Are you able to predict whether a child will do better with mastery vs. spiral math?

[lotsofpumpkins]

Lately I've been thinking about whether my current K'er will do fine with a spiral approach to math, or if he'd prefer a mastery program. Is there any way (based on personality or whatever) to predict something like this without actually trying it out (and possibly switching programs later?). My oldest two are doing fine with CLE, but I've read about children who really need something more mastery. I'm trying to figure out if this gut feeling that my K'er will need the mastery approach is mother's intuition, or just "grass-is-greener" syndrome! :)

 

BTW, the K'er is currently doing a bit of Singapore Earlybird math here and there, but not often enough to really get a feel for how much he is retaining. We are keeping things pretty simple and laid-back for him right now.

[regentrude]

My kids do not do well with spiral, they need mastery. Saxon Math did not work well for them. they need a challenging, mastery based program.

 

If I had to identify personality traits that would have made it possible for me to see this beforehand, I would say:

DD is a perfectionist who wants to know everything in complete detail. Even as a small child, she has been asking questions until she has thoroughly explored a topic. - A spiral approach leaves her "hanging" in mid-topic; she finds it frustrating to skip around between topics without thoroughly exploring the first one.

DS gets easily bored by repetetive tasks. He does not do well with busywork because he loses focus if work is too easy. - A spiral approach frustrates him because the material moves too slowly.

Both kids are very quick learners and good at math. An incremental program designed for the average student is not a good fit for them, because they grasp the concepts very quickly and are then bored.

 

Not sure if that helps.

[Luckymama]

:iagree: Spiral math is one of the main reasons we pulled dd10 from her quite good private school. She was frustrated every day with the math instruction------the homework was just busywork because she grasped the concept right away, she'd want to explore a topic in a deeper way yet they'd switch to a totally different topic (decimals to measurement to geometric shapes) and so on. I could see her love of math slipping away, as it had for her older sister.

 

Now, dd's same-age cousin LOVES spiral math at his school. He thinks it's cool that he gets to touch so many topics each year.

[8filltheheart]

My kids do not do well with spiral, they need mastery. Saxon Math did not work well for them. they need a challenging, mastery based program.

 

If I had to identify personality traits that would have made it possible for me to see this beforehand, I would say:

DD is a perfectionist who wants to know everything in complete detail. Even as a small child, she has been asking questions until she has thoroughly explored a topic. - A spiral approach leaves her "hanging" in mid-topic; she finds it frustrating to skip around between topics without thoroughly exploring the first one.

DS gets easily bored by repetetive tasks. He does not do well with busywork because he loses focus if work is too easy. - A spiral approach frustrates him because the material moves too slowly.

Both kids are very quick learners and good at math. An incremental program designed for the average student is not a good fit for them, because they grasp the concepts very quickly and are then bored.

 

Not sure if that helps.

 

I think the end of your post is key here. Saxon is incremental, not a true spiral program. It is sort of like using MUS as the correlation to a mastery program.

 

To the OP....it really depends on how quickly your kids pick up concepts and how much they need to focus on them. Most of my children have thrived in a spiral program b/c there has never been "too much" of any one topic on a given day that leaves them bored. They get to practice and explore multiple topics on a given day.

 

That said, my 5 yo appears to be from another set of genes that dropped in to completely mess with my head!! She needs repetition and cannot deal with multiple concepts at the same time. She needs more "focus."

 

I'm not sure that w/o really understanding how the 2 different approaches actually reach the same end line and how your kids learn with each that it is easy to make a clear cut decision. It might take some time with both approaches for you to really know.

[Ellie]

No. And I'm not convinced that spiral vs mastery is as important as how the material is presented anyway. Millions of children successfully use [insert name of publisher here], even though we might think they'd do better with the opposite method. It is not something I'd spend a lot of time analyzing.

[lotsofpumpkins]

It is not something I'd spend a lot of time analyzing.

 

I'm trying not to. I've just been crunching the numbers on the long-term costs of using CLE (with its consumable workbooks) compared with using R&S. I'm expecting my 6th child, so the more consumables we use, the more expensive things are going to get as time goes on. I was just at my SIL's house the other day and she had 3rd and 4th grade R&S math texts, which I was able to get a good look at. We had used R&S in 1st (and part of 2nd) but switched to CLE. I'm just wondering if I should switch back to using R&S since it's SO affordable (especially since it's easy to find used), and I guess "learning style" was something I was considering. I have plenty of time to figure out what to do next year for my oldest two (since we already have all the CLE workbooks for this year), but if I want my current K'er to take the R&S path, I want him to go ahead and start the 1st grade math now instead of waiting until next summer, because he's almost 6 now.

[Kates]

From what I've seen, it matters a lot. My son (strong in math) completely lost his math facts part of the way through Saxon 5/4 because of the skipping around; he did terrific with MUS and is currently working through VideoText and LoF.

 

Something to look at - do your kids learn better by learning details and plugging them into a picture (like building a mosaic or puzzle) as they go along, or by seeing the "big picture" first and then plugging in details? This will be difficult to ascertain at K, you may need to wait a few years (there's a definite shift that happens around age 8 or 9), but that's something that will tell you if they need a mastery or spiral approach. If they like to plug in different details until they see a whole picture at the end, they would likely do better with a spiral; if they need to see the "point", the "big picture" up front in order to understand any of the details, I'd go more with a mastery.

 

With millions of kids doing fine with whatever program is taught...well, I agree to a point; however, many of those kids don't truly understand what's being taught - they just follow the example in the book and do their problems because that's what they're told to do. I can remember when I started homeschooling my son, I was amazed that an education means something other than memorizing a million facts and being able to plug them into a Scantron - it means understanding how those facts intersect and diverge in order to analyze and react to things happening around you. And I'm a teacher's kid.

 

I don't want my son to just get the problems right and not know why...I want him to understand what he's doing and know when to apply it. Putting him in a program that doesn't meet his needs isn't going to accomplish that, you know?

[regentrude]

No. And I'm not convinced that spiral vs mastery is as important as how the material is presented anyway. Millions of children successfully use [insert name of publisher here], even though we might think they'd do better with the opposite method.

 

While that may be true, it is also true that millions of children never truly enjoy doing math because of the program that is used.

It all depends what your goals are. If learning to do the stuff is the only objective, then you are probably right, any program will get the job done. If, however, the objective is learning to do math and loving it, then the choice of method would be crucial.

Just how many kids who learned math in school are really excited about ii? Very few.

My kids learned math just fine with the spiral program, but hated it. Doing it with a program that works for their learning style (we use AoPS) not only gets them to learn it, but to love it. Which, in our family, is an important goal.

[kalphs]

No. And I'm not convinced that spiral vs mastery is as important as how the material is presented anyway. Millions of children successfully use [insert name of publisher here], even though we might think they'd do better with the opposite method. It is not something I'd spend a lot of time analyzing.

:iagree:

[Luckymama]

Sorry, I was interrupted before I could finish.

 

I don't think you can predict whether your child would do better with a spiral or mastery approach to math. I do think that you should be open to trying a different approach (not a different program with the same approach) if your child is not learning, not retaining or is strongly disliking the math.

 

My goal is for the student to enjoy the math, not just to be able to check off boxes.

[MerryAtHope]

I would make your best guess based on what you know of her now, and considering your teaching style--what method appeals to you the most & seems to give you the level of support that you want or need?

 

Sometimes as homeschoolers we want to pick the "perfect" curriculum the first time. Most of the time there isn't one that will be perfect, though there may be one or several that will be an excellent match. But sometimes we have to try the "wrong" or "not so good" curriculum first in order to know what will be a good match. It's not a failure if you pick something and it doesn't work out, it's all part of learning about yourself and your child and what WILL work. Usually we have found a way to make something work for the year we got it, and then tried something else the next year, so it wasn't a financial loss. But occasionally something has been such a rough fit that we did need to just dump it and try something else. Consider it part of teacher training and education.

 

Merry :-)

[siloam]

My opinion is that most sequential, concrete learners would do better with mastery. Most abstract learners could do either. But if a child has memory issues than they would do better with spiral to keep it fresh.

 

That said I have seen very few programs that I would truly call spiral, except Horizons. I am a concrete (do vs. think about) and sequential (can't take information in random order and make sense of it-it need to be step by step) and I look at Horizons samples and can't get past the fact that they cover three different topics on one page!

 

For example Singapore is more spiral than Right Start, but what it does cover it covers to mastery.

 

1st level cover single digit addition, subtraction, multiplication then introduces double digit.

 

2nd level reviews single digit, covers double digit and introduces triple digit as well as introducing time, money, fractions and division.

 

3rd level goes into 4 digit...

 

I think you can see the patten. They don't spiral in the year, they spiral back through topics that were covered the year before but to deeper with them. When they are covering a topic, you are supposed to cover it to mastery, and if the workbook isn't enough they do have an extra practice book, just to make sure that happens.

 

Right Start on the other hand is more mastery based.

 

B covers seeing quantities, place value, addition up to 9 digits and then introduces subtraction and multiplication as a function of addition. Addition of money and time is also covered as well as basic geometric shapes.

 

C covers subtraction, multiplication, as well as introducing fractions, measurements and negative numbers. Again (and through the rest the program) as new concepts are introduces it also covers them with money, time and measurements. Measurements are usually covered by having the child draw a geometric shape then doing measuring (perimeter for example).

 

D covers measurements extensively (perimeter, area, volume), fractions then introduces squares, square root, tables and angles. D also has quite a bit of review of concepts covered earlier in the program mixed in with the new topics that take it deeper. This is unique to this level.

 

RS is much more of a mastery program than Singapore yet both expect mastery of the topic at hand before moving on.

 

I also used Miquon with my kids, and despite their being hands on learners they hated it. It was too abstract for my kids because it is discovery based not because of the sequence. This is a little odd because my oldest usually does fine with abstract material. She is the only one who does, here. But both my abstract thinker and concrete thinker wanted something to tell them what to do first, they didn't want to discover what they were learning as they went. Yet Singapore alone was not concrete enough for either of them (this was before the lower level HIG's). It got the job done, but both hated math. RS with the hands on (concrete) really clicked for both, and while they don't love math they no longer hate it either. They even know now they are good at it even through it isn't their favorite thing to do.

 

The other difficulty is all children start out concrete, and later some move to more abstract and random abilities. So if you are starting with a younger child it is a pretty good bet they will need hands on. Which is why you have the HIG's in Singapore adding that element and Saxon with it's hands on. But because their abilities are changing what might work with a young child might not work as well when they are older.

 

Hope you can follow all that. :D

 

Heather

[tarana]

Interesting topic! I had been wondering why my one DD is thriving while the other is struggling with Saxon. while it was the opposite with Singapore.

From what I read so far, it makes sense. These are the traits my kids have & the program they thrived in.

 

Mastery => Good memory, perfectionist, Impatient, Easily distracted, Needs the entire picture.

 

Spiral => Moderate Memory, adaptable to change, Patient, Focussed, Learns in small chunks.

 

It is also promising to hear that kids can thrive well in either. I so much want Saxon to work for them.

[FO4UR]

Well, I think those things are difficult to predict...but...

 

Some dc do need to see the big picture before mastering the concept. However, give them the big picture and they can put their own pieces together after that. For those kids a spiral program is a constant exercise in "What do I plug into this blank?"

 

I would go with what *you* enjoy teaching. After teaching it a few times, I think you could easily tweak to each child.

[yslek]

My opinion is that most sequential, concrete learners would do better with mastery. Most abstract learners could do either. But if a child has memory issues than they would do better with spiral to keep it fresh.

 

That said I have seen very few programs that I would truly call spiral, except Horizons. I am a concrete (do vs. think about) and sequential (can't take information in random order and make sense of it-it need to be step by step) and I look at Horizons samples and can't get past the fact that they cover three different topics on one page!

 

For example Singapore is more spiral than Right Start, but what it does cover it covers to mastery.

 

1st level cover single digit addition, subtraction, multiplication then introduces double digit.

 

2nd level reviews single digit, covers double digit and introduces triple digit as well as introducing time, money, fractions and division.

 

3rd level goes into 4 digit...

 

I think you can see the patten. They don't spiral in the year, they spiral back through topics that were covered the year before but to deeper with them. When they are covering a topic, you are supposed to cover it to mastery, and if the workbook isn't enough they do have an extra practice book, just to make sure that happens.

 

Right Start on the other hand is more mastery based.

 

B covers seeing quantities, place value, addition up to 9 digits and then introduces subtraction and multiplication as a function of addition. Addition of money and time is also covered as well as basic geometric shapes.

 

C covers subtraction, multiplication, as well as introducing fractions, measurements and negative numbers. Again (and through the rest the program) as new concepts are introduces it also covers them with money, time and measurements. Measurements are usually covered by having the child draw a geometric shape then doing measuring (perimeter for example).

 

D covers measurements extensively (perimeter, area, volume), fractions then introduces squares, square root, tables and angles. D also has quite a bit of review of concepts covered earlier in the program mixed in with the new topics that take it deeper. This is unique to this level.

 

RS is much more of a mastery program than Singapore yet both expect mastery of the topic at hand before moving on.

 

I also used Miquon with my kids, and despite their being hands on learners they hated it. It was too abstract for my kids because it is discovery based not because of the sequence. This is a little odd because my oldest usually does fine with abstract material. She is the only one who does, here. But both my abstract thinker and concrete thinker wanted something to tell them what to do first, they didn't want to discover what they were learning as they went. Yet Singapore alone was not concrete enough for either of them (this was before the lower level HIG's). It got the job done, but both hated math. RS with the hands on (concrete) really clicked for both, and while they don't love math they no longer hate it either. They even know now they are good at it even through it isn't their favorite thing to do.

 

The other difficulty is all children start out concrete, and later some move to more abstract and random abilities. So if you are starting with a younger child it is a pretty good bet they will need hands on. Which is why you have the HIG's in Singapore adding that element and Saxon with it's hands on. But because their abilities are changing what might work with a young child might not work as well when they are older.

 

Hope you can follow all that. :D

 

Heather

 

This makes sense to me. I'm an abstract/big picture thinker (more sequential than random, I think, but near the middle of that spectrum). Making connections between things & fitting the chunks into the big picture in my brain comes naturally. My memory is not so great, however. Saxon worked really, really well for me. Almost like it was made just for my brain. :D

 

The mastery-type programs I was exposed to for Algebra I and Geometry (before I switched to a school that used Saxon) were mastery-based, and very frustrating for me. I'd nail a concept, only to forget it once we moved on to the next chapter. With Saxon, I got to keep reviewing, which kept everything fresh. Now if only I could figure out the perfect fit for all of my kidlets. :D

[delaney]

Okay call me nuts but this is what I am doing. We primarily use Horizons but i throw her on Saxon to reinforce and use the Dive CD there. We just hit a wall with fractions so I also got MUS Epsilon and am having her do that for now and pulling practice and explanations from the other 2. She is very odd in how she "sees" things sometimes. There are times that one program works and the other 2 make no sense. Having the 3 on hand have worked out really well for us. Call me nuts!

[lotsofpumpkins]

Thanks for all the opinions, everyone!

 

I decided to go ahead and order CLE 100 for my K'er since CLE has worked so well for my oldest two. We are going to start it as soon as it arrives, but will take it slowly if we need to. I figured since I already have the TM's for CLE I might as well give that a try and see how it goes.

[Tracy]

The research shows that the average student does better with spiral. But based on what I have read in the forums, kids on either end of "average" tend to prefer mastery.

[blessedmom3]

I have two different kind of learners and CLE works great for them both.

I am planning to buy cle 100 for my boy who will turn 6 next week .

[Maverick_Mom]

I found that Rod and Staff was a nice balance between the two, for dd.

 

For ds #2, I *knew* intuitively that he would need a spiral approach. This was based on my observations about how he learned other things (as well as the way he strugged with certain things), and it did indeed carry over into math.

[kalanamak]

I am, personally, a fan of semi-solid with plenty of review, i.e. I don't go over and over and over something if "mastery" isn't forthcoming, but I then loop back to it regularly. I am for mastery, but don't get hung up on it. Some topics just take time. So, I picked a mastery curriculum, but have the supplemental materials. I think with a spiral, kiddo would learn to "fake it at a higher level". (This is a take off of a Peanuts line: "I'm still confused, but at a higher level.")