Math People: Why does RS disagree with Cuisinaire rods?

[Ellyndria]

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.

 

 

It'll be ok. I had been counting to DS since he was a baby, and he learned his numbers early. He easily recognized small numbers like two and three without counting, long before we started RS. He *was* somewhat resistant about not counting (but he's resistant about a lot of stuff) when we started Rightstart A, but he picked it up easily enough.

[stripe]

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 find this claim curious. Or at least surprising. I think I need time to ponder the somewhat Platonic notion of a number "form."

 

I really enjoy reading the posts of those on the boards who have contributed their experiences teaching RS and other programs for several years. Thank you all.

 

Personally re counting -- I think it is a useful skill to know how to count, but it shouldn't end there.

[Spy Car]

I find this claim curious. Or at least surprising. I think I need time to ponder the somewhat Platonic notion of a number "form."

 

 

I'm not sure I'm getting your point. Do you care to elaborate?

 

Bill

[siloam]

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?

 

I think both are good tools, I prefer the Abacus. I used Miquon for 2 years before RS and I never learned the color coding. Drove me nuts! My kids did learn it and knew it well, but still they didn't like the rods and they do like the Abacus. I can't explain why either. :confused1: It might be in part due to not having the scored rods.

 

The one thing I don't care for with RS is the use of the block cards. I own a set of Interlocking Base 10 Blocks that we use instead. Interlocking because that way we can build a 10, and see that it is really 10. Then we can build a 100 and see that it is really 100, and then build 1000 and see that it really is 1000. Though once RS gets into multiple 1000's work I do have to use the cards, but at that point my kids are well grounded in the quantities, so it is not a problem. I think it is partly the same sort of issue.

 

For me, and I think my kids, the "seeing" quantities work in RS really clicked. With rods the color coding seemed so abstract and unnecessary. Though again the scoring would help.

 

If you had a scored set of rods I don't see why you couldn't add the RS coloring coding. :D That way it would work with the whole RS system. Or just use them as is, if it works for the child and they are getting the visualizing quantities, then there is no reason why they can't use the rods.

 

Heather

[Spy Car]

: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, though you could, if you wanted. But that is hardly the sum total of math.

 

As a "calculating" tool I think there is no question an abacus )in the hands of one who is adept using it) is a vastly superior calculator than C. Rods. It's not even a close call.

 

And the AL abacus is an interesting tool for teaching place value, and along with the RS place value cards and the base-10 cards the Right Start method for working on place value is really interesting and strong. I happily use these methods.

 

However, the C. Rods with the addition of a set of 10 base-10 "flats" (which are each the "size" of 10 "Ten" rods) to serve as 100 values, is a great way to teach place value to children who are not developmentally ready to understand the place value system on an abacus.

 

At 3.5 - 4 a child can "make" numbers into the hundreds using rods and blocks, and learn to speak of multi-digit in terms of the number of "hundreds", "tens", and "units" that comprise that number. And (this is the critical part) the values have a direct relationship to a tangible (or concrete) value, and one they understand easily.

 

The abacus, while worthy in many ways, requires more "abstract" reasoning ability when you ask a child to exchange 10 "unit" beads for 1 "Ten" bead. So a child has to be further along in their intellectual development to grasp the abacus.

 

Did I mention I like the abacus? ;)

 

 

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 magnitudes 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.

 

Points well made!

 

Classically (as you know but others may not), when using C Rods the "values" can shift. An Orange Rod ("ordinarily" a "Ten") can be "re-valued" to "One" with White Rods ("ordinarily" One "Unit") now being used to demonstrate "One-Tenth".

 

The same can be done with fractions/division. A Lt. Green Rod is one-third of a blue rod.

 

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.

 

:iagree:

 

Bill

[Poke Salad Annie]

As a "calculating" tool I think there is no question an abacus )in the hands of one who is adept using it) is a vastly superior calculator than C. Rods. It's not even a close call.

 

Classically (as you know but others may not), when using C Rods the "values" can shift. An Orange Rod ("ordinarily" a "Ten") can be "re-valued" to "One" with White Rods ("ordinarily" One "Unit") now being used to demonstrate "One-Tenth".

 

The same can be done with fractions/division. A Lt. Green Rod is one-third of a blue rod.

 

 

Bill

 

:iagree:

[stripe]

You: 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.

Me: I find this claim curious. Or at least surprising. I think I need time to ponder the somewhat Platonic notion of a number "form."

You: I'm not sure I'm getting your point. Do you care to elaborate?

 

I don't have a point yet. I am saying to contemplate a number without a form is an interesting one (and specifically what is a number in its purest form), especially when (per your later post) that number rod also has no set value. So I am not entirely sure what a Cuisinaire rod is anymore.

 

However, the C. Rods with the addition of a set of 10 base-10 "flats" (which are each the "size" of 10 "Ten" rods) to serve as 100 values, is a great way to teach place value to children who are not developmentally ready to understand the place value system on an abacus.

Except that the flats and cubes don't demonstrate place value. They may provide a concrete model of large numbers, but, as is noted by Parker & Baldridge in Elementary Mathematics for Teachers, having a cube, a flat, a rod, and a unit to stand for 1111 doesn't explain the significance of the different meanings of "1" based on position.

[Spy Car]

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.

 

Well, part of the process in learning the value of the rods (and why they are successful with young children) is the values can be compared. So they see relative value, a learn that 7 is One "Unit" more than 6.

 

After a time I think a child could fairly easily tell with high degree of accuracy the value of a rod based on its length alone (stripped of its color and in isolation from other rods). I certainly does make it more convenient that there are colors associated with rod lengths.

 

But if I ask my son to draw a 5 cm line (as I have) which is the length of a "Black Rod" (which in ordinary circumstances is a 5 value) he can do pretty well "free-hand."

 

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).

 

Children (and adults) I'm sure will differ in how they respond to learning tools and methods. My experience is quite limited, but the C Rods were a "natural" for my son, and made teaching concepts easy for me.

 

And my experience has been very consistent with that of many of the parents here who have used Miquon and the C. Rods as their introduction to math. So I'm a huge fan of Cuisenaire Rods as a learning tool.

 

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

 

That's true.

 

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.

 

Sure. The AL abacus is not "color dependent" (aside from being bi-colored in groups of 5s). The colors are arbitrary. The colors of the rods are arbitrary as well. It would be untrue for me to say a child doesn't "associate" a clor with a value to some degree (as in they need a "4" and go looking for a "Purple") but this is not the convoluted color/number association some would have you believe.

 

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.

 

I agree. But this does take training and teaching. Nothing wrong with training and teaching, few advances in education come without training and teaching.

 

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.

 

I think you're right. At some point a child could more quickly "see" 8 beads in a "Tens" row and 7 beads on a "Units" row, than they could visualize 8 Orange Rods and a Black Rod (7) because it's relatively hard to see a group of eight. That is true.

 

However, it is an intellectual leap to see a bead on one wire being 10 x (or 100 X or 1000 X) the value of another bead just because the wire it resides on changing. With the C. Rods the physical area concretely reflects its relative value.

 

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?

 

Both. From the very first activities, including on called "trains" where rods of are stacked to make a value in many ways, on through the lessons in a program like Miquon, re-grouping is an essential skill that is developed. This is second-nature to a child raised on this type of "math play."

 

And Singapore-style "number bonds" are a cinch for a kid who has been re-grouping with rods.

 

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.

 

Yes, but then you'd direct her "discovery." The Cuisenaire based programs like Miquon don't figure the children will just play and get it all on their own. There are plenty of concepts I've taught as direct instruction, and demonstrated. But it is nice to be able to show them how to do something and then allow them to take over at least part of the process on their own. I think it builds both confidence, and a mathy-mind.

 

Bill

[Spy Car]

You: 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.

Me: I find this claim curious. Or at least surprising. I think I need time to ponder the somewhat Platonic notion of a number "form."

You: I'm not sure I'm getting your point. Do you care to elaborate?

 

I don't have a point yet. I am saying to contemplate a number without a form is an interesting one (and specifically what is a number in its purest form), especially when (per your later post) that number rod also has no set value. So I am not entirely sure what a Cuisinaire rod is anymore.

 

Oh. That's easy. A rod is a physically concrete manipulative that shows relative value by length. In the most common usage the values do correspond with the rod's length in centimeters. So as not to confuse children (or parents) this "valuation" is not changed until it is age appropriate to use them in other fashions.

 

Except that the flats and cubes don't demonstrate place value. They may provide a concrete model of large numbers, but, as is noted by Parker & Baldridge in Elementary Mathematics for Teachers, having a cube, a flat, a rod, and a unit to stand for 1111 doesn't explain the significance of the different meanings of "1" based on position.

 

Well, the work is not over in teaching place value just because you have the manipulative.

 

However, if you have a 10x10x1 cm "flat" (a Hundred value) a child can compare this flat to 10 "Ten" Rods and see they are equal in size. And you can form numbers with the flats, Ten rods, and Unit Rods that a child can describe as "Hundreds", "Tens" and "Units."

 

They can learn to write the numbers in their proper place if (for example) they are presented with 3 Flats, 4 Tens and 5 Units, or the child can model the numbers with manipulatives if presented the three digit numbers.

 

That's no small deal. It reinforces place value while at the same time showing the relative value of what 4 "Hundreds" is vs 4 "Tens" or 4 "Units" in a fashion young children can readily understand.

 

Bill

Edited January 31, 2010 by Spy Car

[FairProspects]

Another question:

 

Are Singapore number bonds the same as a number line? Our K state standards say that K'ers must be able to identify numbers on a number line and I'm trying to figure out the best way to teach this info to ds.

[Spy Car]

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.

 

But the rods are not "mysteriously" long. The values (in the introductory phase) associate to the rods value in centimeters.

 

Believe it (or don't) but it is easy for young children to "conserve value by length" as an excellent article on Elizabeth B's website quoting child psychologist Jean Piaget points out.

 

And I'll tell you I no longer have the slightest problem estimating length in centimeters. For a child reared with these it will be second-nature.

 

Bill

Edited January 31, 2010 by Spy Car

[Spy Car]

Another question:

 

Are Singapore number bonds the same as a number line? Our K state standards say that K'ers must be able to identify numbers on a number line and I'm trying to figure out the best way to teach this info to ds.

 

No. "Number bonds" are a pictorial way to re-group (or split) a number into (usually) two component parts.

 

Example:

 

..[8]

...^

[5] [3]

 

Often-times one part of the "number bond is left as the "unknown." Singapore uses number bonds to show that addition and subtracting (and re-grouping) are inter-related.

 

8 - 3 = 5

5 + 3 = 8

 

And so on.

 

Bill

Edited January 31, 2010 by Spy Car

[Kuovonne]

Bill,

 

Oh dear, I'm afraid that I'm in danger of veering off the purpose of this thread.

Does it help that reading this thread is making this die-hard AL-abacus user want to buy some c-rods?

 

Based on this thread, I asked my daughter "what is eight?" I got a few answers, and then on a whim asked what color eight was. Sparkle immediately answered "green." I then proceeded to find out that according to her each number has a color. I have *no* idea where she got this from. She has never used c-rods, MUS blocks, or the like. Would her personal association of colors and numbers, which is different from c-rods, get in the way of using c-rods?

 

However, it is an intellectual leap to see a bead on one wire being 10 x (or 100 X or 1000 X) the value of another bead just because the wire it resides on changing. With the C. Rods the physical area concretely reflects its relative value.

 

The AL-abacus only works the way you described way on side 2. You can use side 1 to teach place value, and the RS manual teaches it this way. A bead is a one. A rod/wire is one ten. An abacus is one hundred. (It helps that I have 4 abacuses, but you can do it with one abacus.)

 

From the very first activities, including on called "trains" where rods of are stacked to make a value in many ways, on through the lessons in a program like Miquon, re-grouping is an essential skill that is developed. This is second-nature to a child raised on this type of "math play."

 

Hum. Maybe I'm wrong, but I still think that my daughter would resist the "find all the combinations" activities, even in "play." Doing the re-grouping (partitioning) exercises in RightStart with my daughter has been incredibly difficult. (Even super simple re-grouping, like all the ways to regroup five tally sticks!) We both get so frustrated that I end up having to show her all the combinations myself.

 

It certainly sounds like Miquon uses much more re-grouping exercises than RightStart. Maybe it would help my daughter re-group more easily. Or maybe it would lead to more frustration. In any case RightStart has got my daughter regrouping enough to do double digit mental addition with carrying (e.g. 64 + 78).

 

But it is nice to be able to show them how to do something and then allow them to take over at least part of the process on their own. I think it builds both confidence, and a mathy-mind.

 

I agree. I think that both programs do that.

[Jumping In Puddles]

 

The one thing I don't care for with RS is the use of the block cards. I own a set of Interlocking Base 10 Blocks that we use instead. Interlocking because that way we can build a 10, and see that it is really 10. Then we can build a 100 and see that it is really 100, and then build 1000 and see that it really is 1000. Though once RS gets into multiple 1000's work I do have to use the cards, but at that point my kids are well grounded in the quantities, so it is not a problem. I think it is partly the same sort of issue.

 

 

I wish RS had these interlocking Base 10 blocks in their package. I do have blocks that I use instead of the paper abacus tiles and a few thousand-cubes but I much prefer the interlocking blocks.

[Spy Car]

Bill,

 

Oh dear, I'm afraid that I'm in danger of veering off the purpose of this thread.

Does it help that reading this thread is making this die-hard AL-abacus user want to buy some c-rods?

 

Of course, we are Borgs :D

 

Based on this thread, I asked my daughter "what is eight?" I got a few answers, and then on a whim asked what color eight was. Sparkle immediately answered "green." I then proceeded to find out that according to her each number has a color. I have *no* idea where she got this from. She has never used c-rods, MUS blocks, or the like. Would her personal association of colors and numbers, which is different from c-rods, get in the way of using c-rods?

 

I think unless her preconception of number/color relationships is unusually persistent and fixed that it is highly unlikely to be a problem.

 

The AL-abacus only works the way you described way on side 2. You can use side 1 to teach place value, and the RS manual teaches it this way. A bead is a one. A rod/wire is one ten. An abacus is one hundred. (It helps that I have 4 abacuses, but you can do it with one abacus.)

 

Right. But there is still some amount of abstraction that a bead on one row (or column, or on another abacus) is a "Unit" value at times, a "Tens" value at others, or a Hundreds, Thousands, Ten Thousands at other times.

 

I've used colored poker chips and assigned a Hundreds, Tens or Unit value to the chip. It works, but the "relative value" (by area) is lacking. So manipulatives need to be geared to where a child is developmentally. And the C. Rods are highly valuable when a child is either young, or in need of concrete visualization of value to make numbers tangible.

 

Hum. Maybe I'm wrong, but I still think that my daughter would resist the "find all the combinations" activities, even in "play." Doing the re-grouping (partitioning) exercises in RightStart with my daughter has been incredibly difficult. (Even super simple re-grouping, like all the ways to regroup five tally sticks!) We both get so frustrated that I end up having to show her all the combinations myself.

 

The idea (reinforced in Miquon) is to keep things like "making trains" like play. To make it fun. And the words "re-grouping" never have to pass you lips.

 

It certainly sounds like Miquon uses much more re-grouping exercises than RightStart. Maybe it would help my daughter re-group more easily. Or maybe it would lead to more frustration. In any case RightStart has got my daughter regrouping enough to do double digit mental addition with carrying (e.g. 64 + 78).

 

That sounds like a good achievement. If the RS program is bring you success you might not want to monkey with it. There is a method to Dr Cotter's madness and if your daughter is doing the mental math you suggest, I'm not sure I'd advise changing course now. If she has a good grasp of what a "Hundred" vs a "Ten" or a One really represents in relative terms, I'm not so sure you need to add the C. Rods. If she struggles there, you might consider it.

 

I'm sorry for the "mixed message" this post is going to offer, but my understanding "evolved" by the end. Note to self: read all the way through before answering posts :tongue_smilie:

 

Best wishes on your math journey.

 

Bill

[FO4UR]

 

Hum. Maybe I'm wrong, but I still think that my daughter would resist the "find all the combinations" activities, even in "play." Doing the re-grouping (partitioning) exercises in RightStart with my daughter has been incredibly difficult. (Even super simple re-grouping, like all the ways to regroup five tally sticks!) We both get so frustrated that I end up having to show her all the combinations myself.

 

It certainly sounds like Miquon uses much more re-grouping exercises than RightStart. Maybe it would help my daughter re-group more easily. Or maybe it would lead to more frustration. In any case RightStart has got my daughter regrouping enough to do double digit mental addition with carrying (e.g. 64 + 78).

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think Miquon is better for seeing number bonds! I also think the "playful" aspect of teaching is best started early!!! There is a big difference between a 4yo and a 8yo for ex....the 4yo thinks it's fun to build houses and trains with mom, the 8yo likely does NOT!

 

It's easy to show a 4yo that he can fix his crooked building by substituting a green+red for a yellow...b/c purple is close, but not just right. By the time that 4yo gets to 1st grade, the relationships are intuitive and that's the "prize" for using C rods.

 

Even if it's no longer "play," the C rods provide a different visual cue (and math must be done, play or not)...and if the alabacus is not clicking with that concept, I would try something else. You can make an imitation by cutting out 1cm strips, and try it out cheap.

 

 

 

 

[Melissa in St Louis]

I hope this is kind of on topic....could someone please point me where I need to go to learn about the abacus? I mean, how to use it and what not? I kind of "get it" myself, but I don't have even the foggiest idea how to put that into words for my kids. (I AM NOT a math person. I developed an ulcer in high school due to Algebra II. Seriously.)

 

Thanks!!!!

[Spy Car]

I hope this is kind of on topic....could someone please point me where I need to go to learn about the abacus? I mean, how to use it and what not? I kind of "get it" myself, but I don't have even the foggiest idea how to put that into words for my kids. (I AM NOT a math person. I developed an ulcer in high school due to Algebra II. Seriously.)

 

Thanks!!!!

 

The "Activities for AL Abacus" book from Right Start offers a very through method/instruction in using their abacus in the RS fashion.

 

Bill

[Melissa in St Louis]

The "Activities for AL Abacus" book from Right Start offers a very through method/instruction in using their abacus in the RS fashion.

 

Bill

 

Thank you! :001_smile:

[Spy Car]

Thank you! :001_smile:

 

You're welcome :001_smile:

 

If you are going to implement an RS-lite abacus-based math instruction there is also a "Workbook" that goes along with the "Activities" book. I've never owned the "Workbook" but have kicked myself for not getting it, as I suspect it would make using the AL abacus as a supplement much easier than without.

 

And get the inexpensive "place value cards and "base-10" cards if you're ordering from RS as they are quite useful.

 

Bill

[Spy Car]

I think Miquon is better for seeing number bonds! I also think the "playful" aspect of teaching is best started early!!! There is a big difference between a 4yo and a 8yo for ex....the 4yo thinks it's fun to build houses and trains with mom, the 8yo likely does NOT!

 

It's easy to show a 4yo that he can fix his crooked building by substituting a green+red for a yellow...b/c purple is close, but not just right. By the time that 4yo gets to 1st grade, the relationships are intuitive and that's the "prize" for using C rods.

 

:iagree:

 

Where the Cuisenaire Rods are especially useful is with young children. 3.5-4, or 5. This is a tool they can understand at this age, one that unlocks mathematical relationships makes math comprehensible and is an approach I'm convinced will continue to pay huge dividends in years to come.

 

Bill

[Kuovonne]

Right. But there is still some amount of abstraction that a bead on one row (or column, or on another abacus) is a "Unit" value at times, a "Tens" value at others, or a Hundreds, Thousands, Ten Thousands at other times.I've used colored poker chips and assigned a Hundreds, Tens or Unit value to the chip. It works, but the "relative value" (by area) is lacking. So manipulatives need to be geared to where a child is developmentally. And the C. Rods are highly valuable when a child is either young, or in need of concrete visualization of value to make numbers tangible.

I think you're still thinking of side 2 of the abacus. When you use side 1 of the abacus to teach place value, you still have the relative value by area. (One bead vs. one rod of beads vs. a complete abacus)

The RightStart lessons do a *brilliant* job of teaching place value starting with side 1 of the abacus, moving to building base-10 blocks, moving to pictures of base-10 blocks, moving to side 2 of the abacus. If you've never seen the lessons and the transition using base-10 picture cards you can't fully appreciate how RightStart teaches place value. It's very gradually and methodically without cognitive leaps.

The idea (reinforced in Miquon) is to keep things like "making trains" like play. To make it fun. And the words "re-grouping" never have to pass you lips.

I understand what you mean about play, but even in play my daughter would resist the activities you describe. She is *not* a visual/spacial learner. When she was supposed to make a four sided shape in RS level A using popsicle sticks, she ended up in tears because she was completely unable to do it. It took her months and months to pick out thirty cents using anything but three dimes even though she had great incentive to do so. I could show her a bunch of different coins and she could add up that they were worth 30 cents, but when picking out coins on her own, she wouldn't/couldn't pick out anything but three dimes.

That sounds like a good achievement. If the RS program is bring you success you might not want to monkey with it.

Well, I hate the RightStart script ;-).

 

I'm not so sure you need to add the C. Rods. If she struggles there, you might consider it.

I'm actually considering the c. rods for the early introduction to fractions and multiplication. Oh, and as a fun toy for my younger daughter.

[Spy Car]

I think you're still thinking of side 2 of the abacus. When you use side 1 of the abacus to teach place value, you still have the relative value by area. (One bead vs. one rod of beads vs. a complete abacus)

The RightStart lessons do a *brilliant* job of teaching place value starting with side 1 of the abacus, moving to building base-10 blocks, moving to pictures of base-10 blocks, moving to side 2 of the abacus. If you've never seen the lessons and the transition using base-10 picture cards you can't fully appreciate how RightStart teaches place value. It's very gradually and methodically without cognitive leaps.

 

I know of what you're saying only though the "Activities" book and no the full RS program, so I know what you're referring to but you (and other RS users) may be at an advantage here in how the lessons progress.

 

I must say that linking the abacus to "base-10 cards" (while I approve of the method) is essentially using a "pictorial" form of C. Rods/base-10 blocks (rather than the concrete manipulative itself), And for that reason, it might "unwise" for Dr Cotter (who I deeply respect) to criticize the use of rods/blocks when her program uses them (in pictorial form) itself. KWIM? ;)

 

 

I understand what you mean about play, but even in play my daughter would resist the activities you describe. She is *not* a visual/spacial learner. When she was supposed to make a four sided shape in RS level A using popsicle sticks, she ended up in tears because she was completely unable to do it. It took her months and months to pick out thirty cents using anything but three dimes even though she had great incentive to do so. I could show her a bunch of different coins and she could add up that they were worth 30 cents, but when picking out coins on her own, she wouldn't/couldn't pick out anything but three dimes.

 

This makes it hard to know if in her case the C Rods would be a big failure, or might provoke a "light-bulb" moment. Seems too hard to predict. Maybe worth a try?

 

I'm actually considering the c. rods for the early introduction to fractions and multiplication. Oh, and as a fun toy for my younger daughter.

 

Ah. If there's a younger one coming along it's good to get them early.

 

Bill (who's starting to sound like a cult-leader :D)

[brehon]

Bill,

 

Oh dear, I'm afraid that I'm in danger of veering off the purpose of this thread.

Does it help that reading this thread is making this die-hard AL-abacus user want to buy some c-rods?

 

Based on this thread, I asked my daughter "what is eight?" I got a few answers, and then on a whim asked what color eight was. Sparkle immediately answered "green." I then proceeded to find out that according to her each number has a color. I have *no* idea where she got this from. She has never used c-rods, MUS blocks, or the like. Would her personal association of colors and numbers, which is different from c-rods, get in the way of using c-rods?

 

 

Way OT here...

 

Could your dd have synesthesia? For me it manifests in letters and musical notes. My work changed the shifts' names from colors (red, blue, gold) to letters (A, B, C) and I absolutely. can. NOT. correlate the old color names to the new letter names because I "see" the letters in different colors than the ones they represent at work. Does that make any sense? As for music and what I "see" when I sing/play/hear it - Bach is wonderful and almost anything from the Renaissance is absolutely sublime; most 20th works, eh, not so much.

[stripe]

And get the inexpensive "place value cards and "base-10" cards if you're ordering from RS as they are quite useful.

The Activities for AL Abacus book has place value cards in the back (you'd have to copy onto card stock), along with other cards. I don't think there's a set of base 10 cards, though.

 

If you're interested in what Aharoni (Arithmetic for Parents) has to say about Cuisenaire rods (I mentioned this early in this thread) but you can't get your hands on his book, here are some references I've found online to his views. He was involved in developing the Israeli math curriculum and brought Singapore's Primary Mathematics texts there. These two articles discuss the famous rods:

http://arielrubinstein.tau.ac.il/articles/haaretz_082504Eng.htm

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=267177

(discussed here too: http://kitchentablemath.blogspot.com/2007_05_27_archive.html )

[Spy Car]

The Activities for AL Abacus book has place value cards in the back (you'd have to copy onto card stock), along with other cards. I don't think there's a set of base 10 cards, though.

 

The ones from RS are made of plastic and are pretty tough. And they are cheap. So they are a good value from my perspective.

 

If you're interested in what Aharoni (Arithmetic for Parents) has to say about Cuisenaire rods (I mentioned this early in this thread) but you can't get your hands on his book, here are some references I've found online to his views. He was involved in developing the Israeli math curriculum and brought Singapore's Primary Mathematics texts there. These two articles discuss the famous rods:

http://arielrubinstein.tau.ac.il/articles/haaretz_082504Eng.htm

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=267177

(discussed here too: http://kitchentablemath.blogspot.com/2007_05_27_archive.html )

 

I am interested. You've had me curious about his possible objections since you mentioned them earlier, so I appreciate the links. :001_smile:

 

Bill

[Spy Car]

If you're interested in what Aharoni (Arithmetic for Parents) has to say about Cuisenaire rods (I mentioned this early in this thread) but you can't get your hands on his book, here are some references I've found online to his views. He was involved in developing the Israeli math curriculum and brought Singapore's Primary Mathematics texts there. These two articles discuss the famous rods:

http://arielrubinstein.tau.ac.il/articles/haaretz_082504Eng.htm

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=267177

(discussed here too: http://kitchentablemath.blogspot.com/2007_05_27_archive.html )

 

OK. I read the articles, and the degree of ignorance contained in them was hard to take.

 

The Cuisenaire Rods are valuable tools for teaching exactly the sort of lessons thay say Israeli children need to learn,

 

The apparent fact that a horrible math program (One, Two..Three) was built around C. Rods is, I would suggest, a problem with the math program and not the manipulative.

 

Oe could easily imagine that instead of a very-strong math program like RS, than a truly awful math program used the same tool. It might provoke similar (unwarranted) derision of the manipulative rather than looking at the way that tool was used (or mis-used).

 

C. Rods are a wonderful compliment to the Singapore method, and it's too bad the Israelis threw the baby out with the bath-water.

 

Bill

Edited February 1, 2010 by Spy Car

[stripe]

With all due respect, and realizing that you are an ardent fan, mathematicians and math educators (large numbers of them, in fact) found that they confused children and were not beneficial. I don't think you should take it quite so personally.

[Aoife]

Way OT here...

 

Could your dd have synesthesia? For me it manifests in letters and musical notes. My work changed the shifts' names from colors (red, blue, gold) to letters (A, B, C) and I absolutely. can. NOT. correlate the old color names to the new letter names because I "see" the letters in different colors than the ones they represent at work. Does that make any sense? As for music and what I "see" when I sing/play/hear it - Bach is wonderful and almost anything from the Renaissance is absolutely sublime; most 20th works, eh, not so much.

 

 

I was about to ask the same question :P My hubby and I just finished reading an article in Scientific American about a man who was a math genius with synesthesia who saw numbers as a color and texture. I will have to dig up the article. It was absolutely fascinating and left my mathy hubby curious if one could be taught to assign color/texture to number. The man had assigned up to 2,000 independent numbers a color/texture combination that made mental math a breeze for him and he holds the current record for being able to recite Pi. He sees math as simply combining the colors/textures which makes it easier for his brain to process with out the converting that takes place when the average person computes a problem in their head.

 

A few moments ago I mentioned the post to my hubby when he came in the door and the first words out of his mouth were to see if Kuovonne would ask her daughter what she saw other colors as.

 

 

Ok back OT I am finding this discussion so enlightening and am loving seeing all the different opinions and experiences. My son is 3 as of today so we are really just gearing up to start and this has me really considering adding RS into our math setup as another angle of learning. Right now we are set to use SM EB and miquon. I have Crods, base ten blocks, bear counters and a math balance but hadn't really read enough of RS or the alabacus yet. I myself HATED math terribly so I am determined to make this as fun and easy as possible to give T the best start with the most solid foundation to make it easier to build off of while we go. It is also a learning experience for me and as I have been reading the materials I find myself becoming obsessed and actually beginning to really like math GASP! lol I really don't mid using more materials and incorporating other ideas as I'd like him to see math from all the angles I just don't want to get to the point of overwhelming him. KWIM Do you all think that it would be ok to use RS in conjunction with SM and miquon?

[Spy Car]

With all due respect, and realizing that you are an ardent fan, mathematicians and math educators (large numbers of them, in fact) found that they confused children and were not beneficial. I don't think you should take it quite so personally.

 

With equally due respect, because an evidently badly implemented Israeli math program used C Rods in a way that may have confused children, simply doesn't alter my opinion they they can be used to great success.

 

Groucho Marx once said: "Who are you going to believe, me, or your own lying eyes?"

 

I've simply seen their efficacy too strongly demonstrated first-hand to let the opinion of "math experts" convince me other-wise. The fact that there are a multitude of parents on this forum who are of the same opinion after using the rods with their children, makes me think we are not some exception-to-the-rule.

 

Bill

[nmoira]

With all due respect, and realizing that you are an ardent fan, mathematicians and math educators (large numbers of them, in fact) found that they confused children and were not beneficial. I don't think you should take it quite so personally.

I'm not an ardent fan, but I didn't read anything to this effect in the links you provided. I have no doubt that some of the people quoted believe them to be useless, but all the references to the use of Cuisenaire rods were relation to the two year program One, Two ... Three. I did try to find out more information about the program but to no avail. I think it's important to remember that Cuisenaire rods tools, and not a program in and of themselves.

"The idea of the rods doesn't make sense," says physicist Dr. Mira Ofran of the Science Teaching Center at Hebrew University in Jerusalem. "What the child in the first grade learns is that green + yellow = purple. But he doesn't really know how much it is. That is a terrible thing - basing math on something that is not on math. It is not difficult to see that this entire method is groundless from beginning to end. I have written articles on this, spoken about this with everyone and anyone willing to listen. The most terrible thing is that there was no choice. The Ministry of Education decided to follow this program and only this program all these years."

I don't know about One, Two ... Three, but it only took DD the Younger two or three Lotto games in Miquon to make the association between the rods and their corresponding 1-10 values. I've worked my way through the Orange Book and have started on Red, and I must say that I see a method to the madness. ;) However, I can't see how this would work in the vast majority of ps classrooms, given the degree of teacher/facilitator training which would be required.

[Kuovonne]

I must say that linking the abacus to "base-10 cards" (while I approve of the method) is essentially using a "pictorial" form of C. Rods/base-10 blocks (rather than the concrete manipulative itself),

 

While RightStart uses base-10 picture cards, it does not use a "pictorial form of C. Rods". You create paper verson of (and later have pictures of) single blocks, rods, flats, and cubes. RightStart doesn't use manipulatives (either physical or pictorial) that represent 2-9. So RightStart only uses the base-10 block part of the C. Rod/base-10 block system that you used.

 

If the "activities" book doesn't include the paper base-10 blocks, the base-10picture cards, or the "dot cards", you're missing a *huge* link in how RightStart teaches place value.

 

Of course, we are Borgs :D

 

Help! I'm being assimilated. I just picked up a set of Miquon Rods & Books from the For Sale board. Only, the set doesn't include the First Grade Diary. Will I through the set out in frustration if I don't have that one book?

 

Could your dd have synesthesia?

 

Maybe. I quizzed her on the numbers from 1-10 and they all had colors. Some of them had the same color.

 

I just finished reading an article in Scientific American about a man who was a math genius with synesthesia who saw numbers as a color and texture.

 

DD is definitely not a math genius.

[Spy Car]

While RightStart uses base-10 picture cards, it does not use a "pictorial form of C. Rods". You create paper verson of (and later have pictures of) single blocks, rods, flats, and cubes. RightStart doesn't use manipulatives (either physical or pictorial) that represent 2-9. So RightStart only uses the base-10 block part of the C. Rod/base-10 block system that you used.

 

If the "activities" book doesn't include the paper base-10 blocks, the base-10picture cards, or the "dot cards", you're missing a *huge* link in how RightStart teaches place value.

 

I have all those things, through one means or another (dot cards I'd already made myself). And I like the way RS teaches place value. Being an ardent fan of C. Rods, doesn't mean I don't hold RS (as best I understand it not using the full program) in high esteem.

 

 

Help! I'm being assimilated. I just picked up a set of Miquon Rods & Books from the For Sale board. Only, the set doesn't include the First Grade Diary. Will I through the set out in frustration if I don't have that one book?

 

Please don't consider using Miquon without reading the First Grade Diary. Truly believe this is where you'll find the heart and soul of the program. It remains one of the most important books I've read on childhood education, and is like spending a year with a wise and kindly mentor.

 

Don't miss out on this part of the program for the $6 plus shipping it will cost you. If it turns out I've given you bad advice you can come to this forum later and tell everyone I'm full of it. But I'm confident that won't be the case.

 

Bill

[nmoira]

 

Don't miss out on this part of the program for the $6 plus shipping it will cost you. If it turns out I've given you bad advice you can come to this forum later and tell everyone I'm full of it. But I'm confident that won't be the case.

You can purchase it in a downloadable version from CurrClick and print it however you like (or read on the computer screen); mine is printed 2 pages per sheet, double sided.

[Spy Car]

You can purchase it in a downloadable version from CurrClick and print it however you like (or read on the computer screen); mine is printed 2 pages per sheet, double sided.

 

If I had me one of them new-fangled e-books I'd.....;)

 

Honestly, I've snuggled with this book too many nights before heading off to dream-land to want anything other than a physical book.

 

Maybe I'm hopelessly attached to nostalgic technologies? But the First Grade Diary is a friend. A dear (dear) friend.

 

Bill

[Snowfall]

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

 

I know this thread is a few days old, but I was reading it and I thought maybe THIS was why we've had such a difficult time with B. According to RS's placement questions, DD should have started in B. We ordered B and essentially quit using it altogether several months ago, in favor of sticking solely with MEP. DD absolutely HATED RS, despite the fact that she's an extremely visual child who loves games and manipulatives and all the things RS uses to teach the concepts. It was very frustrating for me.

 

She's in K and we've been using the Year 1 stuff from MEP, but she doesn't particularly seem to love that, either. Do you think I should go back and try RS again with level A or just assume this really isn't the program for DD? I don't want her to hate math! I was always proficient in math, but I hated it anyway. I don't want that for her, if it can be avoided at all. (I know I can't really control that, but I'd like to at least try.)

[Kuovonne]

According to RS's placement questions, DD should have started in B. ... Do you think I should go back and try RS again with level A or just assume this really isn't the program for DD?

 

Do you know why she disliked RightStart B? If the problem was that it moved too fast for her, level A does a great job of slowing things down. Level A is also considered "Kindergarten." Level B is more First Grade. BTW, I think that the RS online placement guide does a horrible job at differentiating between levels A and B.

[MeganW]

:iagree:

 

Where the Cuisenaire Rods are especially useful is with young children. 3.5-4, or 5. This is a tool they can understand at this age, one that unlocks mathematical relationships makes math comprehensible and is an approach I'm convinced will continue to pay huge dividends in years to come.

 

Bill

 

I thought Miquon didn't start until 1st grade? How do you know what to do with rods for 3.5-4 or 5 year olds?

[Spy Car]

I thought Miquon didn't start until 1st grade? How do you know what to do with rods for 3.5-4 or 5 year olds?

 

Miquon was used for 1st Grade by the Miquon school in 1964. In those days many schools didn't begin math instruction (or phonics/reading) until that age.

 

However, I found the Miquon methods perfectly suited to commencing in pre-school or kindergarten. In fact it is at this age, when they can think, but can't write easily, and when "play" and "learning" are an especially joyous combination, that using the materials really shine.

 

The Miquon tools give young children the concrete means (though the rods and other means) to learn a great deal in the pre-k/K years.

 

So I wouldn't take the 1st Grade label too seriously. It is a wonderful method for introducing math to a young child.

 

Bill

[Spy Car]

One additional thought.

 

The Miquon method is also wonderful for pre-K/K because (while a parent does need to be "involved") there is very little required in the way of "instruction". A chil'd "discovery" is guided, and activities are set up for them, but the "burden" (or should I say "gift"?) of *thinking* shifts to them.

 

You can see the little minds whirl. So there is active brain-work going on in their minds, rather than passive "listening." The mental engagement combined with age-appropriate means of problem solving (using rods) builds a lot of confidence. And it is fun.

 

While it is called the "First Grade Diary" we found this a perfect guide to pre-school math.

 

Bill

[babysparkler]

 

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.

 

I have a set of MUS rods that I purchased before I found RS. My kids LOVE using the abacus and it really makes sense to them. The MUS blocks come out every now and then when they need a different visual reinforcement of something we are learning in RS.

[MeganW]

One additional thought.

 

The Miquon method is also wonderful for pre-K/K because (while a parent does need to be "involved") there is very little required in the way of "instruction". A chil'd "discovery" is guided, and activities are set up for them, but the "burden" (or should I say "gift"?) of *thinking* shifts to them.

 

You can see the little minds whirl. So there is active brain-work going on in their minds, rather than passive "listening." The mental engagement combined with age-appropriate means of problem solving (using rods) builds a lot of confidence. And it is fun.

 

While it is called the "First Grade Diary" we found this a perfect guide to pre-school math.

 

Bill

 

 

This sounds PERFECT for us! My kids love it when I provide new games. Do I need to get any of the colored books yet, or just the First Grade Diary and the rods to start? THANK YOU!!!

[MeganW]

One additional thought.

 

The Miquon method is also wonderful for pre-K/K because (while a parent does need to be "involved") there is very little required in the way of "instruction". A chil'd "discovery" is guided, and activities are set up for them, but the "burden" (or should I say "gift"?) of *thinking* shifts to them.

 

You can see the little minds whirl. So there is active brain-work going on in their minds, rather than passive "listening." The mental engagement combined with age-appropriate means of problem solving (using rods) builds a lot of confidence. And it is fun.

 

While it is called the "First Grade Diary" we found this a perfect guide to pre-school math.

 

Bill

 

Thanks so much by the way - I had always thought I would do Miquon & the rods, but wasn't getting them yet b/c I figured they would just be turned into swords instead of used appropriately!

[SonshineLearner]

Just an interesting thought. I actually have the acabus' from NurtureMinds.com I like their abacus, and though we won't be truly proficient, it's something I've dabbled with. Theirs is a "Japanese" abacus... The book for this has them "visualize" the abacus, as they explain.... visualize a butterfly.... now... visualize your beads:-)

We have cuisinaire rods, but my son has just played with them like any other thing... (legos etc...)

:-)

[MeganW]

Will one set of 155 wooden rods ("small group set") be enough for 4 kids? 4 kids who aren't always the best at sharing?

 

First-Grade Diary

Lab Sheet Annotations

Notes to Teachers

Orange Book Level 1

 

That's everything I would need, right? THANKS!

[Spy Car]

This sounds PERFECT for us! My kids love it when I provide new games. Do I need to get any of the colored books yet, or just the First Grade Diary and the rods to start? THANK YOU!!!

 

I' advise you get the 3 Teachers books (Lab Annotations, First Grade Diary and Notes to Teachers) and at least the Orange Level book.

 

Read the Teachers materials while the kids get acclimated to the rods. "Notes to Teachers" has ideas for introductory rod play.

 

Don't be surprised if the Orange Book is *shocking* on first glance. I panicked, you need not. Miquon is very simple despite the initial impression. While the kids play, you read and drink up the wisdom.

 

Bill

[Spy Car]

Will one set of 155 wooden rods ("small group set") be enough for 4 kids? 4 kids who aren't always the best at sharing?

 

First-Grade Diary

Lab Sheet Annotations

Notes to Teachers

Orange Book Level 1

 

That's everything I would need, right? THANKS!

 

I think the small group set would suffice.

 

If you are ordering anyway, I'd advise getting base-10 "flats". These are in the same scale as C Rods and (bing 10 cm x 10 cm) are the equivalent of 100 values.

 

These are not part of the Miquon program per se, but I've found them invaluable for teaching place value in a Miquon-style (with Orange Rods being "10s" and the other rods being "Units".

 

Bill

[MeganW]

I think the small group set would suffice.

 

If you are ordering anyway, I'd advise getting base-10 "flats". These are in the same scale as C Rods and (bing 10 cm x 10 cm) are the equivalent of 100 values.

 

These are not part of the Miquon program per se, but I've found them invaluable for teaching place value in a Miquon-style (with Orange Rods being "10s" and the other rods being "Units".

 

Bill

 

 

Thank you thank you thank you!!!

[TechWife]

Of course, we are Borgs :D

 

We are Borg. One collective. Borgs do not exist. ;)

[TechWife]

I was about to ask the same question :P My hubby and I just finished reading an article in Scientific American about a man who was a math genius with synesthesia who saw numbers as a color and texture. I will have to dig up the article. It was absolutely fascinating and left my mathy hubby curious if one could be taught to assign color/texture to number. The man had assigned up to 2,000 independent numbers a color/texture combination that made mental math a breeze for him and he holds the current record for being able to recite Pi. He sees math as simply combining the colors/textures which makes it easier for his brain to process with out the converting that takes place when the average person computes a problem in their head.

 

 

Can you tell me which issue? And what's on the cover?