulative to outgrow in time (just like any other).

 

It's a tool, and only one in an over-abundance of math manipulatives. If it works, use it. If not, don't.

 

And I think this is why it is dangerous for any company to say their manipulative is "right" or superior to the rest because it will not be the best way for all kids. As we've seen in this discussion, our kids all learn in different ways. Although I'm currently using RS for one of my kids, this is the very reason I have been frustrated with them in the past. My experience with them has been very poor when it comes to acknowledging that it's possible that a child may need a different approach than RS (or even a particular RS lesson). The implication when I've talked to them about different challenges has been that if a child isn't getting it their way either he isn't ready to learn it or the teacher is doing it wrong. I find that disturbing knowing that homeschooling moms out there could be intimidated into thinking they are failing their child or might prevent them from making a change because they are worried about not doing it "right".

 

Of course RS isn't the only company out there guilty of this but this topic is about RS.

 

Heather

[PeterPan]

Heather, perspective on these things always comes with more experience. You happen to have a lot of experience. :)

 

I mean we could get into a whole gamut here on frustrations with curriculum providers. Kathleen has kids in ps and was afterschooled by her mom (Dr. Cotter). Dr. Cotter ran a montessori school, not homeschool. MCT is annoying people with their vendor. BJU drives us perpetually batty with their good intentions and inability to fit the needs of homeschoolers. It just goes on and on. We put up with the stupidity and take the good.

[MeganW]

Y'all are freaking me out. I have been working for AGES with my kids on counting. Look at 8 things, COUNT them to figure out how many there are.

 

Are we totally screwed when we start math??? Should I have avoided teaching counting before we started math??? Do I need to cease & desist immediately???

 

We just started MUS Primer and Singapore EB. MUS seems to encourage counting, and EB, well, it's just weird but I'm trusting that I will think it is good when we are done based on everyone else's reviews.

[forty-two]

Y'all are freaking me out. I have been working for AGES with my kids on counting. Look at 8 things, COUNT them to figure out how many there are.

 

Are we totally screwed when we start math??? Should I have avoided teaching counting before we started math??? Do I need to cease & desist immediately???

 

We just started MUS Primer and Singapore EB. MUS seems to encourage counting, and EB, well, it's just weird but I'm trusting that I will think it is good when we are done based on everyone else's reviews.

Not counting is mostly an RS thing - here is an explanation of why, and what to do with young children instead. It's not that you don't ever count, but that you try not to count small quantities (under 5), but learn to see those quantities as a unit.

 

Anyway, I had the same "oh no, I thought counting was a *good* thing - I've been *emphasizing* it" when I first read about it, too :grouphug:. But I've decided not to worry about it overmuch. I've been able to retrain myself to see those quantities as a whole as an adult, I'm sure my dc can manage it at 5 or 6. I don't deliberately count small groups anymore, but I count when it is natural to do so, and while I occasionally do some visualization games with my dd, I don't fret if she'd rather just count. We'll get there.

[Spy Car]

Y'all are freaking me out. I have been working for AGES with my kids on counting. Look at 8 things, COUNT them to figure out how many there are.

 

Are we totally screwed when we start math??? Should I have avoided teaching counting before we started math??? Do I need to cease & desist immediately???

 

We just started MUS Primer and Singapore EB. MUS seems to encourage counting, and EB, well, it's just weird but I'm trusting that I will think it is good when we are done based on everyone else's reviews.

 

Billions of children around the world have learned math by "counting things" and done just fine. i wouldn't let the practices of a few "math weirdos" freak you out.

 

Bill (math weirdo :tongue_smilie:)

[PeterPan]

When my dd started RS, she had no trouble going from counting objects to recognizing quantities. It's quite natural. Don't sweat it. If you decide to do RS, you'll be fine. If you decide not to do RS, you'll probably be fine too. :)

[Haiku]

If you decide to do RS, you'll be fine. If you decide not to do RS, you'll probably be fine too. :)

 

No, no, armageddon will come if you don't do RS. ;) :D

 

Tara