Does TT Help a Child Understand Math?

[Homeschooling6]

But it IS tomorrow!:lol:

 

I better get to bed then :lol::D:lol:

 

Have a good night ;)

[Kimber]

Teaching textbooks reminds of the type of math taught to me in high school. I went on to get an engineering degree. But I was a horrible engineer.

 

There's a difference between working problems and understanding how to work them and understanding how to apply the skills learned to solve problems. The second I couldn't do without blood sweat and tears.

 

I don't think I'd use TT with my kids. I want them to do better than I did, and I don't want them to be afraid of complicated terminology and I don't want my kids to shy away from things they don't understand.

 

There's logic in math that I have only recently become exposed to that goes way beyond the algorithm involved in solving the problems. I think from looking at the online lectures TT strips that type of understanding out of the math.

 

Yes, I have a very good understanding of math, but after algebra, my understanding is equivalent to knowing the abridged version of math (similar to what I see in TT) rather than the unabridged (what I see in AoPS).

 

And I managed to survive with abridged math all the way through highschool to calculus in college. When I got to calculus, I wasn't prepared. I had to work my tail off like crazy to understand and to pass that class, which I did with a B. It wasn't easy.

Edited May 8, 2010 by Kimber

[NanceXToo]

I can't chime in too much here because I haven't actually used TT yet, but I WILL be using it this coming fall (TT5) with my daughter who will be going into fifth grade, using Oak Meadow.

 

We've explored the demos and the samples and both of us fell in love with the whole idea of the program. She loves how patiently and thoroughly each problem is explained- not just someone telling it to her in dry terminology that starts making her eyes glaze over and has her going "huh?" but in every day language- and demonstrating it step by step, too. IMHO that absolutely promotes understanding.

 

And I love how I (as a very "non-mathy" person myself) don't have to sit there trying to figure out what they mean in some dry technical textbook and then trying to help her get what they mean and then having her do it- and then if she's not getting it, I don't know another way to try to help her get it...

 

TT can do it perfectly!

 

I've seen people give the program bad reviews. I've also seen some really great ones and read stories of kids going onto college and doing just great having used TT as their math curriculum.

 

I'm going to use it and I'm going to trust that it is a good fit for me, my daughter, my household, and when she gets older IF she needs more solid math or it seems to have been lacking in an area she needs at the time, I'll get her a tutor if need be.

 

For now, I am not going to worry about it. I don't think math has to be "hard" to be effective, I WANT her, especially in these earlier years, to be able to get it with ease and enjoy doing it. Then hopefully she WILL grow up not being afraid of math or feeling like math is too hard for her or feeling like math is boring and dreadful or whatever the case may be.

 

We are looking forward to using it over here!

[Homeschooling6]

For now, I am not going to worry about it. I don't think math has to be "hard" to be effective, I WANT her, especially in these earlier years, to be able to get it with ease and enjoy doing it. Then hopefully she WILL grow up not being afraid of math or feeling like math is too hard for her or feeling like math is boring and dreadful or whatever the case may be.

 

We are looking forward to using it over here!

 

I agree :)

 

What I mean when I hear 'doesn't have to be hard to be effective' is concepts can be explained in a way the child gets it. It doesn't always have to be so complicated. I don't mean that it's not challenging or one doesn't have to think to figure out the problems.

Edited May 8, 2010 by Homeschooling6

[Kimber]

I got a pm asking what I was going to do with my kids. Well, I've decided to take the hard road. I want my kids to learn how to eat the elephant one bite at a time.

 

We're doing Dolciani algebra along with LofFred algebra for 7th grade. The Dolciani we're using is the 1975 version that mixes logic with algebra. We will probably add some Art of Problem solving books along the way.

 

I really don't want to limit my kids by taking the intimidation factor out of the way and making it too easy. (Btw, Fred doesn't do this, the author does however put the math in context to make it understandable.) I want them to learn to think through the problems logically without too much handholding. I want them to learn, but I want them to work at it, too.

 

My dh agrees with me. He it the technical advisor to a bunch of young engineers. He says one of the problems is that some of them don't want to think. They want to be told how to get the problem. But the problems they're dealing with aren't that simple. Part of learning is learning how to overcome when all of the information isn't provided or is laid out in a format that isn't easily recognizable. That is real world learning.

 

Basically, I want material that makes my kids eyes glaze over and then I want them to learn how to demystify it and attack it. Math isn't the only subject that teaches this type of reasoning--foreign languages do it too. But math is a subject that lends itself too easily to real thinking to overlook it.

[OnTheBrink]

Ok, now I'm worried. We've been doing MUS for the past several years and planned to use it for Pre-alg and up. So far, it's been fine. It's the only math program that hasn't reduced DD to tears and she's cruising through it with relatively few problems. But, is it enough? She's another "analytical but not mathy" girl. I was, however, planning on getting LOF pre-alg to go along with it. Is she going to end up a math dunce over this?

[Kimber]

From what I see of MUS and TT, they're fine. But if you want your student to be able to handle more difficult math, then you have to work them from where they are to where you want them to be.

 

We're not there, because I wasn't there. I had to make a committment to do the hard work too. I have the benefit of being somewhat good at math, so I'm not too scared, just a little scared.

 

It's all about what your student needs and where you are going. I think as a parent I have to decide that for my students, at least until they get older and so no I'm not doing x, I'm doing y instead.

 

So we're doing baby steps.

 

Karen, I think that's who said it, is doing algebra twice with her daughter. That's a good idea. But the second time, use a harder program. Or add problems from a harder program with it. Or do like Elizabeth mentioned and add the Math Olympiad problems on top of what you're doing.

 

Our plan is just to start stretching our students, a little at a time. Basically, it's cause it's all I can handle.

[Homeschooling6]

I got a pm asking what I was going to do with my kids. Well, I've decided to take the hard road. I want my kids to learn how to eat the elephant one bite at a time.

 

.

 

We all need to do what is right for our children. We all have different goals.

 

I do plan to add some IP or CWP. I haven't started TT so we'll see how it goes.

 

Thanks for sharing :)

Edited May 8, 2010 by Homeschooling6

[lovemykids]

.

[Homeschooling6]

So that’s basically what Faithe was saying that she does, she starts with Teaching Textbooks and then digs deeper with college books, etc. So in your opinion, Kimber, is that sufficient? If a parent likes to use TT or MUS and then tops it off with LOF or another analytical math program, can’t we succeed in providing true mathematical understanding for our children? :confused:

 

What about a combination of TT and LOF, or MUS and LOF, w/ some challenging problems and parent tutoring thrown in? Not good enough from your point of view? Sorry to be redundant with the questions. But wouldn’t LOF and parent involvement be enough to begin with?!

 

I'm wondering too:001_huh: I would think the parental involvement would make a big difference. I want to use TT to help explain thing to my dd because when I explain concepts I over do it and my kids look at me more confused than anything.

One thing I do plan it to watch with dd, so I can see how they are explaining thing and work from there. Thank goodness the computer is in the kitchen :D but there will be days when things get hectic and she can do a lesson on her own.

[lovemykids]

[.

[Kimber]

I don't think anything is perfect, and neither do a lot of parents. That's why so many use two math problems. I'm one of those parents, but I tend to go back and forth between books overlapping on some material for the purpose of review. (This is at the early years, we're just starting algebra.)

 

I wouldn't put all my eggs in the TT basket. I would be more inclined to put all my eyes in Art of Problem basket, not unless I see that they teach the logic behind the equations and not just the application as does Dolciani. (I haven't review AoPS enough to know whether or not they do this.)

 

Math should be and individualized the way 8fillstheheart said she does for each of her kids.

 

At our home, the goal is to start stretching them. For our kids, it should not always be easy. So once they're comfortable, stretch 'em to the next level with something harder.

 

Other than that, each parent has to decide what is the best fit for each child, based on self esteem issues if there are any or learning style as needed.

[lovemykids]

.

[lovemykids]

...

[Homeschooling6]

Sorry to hijack your thread, I can’t help myself.

 

I am going to continue w/ TT because I need it for my youngest dd. And so far, everyone likes it. But I am looking at other options for my oldest...not sure about that one yet.

 

 

 

Hijack away. I like your questions and enjoy reading your post :D You word things so much better than I :)

[Corraleno]

Thanks Jackie,

I was going to seek out your opinion on another thread, but I was too tired last night. So what are you using for algebra?

Well, that's the $64,000 Question around here. Ironically, my original plan (a year or so ago) was... TT + LoF. Then we actually tried using TT Pre-Algebra and realized that we definitely needed something meatier, plus all the repetition and the easy problem sets made DS want to poke his eyes out. We own, and have eliminated, TT, CD (Larson and Aufmann), Lial (BCM and Alg I), and Jacobs. We're currently using and liking LoF and KB Pre-Agebra, and we also own but haven't started Thinkwell Pre-Algebra and Teaching Co. Alg I. I'm considering Foerster, but haven't seen it in person yet (currently stuck in Media Mail limbo).

 

So far I'm leaning towards combining KB and LoF. KB is similar to TT in that it's computer-based and self-teaching, but it seems considerably more rigorous to me. I'm also considering Foerster's, simply because Maria Miller recommends it so highly. I've been spoiled by Math Mammoth, which I think can give nonmathy kids the kind of deep conceptual understanding that mathy kids naturally have, so if the explanations in Foerster are similar to MM then I may use it even though textbooks are not ideal for DS. If I go with Foerster, I will also use the DVDs and will supplement with LoF.

 

So for Alg I & up, it will either be:

Kinetic Books + LoF, or

Foerster's + DVDs + LoF

 

Jackie

[PeterPan]

Kimber, you're really thinking through the hard issues! I worked up about 3 replies to your earlier post and never clicked any of them, because I couldn't get them just right. I definitely think you're on the right track. I was taught with Dolciani in school, so I came into this with a bit different perspective, as one who HAD been taught with a good curriculum and STILL saw holes. So I've never been blind about any of this, because I knew these math curricula had issues.

 

Now the thing I wanted to say, and couldn't figure out how to say, was that math background does not guarantee success. It depends how it goes into the dc's head and filters around. I was taught with Dolciani, resonated with it's very theoretical approach, and really stunk (stank?) at application. My dh had a much weaker math background going into college, struggled, and is killer at application. (He's an engineer too, btw, and a really good one!) But I'm a very theoretical, utterly impractical person. Was the cause of the problem me or the curriculum? And were his problems in math him or his dyslexia? And was my stumbling in calculus a fault of the curriculum or just a lack of maturity and readiness on my part or that the instructor had back problems and spent half the semester on the floor resting his back? LOL Our experiences aren't necessarily so neat to sort out, and it takes a lot of perspective to look back and see all the issues factoring in. My dh looked back for a lot of years and blamed his problems on his teachers, the curriculum, that it was a small cs, blah blah. Now we know he had issues going on, just like dd.

 

I really think you're on the right track with your idea of blending. If I could say, I think Dolciani plus Foerster might be a better blend. Not all of it, mercy, but some of the Foerster, the word problems. Dolciani is really scant on serious application and real life word problems, where Foerster is all over it, slathering it on like frosting. Dolciani has those great C level problem sets. I have a 1960-something Dolciani alg 1 tm btw. Jealous? :) I still have my Dolciani alg 2 book from high school that for some reason I kept all these years.

 

I sold my Foerster stuff, but only because I don't think it will fit dd. I could be totally wrong on that, but I don't think it will. I think you could do Dolciani and then AoPS (which I haven't seen in person, the next thing on my list). I'm trying to get a hold of Jacobs, and then I think I'll be in a position to decide. With my Dolciani tm, I have the luxury of using something else and bringing in the C level problem sets. If I get a complete, more traditional text (Jacobs, whatever), then I won't use TT. If I go with something more scant like LoF, then I'll absolutely add in TT or something similar, simply because I'm not stupid enough to think *my* dd would do well without that extra work, lol.

 

BJU did that for us for several years, walking the middle of the road with a curriculum that did everything (challenging problems, extra practice, strong conceptual presentation). We've been bumping it up with Math Olympiad stuff, which is great too. Have you started that yet? You really should. It's where the fun starts. The Math Counts book I got was so similar, I could have just stuck with the Math Olympiad book and been done with it.

 

I'm curious to see AoPS in-hand. It sounds great in theory, but I got a little scared by the multi-page solutions Kathy talked about, haha. That's definitely more than my future interior decorator dd wants! :)

 

The irony is that you can DO that higher conceptual level program and NOT GET as good a results as you would have gotten with a lower level program if it doesn't pull it out of the student. I don't know how to put it better than that. I'm just saying that, to my small observation and watching students over the years, can be the case. Or put more bluntly, they're going to have to pass the test. You don't teach to the test, but you want to make sure they can ACE it and do well on it, or they're going to be held back. So is it better to do Dolciani, not have your student get as much spiral as he/she may need, and do average well on the ACT? Or is it better to do something less out there that has more spiral review, more attention to the basics and getting them fast, and have that student do astonishly well on the ACT? What I'm trying to figure out is why I can't have them both. And maybe some kids will need that extra attention to get to that point, and some kids will get there quite naturally, kwim?

 

Well none of that had ANYTHING to do with the op's question! That was all just a thought process to go along with Kimber. :)

[PeterPan]

Jackie--I thought you had older kids who had done algebra already?? Oh well. Anyways, so what did you see with Jacobs? Why did you eliminate it? That's one I've only seen for a moment in person. I eliminated Foerster as an option for my dd after working with it for a while, but that's just because I don't think it fits *her* personality and interests, nothing to do with the text. I've had this sneaking concern that what you described with TT would be the case with us. The idea sounds right (have some nice doses of spiral review to keep things fresh and fast while you do something more conceptual). But if the spiral review is tedious or TOO low, it's still not a good fit. Well humbug. But you tried the TT Pre-Algebra, not algebra, right? Might be the algebra is a fuzz better. People seem to be going from Jacobs Alg. 1 and Geometry to TT Alg 2, which ought to mean they come out at roughly the same place, I would think.

 

Well see, it sounds like a lot of us are thinking the same thing. We want a conceptual spine with something else to give us more practice to keep things fresh and speedy. Now if someone would just kindly blaze the way, haha. I do have that question though of whether TT comes out at the END in roughly the same place. If it does, then it might be these lower levels that are the problem.

 

Just thinking out loud.

[lovemykids]

..

..

[lovemykids]

.

[lovemykids]

.

[siloam]

Kimber, you're really thinking through the hard issues! I worked up about 3 replies to your earlier post and never clicked any of them, because I couldn't get them just right. I definitely think you're on the right track. I was taught with Dolciani in school, so I came into this with a bit different perspective, as one who HAD been taught with a good curriculum and STILL saw holes. So I've never been blind about any of this, because I knew these math curricula had issues.

 

Now the thing I wanted to say, and couldn't figure out how to say, was that math background does not guarantee success. It depends how it goes into the dc's head and filters around. I was taught with Dolciani, resonated with it's very theoretical approach, and really stunk (stank?) at application. My dh had a much weaker math background going into college, struggled, and is killer at application. (He's an engineer too, btw, and a really good one!) But I'm a very theoretical, utterly impractical person. Was the cause of the problem me or the curriculum? And were his problems in math him or his dyslexia? And was my stumbling in calculus a fault of the curriculum or just a lack of maturity and readiness on my part or that the instructor had back problems and spent half the semester on the floor resting his back? LOL Our experiences aren't necessarily so neat to sort out, and it takes a lot of perspective to look back and see all the issues factoring in. My dh looked back for a lot of years and blamed his problems on his teachers, the curriculum, that it was a small cs, blah blah. Now we know he had issues going on, just like dd.

 

I really think you're on the right track with your idea of blending. If I could say, I think Dolciani plus Foerster might be a better blend. Not all of it, mercy, but some of the Foerster, the word problems. Dolciani is really scant on serious application and real life word problems, where Foerster is all over it, slathering it on like frosting. Dolciani has those great C level problem sets. I have a 1960-something Dolciani alg 1 tm btw. Jealous? :) I still have my Dolciani alg 2 book from high school that for some reason I kept all these years.

 

I sold my Foerster stuff, but only because I don't think it will fit dd. I could be totally wrong on that, but I don't think it will. I think you could do Dolciani and then AoPS (which I haven't seen in person, the next thing on my list). I'm trying to get a hold of Jacobs, and then I think I'll be in a position to decide. With my Dolciani tm, I have the luxury of using something else and bringing in the C level problem sets. If I get a complete, more traditional text (Jacobs, whatever), then I won't use TT. If I go with something more scant like LoF, then I'll absolutely add in TT or something similar, simply because I'm not stupid enough to think *my* dd would do well without that extra work, lol.

 

BJU did that for us for several years, walking the middle of the road with a curriculum that did everything (challenging problems, extra practice, strong conceptual presentation). We've been bumping it up with Math Olympiad stuff, which is great too. Have you started that yet? You really should. It's where the fun starts. The Math Counts book I got was so similar, I could have just stuck with the Math Olympiad book and been done with it.

 

I'm curious to see AoPS in-hand. It sounds great in theory, but I got a little scared by the multi-page solutions Kathy talked about, haha. That's definitely more than my future interior decorator dd wants! :)

 

The irony is that you can DO that higher conceptual level program and NOT GET as good a results as you would have gotten with a lower level program if it doesn't pull it out of the student. I don't know how to put it better than that. I'm just saying that, to my small observation and watching students over the years, can be the case. Or put more bluntly, they're going to have to pass the test. You don't teach to the test, but you want to make sure they can ACE it and do well on it, or they're going to be held back. So is it better to do Dolciani, not have your student get as much spiral as he/she may need, and do average well on the ACT? Or is it better to do something less out there that has more spiral review, more attention to the basics and getting them fast, and have that student do astonishly well on the ACT? What I'm trying to figure out is why I can't have them both. And maybe some kids will need that extra attention to get to that point, and some kids will get there quite naturally, kwim?

 

Well none of that had ANYTHING to do with the op's question! That was all just a thought process to go along with Kimber. :)

 

I am struggling with the same issues, and have been reading the thread and not posting. I think Elizabeth nailed where I am at as well.

 

Though my experience is from the other side. I love numbers, can't explain why just do. Thus I loved to do math even through I didn't understand why. They would give me a formula, "Yah whatever" was my attitude. I just took the formula and used it. Didn't care why. I did very well in math through college, but it wasn't till I started teaching it to my kids that I learned why. BTW my dh just by personality has to understand why and never did well in math because they neither explained why or slowed down long enough for him to figure it out on his own.

 

Now what do I do with my kids? I want them to have the critical thinking/application skills, but they are not mathy. Other than my ds, none of them love numbers like I do.

 

My oldest struggled with Singapore Primary texts till I started Right Start. She has loved Right Start till recently. I think the recent problems are just a bump because she stopped correcting her worksheets and I didn't figure it out for 3 months (yes I should be more with it, but things are crazy around here). Now she is trying to go back and do them and she...well it isn't that she doesn't know how to do them, it is the assumptions. Most of it is decimal work or fractions, and she doesn't pay attention to rounding instructions, reducing instructions, ect... Nor is she good about reading my notes, or she misinterprets them. Maybe it is that going into puberty brain goes to jelly thing. She is convinced now that is is bad at math, when the truth is she is bad about reading the directions. :blink:

 

What do I do with a child who wants to work independently, is bad with directions, but desperately needs to be successful or I will loose her attitude towards math permanently?

 

I think I am going to end up using an easy program, that isn't the best at conceptual and application end (not the way I would like to see it) and the follow it up with Singapore Discovering Math which we will do together, and she will get the critical thinking end. Working through DM will probably be like now, where I have to carry her through a lot of the problems (in the Singapore IP and Word books). She just hits these mental road blocks, and can't think outside the box she is in without help. She needs help to see it.

 

In our case I will use Kinetic books, because my dd is in love with the looks of it, but they don't have pre-algebra, geometry or calculus. TT is one of the programs I am looking at using for subjects, just to save her attitude towards math. If she mentally checks out then the battle is over.

 

Heather

[Corraleno]

Jackie--I thought you had older kids who had done algebra already?? Oh well. Anyways, so what did you see with Jacobs? Why did you eliminate it? That's one I've only seen for a moment in person. I eliminated Foerster as an option for my dd after working with it for a while, but that's just because I don't think it fits *her* personality and interests, nothing to do with the text.

Some of the programs I eliminated simply because I felt they're not a good fit for DS, not because I think they're lacking.

 

JACOBS: I eliminated this because I felt that the way he teaches (give a concrete example, followed by a brief explanation, followed by a lot of problems) would not work at all for DS. He needs clear, explicit explanation of concepts up front, then as long as he "gets" the concept, he can do the problems easily. He's not good at inferring conceptual explanations from examples or from working problems, but once he "gets" the concept, he doesn't need a lot of practice & review to retain it. This is why MM was so effective for him, and why I'm desperately looking for something similar for HS level math.

 

AUFMANN: This is the CD Pre-Alg text. I eliminated it because I thought the explanations were too procedural and not conceptual enough, and the pages full of problems would overwhelm him visually, even if I only asked him to do every 3rd one or so. Plus he thought Dana Mosely was the most soporific lecturer he's ever seen. (Conversely, I suspect he will find Edward Burger, of Thinkwell, too hyper & speedy!)

 

LIAL: The format of these books was just too busy for DS. He's dyslexic and he needs texts that have enough color to be interesting but not so many different colors and fonts and highlights and sidebars that he continually loses his place.

 

I've had this sneaking concern that what you described with TT would be the case with us. The idea sounds right (have some nice doses of spiral review to keep things fresh and fast while you do something more conceptual). But if the spiral review is tedious or TOO low, it's still not a good fit. Well humbug. But you tried the TT Pre-Algebra, not algebra, right? Might be the algebra is a fuzz better. People seem to be going from Jacobs Alg. 1 and Geometry to TT Alg 2, which ought to mean they come out at roughly the same place, I would think.

I haven't used TT Algebra, but we own it and it looks exactly the same to me. There is soooo much review, especially in the beginning, and the problem sets are so easy that DS would hate it. Some of the problems are comparable to problems he was doing in MM4. Obviously some are also harder, especially towards the end of TT Alg I when you finally start getting into real algebra, but it's just not challenging enough for him ~ and this is a kid who does not like math!

 

I do have that question though of whether TT comes out at the END in roughly the same place. If it does, then it might be these lower levels that are the problem.

I think that depends a lot on what you mean by "roughly the same place." I think a kid who does TT Alg1 through PreCalc will have covered pretty much the same topics as one who did a more rigorous version of Alg 1 through the first half of Precalc. But having ticked the same boxes in terms of topics covered doesn't mean they will have the same level of understanding as someone who used more difficult curricula. For some kids that's absolutely fine, and for other kids it might not be.

 

Jackie

[lovemykids]

.

.

[lovemykids]

.

[siloam]

Oh, I doubt it, LOL. There are times when I make no sense at all, I am sure. But thanks for the compliment! :)

 

 

 

True.

 

 

Heather,

It’s nice to see that you are going to use Kinetic Books, where can I find reviews? I guess I should start with a search here. Is KB an easy program?

 

Angie in TX has been talking about it for years, and when I finally downloaded the sample it just fits my dd's and my needs. I also called and asked if it taught why formulas work, and the person who answered the phone transferred me to someone else who could tell me it had application included, but not if it taught why. Unless who every authored the explanations is just a why kind of person I be it just follows the normal path and teaches formulas.

 

Why will it work for us? It will teach a concept then have the child do sample problems. If they get anything wrong it automatically starts bringing up the teaching material again. This will help eliminate much of the extra work my dd is doing when she doesn't read the directions properly. It will lighten my load in that I don't have to teach, or correct the first portion of problems. The review is done with good old fashioned pen and paper, so I will still have to correct that and there is still the potential that she will mis-read the directions, but at least she will already know that she knows the material, and we can together focus on learning to pay attention to detail. My dd also adores the games in RS, so that fact that this still has games is a huge selling point (and is where the application comes in).

 

Biggest selling point of all is that she is excited about it.

 

I don't think it would be considered as easy as TT, but because it walks you through things, and does a lot of hand holding it is going to be on the easier side. Compared to a traditional textbook.

 

Discovering Math by Key Press is another that was high on my list. It is a discovery based program, which my dd didn't do well with (Miquon), so I love the idea, and dd love the look of the text, but I am not really willing to take a chance on it right now. The other program that was up there was Video Text, which is known for teaching why. There was just a lot of issues unique to my dd and I that made that program problematic.

 

Heather

 

[Corraleno]

In our case I will use Kinetic books, because my dd is in love with the looks of it, but they don't have pre-algebra, geometry or calculus.

Actually KB does have a Pre-Algebra program; we're currently using the beta version and I really like it. I think it should be out pretty soon. They are also considering doing Geometry ~ that was one of the topics that came up in the KB "focus group" I participated in. They are very interested in the homeschool market, and are working on homeschool versions of the Alg I & II (with automatic grading and other bells and whistles). I suspect they will eventually come out with a PreCalc and maybe Calc (especially since their other programs are Physics), but I don't know if they would be available in time for us to use them.

 

Jackie

[Corraleno]

So, is KB Pre-Alg, light years behind TT Pre-Alg. ?? (or a solid year)

Do you mean ahead of TT? KB Pre-Algebra starts right off with "Introduction to Algebra," whereas the chapter titled "Simple Algebraic Equations" starts on p. 343 of TT Prealgebra. There is a huge overlap between TT7 and TT Pre-Algebra, and another huge overlap between TT Pre-Alg & Alg I. I think TT7 and TT Pre-Alg are equivalent to 6th grade material in a rigorous program, whereas KB Pre-Algebra seems to assume the student has a decent foundation and is ready to explore Algebra rather than needing a slow and simple review of basic math.

 

It's hard to really evaluate KB because it's on CD and I don't have a printed manual, so to really compare it I will have to actually go through the whole program. But from what I've seen so far it seems a lot more rigorous than TT, in that it introduces concepts sooner and the problem sets are more challenging. I haven't used it enough to know if the conceptual explanations are at a level I would be happy with.

 

Jackie

[8filltheheart]

The answer (most likely) is that TT probably will get you to the same place as Jacobs, (knowing nothing about Jacobs) or almost any other math program, although running a little behind, (a year!) unless you use it above level. Unless, that is, you want to provide a higher, conceptual understanding for math focused, or science related career goals. In that case, you will need to supplement with something to aid in a deeper thought process.

 

 

 

:lol: Glad I had swallowed my coffee.

 

And just to clarify, I think my point is being misunderstood completely. I had an excellent education. I graduated summa cum laude in the top 1% of my class. I know math. Not to mention my dh is a chemical engineer.

 

But, like Kimber, knowing how to do math is not the same as solving problems....that is the difference. I *thought* by using Foersters I had addressed that problem and had exposed him to the best route in math for a gifted math student.

 

Not so. Not for the faint of heart, but I had never considered that any high schooler might have a transcript that resembled something this:

http://www.welltrainedmind.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1559496&highlight=Art+problem+solving#post1559496

 

Not that I am suggesting anything like that as a normal path!! It just gave me a different view of why MIT is MIT. That there is a distinct difference. Math camps expose kids to leaders in math and unique opportunities, etc. That alg 1, geo, alg2, pre-cal, cal, multi-variable cal, and differential equations aren't the beginning and end of math.......

 

It made me realize that there is a great big world of math out there and I had had a narrow view. All universities are not equal, nor are the caliber of students, etc. Maybe I'm the only one that didn't realize that the elite schools are elite for more than just their price tag. :D

[Corraleno]

Thanks Jackie,

I was coming back to ask you what you thought would be a good pair w/ LOF.

So are you saying that Thinkwell is out of the picture for you?

I like the looks of Kinetic Books. Dd is very visual and she loves computer math programs.

What is your opinion of Saxon

I love Edward Burger, but DS (who has auditory processing problems) thinks he talks too fast. Saxon would be a disaster for DS; he needs a mastery approach, with a clear explanation followed by problems to work on that specific topic, so the Saxon method would drive him insane. But again, these factors are quite specific to DS and may not be relevant to anyone else ~ unless they also happen to have a gifted (but not mathy) 12 yo with dyslexia and attention/processing issues who's heading for a double science major in college, lol.

 

Jackie

[siloam]

Actually KB does have a Pre-Algebra program; we're currently using the beta version and I really like it. I think it should be out pretty soon. They are also considering doing Geometry ~ that was one of the topics that came up in the KB "focus group" I participated in. They are very interested in the homeschool market, and are working on homeschool versions of the Alg I & II (with automatic grading and other bells and whistles). I suspect they will eventually come out with a PreCalc and maybe Calc (especially since their other programs are Physics), but I don't know if they would be available in time for us to use them.

 

Jackie

 

Jackie,

 

Good to know! Guess who I will be calling on Monday. :D

 

Do you have a better feel of if it teaches why formulas work, or if it just teaches how to use formulas? It isn't a deal breaker for me, because I will still use Singapore as a follow up and it does teach why, but it would be nice if it did.

 

Heather

 

[lovemykids]

.

[lovemykids]

[.

[lovemykids]

Thank you.

[siloam]

Would you mind elaborating on that? Why not Video Text?

I just knew you were going to call me out on that one, LOL!

 

Here is what I posted earlier this week to the RS yahoo group, though I will edit a little because it assumes you have read earlier posts:

 

Actually I do own module A.

 

Let me try to think though what I like and don't like about each.

 

In general I hate video learning methods. I don't mind computer stuff where I am in control and can skip around, but I really don't like being locked into watching video media on TV or computer. I rarely watch U-tube stuff, only when friends or dh insist. I never re-watch stuff, even if it is funny. Kinetic allows you the option to skip around in the teaching material and includes a full in print version and you are not locked in. It looks like you can go to the next link any time.

 

I really want an in print text. I did see the course notes for VT but I was just unsure that it was enough. In comparing it to the other texts that I have sitting here it doesn't look like it is enough to explain the topic. You have to watch or re-watch the videos. Not the end of the world, but I fear both myself and my oldest dd will resist doing so. I know I will, but my dd hasn't used video learning methods before so she may love it. If she comes to me for help I am going to grab one of the other texts sitting here and teach her out of one of those.

 

Having so many different books drives me nuts, Course Notes, Student Workbook, Solutions Manual, Progress Tests, and solutions for Progress Tests. I know mentally that is not a big deal and I would get used to it. but every time I go to look at something in the program the book I need is on the bottom of the stack and it drives me nuts. Why couldn't they have condensed it more?

 

The way they want the child to do half the problem, check them, then do the rest is going to be problematic here. My dd won't want to stop she will just want to get it over and done. I also used to have problems with her using the answer key. She has always been strong on mental math and prefers to just write the answer, but that makes it hard to spot cheating. I think she has grown in character enough to not do this any longer, but do I really want to put her in a place where she can? Seems parallel to taking an alcoholic to a bar, KWIM? Do I want to deal with the fall out if she does? Do I need to put in safe guards to make sure she doesn't? Kinetic has practice problems the child does on the computer and if they get it wrong it automatically starts bringing up instruction for that part. This would force dd out of some of her bad habits, nor is there any possibility of cheating. Then the rest of the practice problems are to be copied off the screen or out of the book and done for practice. I don't know where the answers are in the program, but I assure I would correct them.

 

Sometimes it really doesn't look like there is enough problems to really master the program, which is a criticism over on WTM of the program. There are no story problems. Though it does look like VT breaks things down into sub sections where a traditional algebra program might cover it in one chapter, so it is hard to compare them.

 

Long term some of the gals on WTM tell me the learning sessions are as long as 45 mins. We are little bit at a time type of learners, and don't generally do well with huge long blocks of time. I suppose I could break it up, but then there is more for me to manage.

 

Kinetic has games included in with the program, so it would retain the fun element that RS has.

 

On the plus side VT strives to show the why of math, and to date I can't find any such focus stated in Kinetic. Now that doesn't mean they don't, I don't think Singapore lists that as a selling point right off either, yet it has a reputation for doing so. Kinetic just isn't well known enough to have a reputation for anything. I need to call and talk to someone.

 

Kinetic only has Algebra I and II and no Geometry, so I would have to find something else for that and any higher math.

 

To be honest I am really up in the air right now. On my short list are:

 

Lial algebra (only text book still in the running)

VT

Kinetic

Teaching Textbooks (though the instruction also looks like it would get really old with the same format).

Chalkdust, which I haven't really looked into much, it is just well liked on WTM.

 

My goal is to find an program that is easy to use, that simply introduces math concepts then follow that up with Singapore's Discovering Mathematics. Though it will probably be a couple of years before she finishes the Singapore Elementary level material, so there will be a gap between the two methods.

 

If I gave my dd a choice right now she would probably choose Kinetic. She loves the computer base and the games, especially the games.

 

Heather

[lovemykids]

. :D

[lovemykids]

.

[Homeschooling6]

Actually KB does have a Pre-Algebra program; we're currently using the beta version and I really like it. I think it should be out pretty soon. They are also considering doing Geometry ~ that was one of the topics that came up in the KB "focus group" I participated in. They are very interested in the homeschool market, and are working on homeschool versions of the Alg I & II (with automatic grading and other bells and whistles). I suspect they will eventually come out with a PreCalc and maybe Calc (especially since their other programs are Physics), but I don't know if they would be available in time for us to use them.

 

Jackie

 

KB do you have a link? I found this but am not sure it's what you all are talking about.

[Corraleno]

I really don't want to limit my kids by taking the intimidation factor out of the way and making it too easy... I want them to learn to think through the problems logically without too much handholding. I want them to learn, but I want them to work at it, too.

 

My dh agrees with me. He is the technical advisor to a bunch of young engineers. He says one of the problems is that some of them don't want to think. They want to be told how to get the problem. But the problems they're dealing with aren't that simple. Part of learning is learning how to overcome when all of the information isn't provided or is laid out in a format that isn't easily recognizable. That is real world learning.

 

Basically, I want material that makes my kids eyes glaze over and then I want them to learn how to demystify it and attack it.

EXACTLY. I think many people don't really understand the difference between a math program that will teach a student to solve certain types of problems a certain way, and a program that will give a student the conceptual framework and the tools to figure out how to solve any problem ~ not just ones that look like the problem sets in their textbook. And, as 8FillstheHeart pointed out, unless you've actually seen or used programs that do that, it's hard to understand what the difference is.

 

It's not simply a difference between "easy math" and "hard math." The truth is that if the explanations are clear, explicit, and broken into small steps, it's possible to give even nonmathy kids the conceptual understanding and cognitive tools that will allow them to approach challenging problems without making them sob. I know this is true because my son went from remedial 3rd grade math (in 4th grade PS) to Pre-Algebra (currently in 6th) thanks to Math Mammoth. He gets it.

 

I know all kids are different, and some programs will work wonderfully for some students and be disasters for others, but I agree with Kimber and 8FillstheHeart (and Spycar et al in other threads) that parents may be short-changing their kids by settling for a program that's too easy and doesn't challenge them to really think. It's not just about math ~ it's also about exercising your brain and gaining confidence that you can tackle tough problems and work through them.

 

Jackie

[siloam]

KB do you have a link? I found this but am not sure it's what you all are talking about.

 

That is the right link for Kinetic. My guess is that because it is in bata testing the pre-algebra they don't have it out to buy yet. Some companies do allow purchase of bata products by anyone who wants to, and some hold back till bata testing is done.

 

They were very nice to talk to, and I do plan to call and ask about it on Monday, so I could post the details here.

 

BTW if you fill in their little email thing here, they give you access to a whole chapter.

 

Heather

 

Edited May 8, 2010 by siloam

[Corraleno]

KB do you have a link? I found this but am not sure it's what you all are talking about.

Yes, if you click on the demo it will give you a good idea of how the program works. Pre-Algebra isn't available to buy yet; we were lucky enough to be one of the beta-testing families. I know they are at least considering Geometry for the future.

 

Jackie

[Homeschooling6]

 

They were very nice to talk to, and I do plan to call and ask about it on Monday, so I could post the details here.

 

BTW if you fill in their little email thing here, they give you access to a whole chapter.

 

Heather

 

 

 

Please do :)

[Homeschooling6]

Yes, if you click on the demo it will give you a good idea of how the program works. Pre-Algebra isn't available to buy yet; we were lucky enough to be one of the beta-testing families. I know they are at least considering Geometry for the future.

 

Jackie

 

Thanks, I'll have to take a look at this. Just real quick, is this a complete math program or a supplement? (will admit I haven't really looked around their site and I have to really sit and read the post from today:tongue_smilie:you all are quick I can't keep up. I still need to go back to pg 10. There is a link I need to read ;))

 

Thanks,

Edited May 8, 2010 by Homeschooling6

[Corraleno]

I am glad I made you laugh. But admittedly, I am not sure why it was so funny. I thought that the general consensus in this thread was that most “regular†math programs, for lack of a better word, are equal, with the exception of the exceptional programs that teach deeper understanding. Am I so off base here? (I did say that I have no knowledge of Jacobs)

Well, some people may feel that "all math programs are equal," but what many of us are saying in this thread is exactly the opposite ~ that while they may cover basically the same topics, they do not provide a student with the same level of conceptual understanding or problem-solving ability. It's not the case that there are a whole bunch of equivalent math programs, and then one or two freaky-difficult programs only suited for geniuses. It more like a continuum, with programs like TT at one end of the spectrum and programs like AoPS at the other. I think the reason that Kimber and 8 and I are posting in this thread to so that people don't get the idea that TT is "just as good" as every other program unless your child is a genius. Each parent needs to choose how deep and thorough they want their child's math foundation to be, and choose a program (or several) that fall in the right place along that spectrum. I think Kimber did an excellent job of articulating why some of us think you should put your children into a level where they will be challenged and stretched, not just settle for the easiest solution.

Also, if Kathy in Richmond is your mentor, and that’s the ideal that you are striving for, I think it’s a bit out of my league. Maybe I should stick with the poodles. Thanks for your help. Foersters, in your opinion, is not good enough- check. :D

I think you're misunderstanding 8FillstheHeart. What she was saying is that Foerster's wasn't enough for her very gifted/mathy son, but since she had no experience of programs of the type that Kathy used with her kids, she didn't know any better. Her point isn't that Foerster's "isn't good enough for anyone," her point is that unless you really know what's out there and what the differences are, you won't understand what's missing from a program like TT. Since she's taught multiple kids with MUS + Foerster, clearly she thinks it's an excellent text!

 

Jackie

[Corraleno]

Thanks, I'll have to take a look at this. Just real quick, is this a complete math program or a supplement? (will admit I haven't really looked around their site and I have to really sit and read the post from today:tongue_smilie:you all are quick I can't keep up. I still need to go back to pg 10. There is a link I need to read ;))

 

Thanks,

It's a complete, digital textbook, which has been adopted in several states (there's a list of state standard correlations on the website). You can buy printed texts for Algebra I & II, which include everything on the CD except the interactive stuff.

 

There's not a printed text available for Pre-Algebra yet, since it's still in beta, so unfortunately I can't just flip through it and see how they teach different concepts.

 

Jackie

[lovemykids]

.

[lovemykids]

.

[lovemykids]

..

Edited February 13, 2013 by lovethislife
* embarrassment ;)

[Jane in NC]

The point I was trying to make was that most liner type programs will roughly put you in the same place in the end, don’t you agree?

 

I hope you do not mind me stepping into the conversation at this point.

 

No, I do not agree. Granted, I have neither seen nor tested all math programs. But I do know the subject matter i.e. mathematics.

 

There is a huge difference between teaching mathematics as a series of algorithmic procedures vs. teaching mathematical concepts. You can read the table of contents in many math texts and see the same topics, but the content can vary widely not only in the challenge of the problems but in the theory presented. This is often as simple as the notation used!

 

Let me give a simple arithmetic example. All students studying basic arithmetic will learn their multiplication tables and then learn division. Then students will learn the rule of three, i.e. a number is divisible by 3 if the sum of its digits is divisible by 3. The occasional student will ask why? There is a proof of the divisibility rule--not a hard proof but something that many non-math people may have not even considered.

 

This is what 8filltheheart was alluding to. Some kids are going to ask for more than an algorithm. Even those who do not may benefit from having big ideas and proofs presented to them, having a bit of mind nudge. Unfortunately too many math texts offer right answers/wrong answers as their pedagogical premise. This is really not a reflection of the subject of mathematics.

 

Should I skadaddle back to the high school board?

 

Jane

[8filltheheart]

See, I told you that I sometimes do not make sense. Actually, that is what I was trying to say. The point I was trying to make was that “regular” (linear thinking type) programs may lead to the same place, whereas the “other” types of deeper level thinking programs will lead you to another.

 

Right, but my questions were directly asking about a program that taught better understanding for “mathy” types. Or “aspiring” mathy types. :confused:

 

I do remember that she clearly stated that Foersters is not enough in her opinion, for someone pursuing science.

 

Sorry for any confusion.

 

I feel like Alice in Wonderland falling through the hole. Obviously this isn't an effective means of communicating what I am thinking.

 

No, I have NEVER said Foersters isn't good enough for a math or science major. It is what my oldest did use. He is a rising senior in chemical engineering and doing extremely well. I never supplemented. I just worked his little brain by doing just about every single word problem in them. And since you haven't seen Foersters, I'll just say that that isn't any small feat. ETA: What I am referring to with him is that he COULD have had so much more! Like I said in one of my other posts......did I ruin his future? No. But, did I limit it? Probably yes. He was capable of so much more. I just didn't know what that more was.

 

I'm sorry I laughed. But honestly, I did. Have you really thought about what you wrote? Essentially, you said it might be equal if you use a yr ahead and if you supplement it. That sounds like a resounding endorsement for a high quality math program.:confused:

 

As far as what I linked......no that is not anything like what I have ever envisioned for any of my kids. It is, however, now what my 8th grader is envisioning for himself. I have actually had to pull the plug on many of his plans b/c he is not leaving enough time for being a 14 yo boy. He wanted to take pre-cal and cal next yr. I flat out told him no, he can't. Somewhere there is a happy medium between what he can do and what he should do while still being a kid. But, Correlano's point was what I was trying to convey. I had no idea what really bright kids were doing b/c I had never heard of such a thing. Now I do know and we are able to really discern what our options really are.

 

And FWIW, lots of kids go to those type of camps on full scholarships.

 

Oh......the education reference wasn't aimed at you. I was in a hurry b/c I was on my way out the door. Prom is tonight. :D That was in reference to OhElizabeth's posts suggesting that provincialism is linked directly to educational background. It wasn't in my case. It was linked to never having been around people that live in the world of smart. :D (b/c we definitely don't live there!!!)

Edited May 9, 2010 by 8FillTheHeart