Why is LoF "not enough?"

[laughing lioness]

I was talking to an engineering friend of mine today who has looked over the LoF Alg. She thinks it's just fine as a stand alone math text. What do you think?

[Murphy101]

I think as a text it IS fine as a stand alone.

 

My oldest needs way more practice for a concept to be cemented in, so I add Key To. It isn't about whether the text is enough. It is about learning style of my student.

[elegantlion]

I think as a text it IS fine as a stand alone.

 

My oldest needs way more practice for a concept to be cemented in, so I add Key To. It isn't about whether the text is enough. It is about learning style of my student.

 

We're using LOF beginning algebra this year. It works for my son. He thinks about math the way LOF teaches. He doesn't always need more practice for concepts.

 

However, I don't think LOF is the ideal program for everyone. Starting next year I'm adding some integrated math (probably MEP). I think ds need practice working with longer problem sets as a skill.

 

I do wish LOF had extra practice workbooks, like Singapore. Those would round out the program nicely, imo.

[chpiper]

We have to have our schoolwork evaluated and my ds is in a diploma program. The evaluator decided is the material is sufficient for high school credit. Ours said that LOF is sufficient for a high school credit...and we also felt like it was enough for my ds. He is very good at math, and he didn't need any 'extras' to get it...

[4wildberrys]

 

I do wish LOF had extra practice workbooks, like Singapore. Those would round out the program nicely, imo.

:iagree: Which is why I opted against using it---it just gets so complicated trying to improve something that is supposed to be fine on its own.

[Karen in CO]

Are you using the Companion books? My ds worked through them as a review before college after taking a year off from math in his senior year and loved them, but he worked through both books and companion guides. I've never used them as the only math program although is on my list of possibilities. I will probably have my math teacher brother look at them before I would go with them alone - he likes Saxon because of all the practice.

[Margo out of lurking]

I think as a text it IS fine as a stand alone.

 

. . .

 

It isn't about whether the text is enough. It is about learning style of my student.

 

I do wish LOF had extra practice workbooks, like Singapore. Those would round out the program nicely, imo.

 

:iagree: My dd used LoF algebra last year and ended up retaking algebra this year with Lial's. While she might have passed with LoF if she'd been in ps, she had no idea what she was doing, and I couldn't in good conscience count it as a credit. (Yes, we used the Companion.)

 

I don't necessarily think it's a failure of LoF. Otoh, my ds is more math-oriented, and while he may use LoF in high school, it would only be as a supplement. I believe he's capable of a lot more, and the challenge will be good for him.

 

(LOL, I am not saying LoF is only for kids who don't need to be challenged, or who aren't capable of more, just that it didn't work as I'd hoped at my house.)

[Kareni]

My husband has tutored two students using LOF Algebra. With one student, the textbook alone has proved sufficient and that student has only the occasional question for my husband when they meet every other week. She is working independently for the most part. The other student, who used both the textbook and the companion volume, struggled. She needed additional practice to cement her knowledge. The efficacy of LOF (as with any curriculum) depends upon the individual.

 

Regards,

Kareni

[laughing lioness]

Thanks for the input,everyone! I think we'll stick with Fred, and continue with the tutor.

[jenbrdsly]

I'm a former elementary school teacher, who is using Life of Fred Fractions with my son at home. I think that LOF is wonderful as a supplement, but could not be a stand alone curriculum because there is too much curriculum compaction. Kids would not get enough practice, and there is not hands on manipulative part. Even all the way up to algebra, there are ways to incoporate a hands on approach, and that is an important part of learning.

 

I review LOF in more detail at http://teachingmybabytoread.blog.com/2011/05/27/life-of-fred-further-thoughts/

[Starr]

It didn't work for my ds but a friend is using it with a math tutor and extra problems.

[NineChoirs]

It works great as a stand alone for us. I have no doubt as to it's effectiveness. I have always thought "drill & kill" methods of teaching math were just a way to make students hate math. LoF has shown me there is another way to teach the subject. It has made for some very happy students around here. My math haters have become math lovers, what more could I ask for?

[Brindee]

I'm a former elementary school teacher, who is using Life of Fred Fractions with my son at home. I think that LOF is wonderful as a supplement, but could not be a stand alone curriculum because there is too much curriculum compaction. Kids would not get enough practice, and there is not hands on manipulative part. Even all the way up to algebra, there are ways to incoporate a hands on approach, and that is an important part of learning.

 

I review LOF in more detail at http://teachingmybabytoread.blog.com/2011/05/27/life-of-fred-further-thoughts/

But have you looked at the other LoF books? They're much more substantial than the Fractions book and the Decimals and Percents book! Those two books together took dd only about 1/2 a year. You can't really base a theory of LoF books with just one of those books. Check out the Pre-Algebra, Algebra and the other higher level books. They're more "meaty" than those 1st 2 books! :001_smile:

[Storm Bay]

We're using LOF beginning algebra this year. It works for my son. He thinks about math the way LOF teaches. He doesn't always need more practice for concepts.

 

However, I don't think LOF is the ideal program for everyone. Starting next year I'm adding some integrated math (probably MEP). I think ds need practice working with longer problem sets as a skill.

 

I do wish LOF had extra practice workbooks, like Singapore. Those would round out the program nicely, imo.

 

Exactly; the extra practice workbooks would be for those dc who need more practice. LOF is all my eldest needs.

 

fwiw, the factions book is NOT indicative of the Algebra and up books. We own a majority of the books (still don't have Calculus or pre-Algebra) My eldest has switched to ps and now is forced to do far more problems than she really needs.

 

 

Thanks for the input,everyone! I think we'll stick with Fred, and continue with the tutor.

I think thats a great plan. My ds can't do LOF without a tutor or teacher.

[Storm Bay]

I'm a former elementary school teacher, who is using Life of Fred Fractions with my son at home. I think that LOF is wonderful as a supplement, but could not be a stand alone curriculum because there is too much curriculum compaction. Kids would not get enough practice, and there is not hands on manipulative part. Even all the way up to algebra, there are ways to incoporate a hands on approach, and that is an important part of learning.

 

I review LOF in more detail at http://teachingmybabytoread.blog.com/2011/05/27/life-of-fred-further-thoughts/

 

 

I have to agree with Brindee. As I mentioned in my other post, my eldest does not need all that practice, and since by Algebra most dc don't need manipulatives, you don't have to include that when you teach Algebra at home to only one or two students. If you do need a manipulative approach to Algebra, there's always Hands on Equations, which my ds is going to do as part of his grade 6 (it's for grades 3 and up and teaches Algebra concepts with manipulatives) or MUS.

 

However, I can understand that in your classroom teaching of Algebra you'd want to include the manipulatives for those dc who really need the kinesthetic part of it

[NineChoirs]

Karin,

What is Hands on Equations? My ds is a kin/audio learner and it sounds like something he might enjoy (he loves wrap ups).

[Storm Bay]

Karin,

What is Hands on Equations? My ds is a kin/audio learner and it sounds like something he might enjoy (he loves wrap ups).

I bought ours through Rainbow Resource, but here is a link to their website where they have a couple of demo videos. I learned about it via WTM and have it here waiting.

http://www.borenson.com/

[rlugbill]

Yes, your friend is an engineer and knows math, but not a teacher. We showed Life of Fred to our neighbor, a retired teacher. She agreed it covered everything. But also said there isn't enough practice to use as a stand-alone program.

 

We love LOF, but for most kids, some supplementation is probably helpful or else they won't retain the information. It does cover everything. But many kids will forget what they learned unless it is used enough to be cemented in their brains.

 

It is easy enough to supplement with almost any other textbook. Almost any other textbook will have the lesson topics clearly marked and you can just choose some of the problems to do.

 

LOF is great though- I don't want to be discouraging. It is relatively easy to supplement.

[Storm Bay]

Yes, your friend is an engineer and knows math, but not a teacher. We showed Life of Fred to our neighbor, a retired teacher. She agreed it covered everything. But also said there isn't enough practice to use as a stand-alone program.

 

LOF is great though- I don't want to be discouraging. It is relatively easy to supplement.

 

Yes, many dc will need supplmentation, but there are some dc who don't need the supplementation or any extra problems; they are a minority, but they are also the ones that are very bored in school math classes :). I find that most school teachers are resistant to that idea (but not all.) For a dc like that,I can see supplementing the Geometry for math or science oriented dc because I think that it's good to learn paragraph proofs and to learn to state which Algebra postulate is being used in a proof, which is what we did.

 

All of this said, we do Algebra 1 twice, but that has nothing to do with whether or not LOF is complete, since my eldest did that before we bought a single LOF book.

[NineChoirs]

Karin ~ Do you use the DVD component of the Hands on Equations? I definitely think this is going on my wish list to use with my ds next year, he already loves to use game pawns and set up puzzles and math problems with them, so it is like this set is made for him!

 

My ds is going through his most recent LoF book twice as well. He requested to be able to do it since he really wanted to cement the facts. I find it a testament to the greatness of the LoF series that he actually wanted to go through the book twice. He is flying through it since at this point it is basically review. He is having fun pointing out the minor details that he missed the first time through. I am certain that, considering the fact he has always despised math, that if I had forced him to do boring drill & kill math worksheets on top of LoF, he would have continued to hate math and shown no interest in cementing anything. He would have just continued to do what was absolutely necessary to scrape by till he could stop doing math all together. But now he is thrilled with the idea of doing Calculus & Statistics!

 

My dd has a photographic memory and does NOT need any extra review. Sometimes she struggles with learning a new concept, but once she gets it she never ever forgets it. She was recently in a HSM2 play and the director was floored because my dd memorized every.single.line in the play. And she did that after the first week of rehearsal! Some kids definitely do not need review, my dd is proof positive of that.

[Storm Bay]

Karin ~ Do you use the DVD component of the Hands on Equations? I definitely think this is going on my wish list to use with my ds next year, he already loves to use game pawns and set up puzzles and math problems with them, so it is like this set is made for him!

 

My ds is going through his most recent LoF book twice as well. He requested to be able to do it since he really wanted to cement the facts. I find it a testament to the greatness of the LoF series that he actually wanted to go through the book twice. He is flying through it since at this point it is basically review. He is having fun pointing out the minor details that he missed the first time through. I am certain that, considering the fact he has always despised math, that if I had forced him to do boring drill & kill math worksheets on top of LoF, he would have continued to hate math and shown no interest in cementing anything. He would have just continued to do what was absolutely necessary to scrape by till he could stop doing math all together. But now he is thrilled with the idea of doing Calculus & Statistics!

 

My dd has a photographic memory and does NOT need any extra review. Sometimes she struggles with learning a new concept, but once she gets it she never ever forgets it. She was recently in a HSM2 play and the director was floored because my dd memorized every.single.line in the play. And she did that after the first week of rehearsal! Some kids definitely do not need review, my dd is proof positive of that.

 

We haven't started Hands on Equations yet, but have the DVD component.

 

I should have mentioned that we do Algebra 1 twice with different methods, but that my dc want to do LOF again, now that we have it. My eldest is going to do LOF Trig this summer because she finds it better than what they use at the ps (of course, I'm not calling it homeschooling because she says she hates that now. She's willing to do it because she loves it.) My middle one is going to redo it as a review this summer.

 

That's an amazing photographic memory that your dd has! Mine don't have that, but my eldest is mathy and once she has it, she has it. She doesn't need much review for tests, though.

[EKS]

Has this person ever taught math? So far, I have used the Fractions and the Decimals books and found them both to be lacking.

 

I would *never* use LoF as a primary program based on my experience with these two books.

[NineChoirs]

Has this person ever taught math? So far, I have used the Fractions and the Decimals books and found them both to be lacking.

 

I would *never* use LoF as a primary program based on my experience with these two books.

 

 

*sigh* I don't know how many times it has to be said that those two books are primers. They do not reflect the rest of the series but are meant to be used as a preparation for the tougher concepts.

[EKS]

*sigh* I don't know how many times it has to be said that those two books are primers. They do not reflect the rest of the series but are meant to be used as a preparation for the tougher concepts.

 

Unfortunately, they are the entry point to the series and as such should reflect its quality.

[NineChoirs]

Unfortunately, they are the entry point to the series and as such should reflect its quality.

 

They are great quality.... as primers. Many series (especially in the subject of reading) have primers. It is a tried and true way of introducing a new subject. I think the first two books do a great job reflecting the quality of the series as a whole. Anyone who takes the time to actually read the author's suggestions on how the program should be used will do just fine. Those who make assumptions are the ones who will be disappointed. Just because you were not happy with the program because it didn't fit into your teaching/learning style doesn't mean it isn't a perfect fit for others, which it obviously is.

[EKS]

I think the first two books do a great job reflecting the quality of the series as a whole.

 

If this is the case then I guess the entire series is seriously deficient.

[NineChoirs]

If this is the case then I guess the entire series is seriously deficient.

:001_huh::glare::rolleyes:

[Brindee]

If this is the case then I guess the entire series is seriously deficient.

:tongue_smilie: You have a right to your beliefs, obviously. But really, I'd try looking at/through some of the other books before making a blanket statement. Maybe you have your mind made up, then so be it. But then it would be based on incomplete info. I just think if someone said negative things about a reading program after reading the primer, saying it didn't have enough depth, etc., that wouldn't make sense. The primer isn't going to be as deep and broad as the books that come later in the series.

 

If you HAVE looked at the other books, and still have this opinion, then nevermind what I just said. :001_smile:

[EKS]

:tongue_smilie: You have a right to your beliefs, obviously. But really, I'd try looking at/through some of the other books before making a blanket statement. Maybe you have your mind made up, then so be it. But then it would be based on incomplete info. I just think if someone said negative things about a reading program after reading the primer, saying it didn't have enough depth, etc., that wouldn't make sense. The primer isn't going to be as deep and broad as the books that come later in the series.

 

If you HAVE looked at the other books, and still have this opinion, then nevermind what I just said. :001_smile:

 

NineChoirs stated "the first two books do a great job reflecting the quality of the series as a whole." This is after telling me that the books are primers and therefore wouldn't have the same quality (or depth) as the series as a whole. You can't have it both ways.

 

The author of the series says that a kid only needs to know three things before starting with the Fractions book: addition facts, multiplication facts, and long division. I honestly don't see how a kid could be successful with the Fractions book in particular with just this knowledge. And I really don't see how a kid could possibly be ready for Algebra I after having only the addition and multiplication facts, long division, and the Fractions and Decimals books under his belt. I realize that the author came out with the Prealgebra books to deal with this deficiency, but before they came out, the idea was that a kid could jump right into the first algebra book.

 

That said, I do think the Fractions and Decimals books are interesting supplements. I also think that the author's experience with teaching higher level math will probably come through much better in the higher level books. I'm guessing that the deficiencies in the Fractions and Decimals books are likely the result of having not actually taught these subjects to young children.

[Phoatogirl]

.

 

The author of the series says that a kid only needs to know three things before starting with the Fractions book: addition facts, multiplication facts, and long division. I honestly don't see how a kid could be successful with the Fractions book in particular with just this knowledge. And I really don't see how a kid could possibly be ready for Algebra I after having only the addition and multiplication facts, long division, and the Fractions and Decimals books under his belt. I realize that the author came out with the Prealgebra books to deal with this deficiency, but before they came out, the idea was that a kid could jump right into the first algebra book.

 

.

 

We aren't using LOF for our main text, but still, I'm curious to know why you don't agree with the author? What else would they need to know to begin the fractions book? Ditto with beginning the Algebra 1 book.

 

My son is working through the pre-algebra books and there are no new basic math skills covered that were not in the fractions and decimals books. The economics book is getting into a little preliminary algebra, but it's covered again in algebra 1. I kept waiting for LOF to get to signed numbers in pre-algebra, but I don't think it is going to. However, it is at the beginning of the Algebra book.

 

As far as the topics that are covered in a typical pre-algebra course which are not covered in LOF, do they need these for algebra anyway???? Geometry is covered in pre-algebra in ps books, MUS, and Lial, but it isn't in my son's MUS algebra course. I think this is why the geometry is at the end of the school year. If they don't get to it they can still begin algebra the next year.

[8filltheheart]

Have you considered that all elementary students are not the same? As a parent whose child was taught fractions in the fully included classroom environment - i.e. sped and LD along with gifted, it is quite obvious that student's needs are individual. Many do need curriculum compaction in comparison to the depth and pacing that is being offered to the whole included class and many do not need the hands-on. There is a wealth of data that you can access through your educational psychologists that show you how to tell which students are ready to move out of hands on and into abstract -- ime their parents are aware and are providing proper instruction outside the classroom through afterschooling and providers such as Art of Problem Solving, as they are aware that gen ed and fully included whole class instruction are both inappropriate just from the child's emotional response.

 

 

I have gifted math students. A couple very gifted. I don't have the time or the energy for a debate which is completely pointless.

 

The only reason I am posting is b/c I do not believe that LOF should be compared to AoPS. AoPS is discovery methodolgy. LOF is not on the same caliber as AoPS. AoPS is guided discovery with complete detailed instruction w/in the solutions for students that aren't able to fill in the details on their own from learning the big picture.

Edited May 30, 2011 by 8FillTheHeart

[8filltheheart]

Could you clarify - since you are quoting me, are you directing your post at me? If so, please disregard - .

 

I only quoted you b/c this thread is titled LOF and you were discussing AoPS. There have been some posts which seem to use these 2courses interchangeably. I was simply pointing out that they are dissimilar and I would not categorize AoPS with LOF.

[Storm Bay]

Has this person ever taught math? So far, I have used the Fractions and the Decimals books and found them both to be lacking.

 

I would *never* use LoF as a primary program based on my experience with these two books.

 

They aren't the same at all. Having used Beginning Algebra, Geometry and Fractions, as well has having read most of the rest, the Fractions and Decimals books are NOT in the same category. There is more teaching in the later books and they are much more complete.

 

However, there are many math books I would *never* use as my primary program based on what we've seen using them here that others use, either. LoF remains my gifted dd's favourite math books (they started later than Fractions & Decimals) and they have gone on to prove that they have done by using it. As for ds, I highly doubt it will be any good for him alone, although it may work as a supplement.

Unfortunately, they are the entry point to the series and as such should reflect its quality.

What I suggest is that you write the author with what you think. We have found him easy to communicate with. I personally don't think that Fractions and Decimals are of the same calibre in some important ways. I also think that the other books aren't going to be enough for many, but that there are things about them that would still be beneficial, particularly when he takes something that is usually explained in a complicated manner and explains it beautifully in a streamlined manner wthout dumbing it down and then still including a more traditional explanation. I don't see that in Fractions.

 

 

I only quoted you b/c this thread is titled LOF and you were discussing AoPS. There have been some posts which seem to use these 2courses interchangeably. I was simply pointing out that they are dissimilar and I would not categorize AoPS with LOF.

Correct, they are different. But LoF does get students to think, and some of the learning happens doing the Your Turn to Play problems and some of the problems in the first couple of cities. It really isn't enough for dc who need a lot of practice problems, either. My eldest refused to do AoPS.

[Matryoshka]

Correct, they are different. But LoF does get students to think, and some of the learning happens doing the Your Turn to Play problems and some of the problems in the first couple of cities. It really isn't enough for dc who need a lot of practice problems, either. My eldest refused to do AoPS.

 

:lol: My dd refused to do any more LOF and asked to do AoPS instead. :tongue_smilie:

[Storm Bay]

:lol: My dd refused to do any more LOF and asked to do AoPS instead. :tongue_smilie:

:lol:

[Kates]

But have you looked at the other LoF books? They're much more substantial than the Fractions book and the Decimals and Percents book! Those two books together took dd only about 1/2 a year. You can't really base a theory of LoF books with just one of those books. Check out the Pre-Algebra, Algebra and the other higher level books. They're more "meaty" than those 1st 2 books! :001_smile:

 

I agree - there's much more to LoF than these two books show. Honestly, my 13yo is doing them as review right now, and finished Fractions in 4 days...and is looking to do Decimals & Percents in about a week or so. He went through two other elem/middle school math currics that covered fractions, decimals, percents, and other concepts pretty adequately...but he didn't retain a darn thing. He chose to do these two books as review before starting LoF Advanced Algebra, and all of the info finally makes sense to him.

 

LoF, in my opinion, is comprehensive enough for a stand-alone curric - it just depends on the learning style of your student. Like any curric, some love it and others hate it. Some do fine with it as a supplement, while for others, it's exactly what they need as a full program. :)

[jenbrdsly]

Nope! I haven't seen the other LOF books yet, to you are right to take what I saw with a grain of salt! But my son has now almost finished LOF fractions, and I stand by my original thinking. I wouldn't use LOF as a stand alone curriculum becuase I disagree with how the author is introducing mathematical concepts from an educational theory perspecitive.

 

I am a firm believer in Constructivism, and LOF Fractions is not a Constructivist approach because it relies too much on algortihms without enough conceptual understanding. This makes me suspicious of the rest of the series, even though I haven't seen it. However, I still think it is a good supplement if you pair it with hands on activities side by side, and I plan to buy and use the rest of the books when the time comes.

[jenbrdsly]

Umm... I'm going to presume possitive intent here, because I'm sure you don't mean to claim that as an experience elementary school teacher, I've never considered that students have different learning needs. Yes, of course many HG and PG students (such as my son) do not need as much practice as neuro-typical children.

 

But I firmly believe that people of all ages benefit from hands on learning. If you pair hands-on activites with LOF, the end result will be so much better!

 

As a side note, my husband is an engineer and he has always said that he is 100% supportive of not teaching our children to learn math by means of traditional algorithms, like those often included in LOF Fractions. Engineers have to have true, conceptual understanding of why mathematical concepts work, not just mindly plug away at math-magic equations.

 

And thank you for your idea about seeking the guidance of the math coordinator from our school district. That's a great idea.

[Brindee]

Nope! I haven't seen the other LOF books yet, to you are right to take what I saw with a grain of salt! But my son has now almost finished LOF fractions, and I stand by my original thinking. I wouldn't use LOF as a stand alone curriculum becuase I disagree with how the author is introducing mathematical concepts from an educational theory perspecitive.

 

I am a firm believer in Constructivism, and LOF Fractions is not a Constructivist approach because it relies too much on algortihms without enough conceptual understanding. This makes me suspicious of the rest of the series, even though I haven't seen it. However, I still think it is a good supplement if you pair it with hands on activities side by side, and I plan to buy and use the rest of the books when the time comes.

I used to teach school as well, before we started homeschooling. Not sure how relevant that is, just finding common ground. :D

 

Since you are a believer in Constructivsm, and the Fractions book doesn't come across that way, then maybe you and your family prefer another curriculum, which is fine...there are sooo many curriculums out there! I see your point, but really, I don't think a person should base their theory of all of LoF on one "mini-book" in the LoF series! After you have researched the whole series more, you may come to the same conclusion. THEN I think you'd have more of a logical argument.

 

I said dd took 1/2 a year on the two first books. That was spreading it out and doing some other things along with it. They're shorter books, and can be done rather quickly as a review. Those kinds of books won't be able to include everything the larger, more meaty books do.

 

Okay, hopefully this doesn't come across rudely, I TOTALLY do not mean it to!

[Storm Bay]

As a side note, my husband is an engineer and he has always said that he is 100% supportive of not teaching our children to learn math by means of traditional algorithms, like those often included in LOF Fractions. Engineers have to have true, conceptual understanding of why mathematical concepts work, not just mindly plug away at math-magic equations.

 

.

(note: I agree with Brindee about picking what you like & about not judging LOF by Fractions & Decimals)

 

Ah, you have touched on a subject which is hotly contested in the math world :). A good read on this is the book Math Wars. We here have to agree to disagree because there are many mothers who have found that the most popular ps math curricula leaves their kids floundering. I prefer a combination of conceptual and algorithm, with the conceptual coming first. As for engineers, you are correct that the concept is integral; my bil is an engineer. However, since American teens keep dropping in math worldwide, many of us eschew the popular methods used in school and are skeptical of fuzzy math.

 

 

Here's what a leading astrophysicist thinks about it

 

Math wars are ongoing. I grew up when New Math was introduced, and while when teachers could teach it it was great, it was dropped, too. In fact, that's a pattern that is ongoing with math curricula. My impression is that the majority of homeschooling parents on this forum are unhappy with ps math, but as for which one we like, well that is a hotly debated topic, too, and there isn't a math program used here that isn't both loved and hated by different people. My dd has gone back to ps after 7 years at home and finds that her Algebra II text is not as good as either LOF or the old, New Math era Dolciani Structure & Method book she was using (1965, I made her use the Dolciani because she insisted I buy it before we had tried LOF.)

Edited June 8, 2011 by Karin

[jenbrdsly]

Just to clarify, I am intending on introducing the rest of the LOF books to my kids as they are ready for them. Yeah for Kittens University! And to put a Constructivist spin on it, it might be neat (in the lower books) to have a student write their own math book, Fred style, where they explain mathematical concepts in their own thinking, and write up "Your Turn to Play"s for their mom or dad to figure out. I'm going to try this out with my son.

Regarding the Math Wars, my two cents is that New Math, Back to Basics Math, Constructivism, Whole Language, Phonics, you name it... Any new educational theory that gets forced on school districts from the powers that be, has a great chance of failing if the teachers are not adequately trained on how to implement the new material. This hits math education especially hard, as an ironic outcome of improving women's rights.

Now, mathematically minded women can become doctors, scientists, or whatever they want. Their choices are no longer limited to becoming nurses or teachers. So in truth, there are a lot of teachers out there with not-so-hot mathematical understanding themself. Thankfully, there are a lot of great teachers out there too!

 

I think a really good teacher can make any type of mathematical philosophy of instruction work for her students, no matter what a school district might be forcing upon her. But if your child was stuck with a teacher with poor mathematical understanding herself (or himself), my belief is that your kid would be better off if that teacher was using a hands-on approach. Just like I think LOF Fractions is better when you also add on some manipulative activites.

[kiana]

Now, mathematically minded women can become doctors, scientists, or whatever they want. Their choices are no longer limited to becoming nurses or teachers. So in truth, there are a lot of teachers out there with not-so-hot mathematical understanding themself. Thankfully, there are a lot of great teachers out there too!

 

 

My mother (and grandmother) said this for years. heh.

[8filltheheart]

Nope! I haven't seen the other LOF books yet, to you are right to take what I saw with a grain of salt!..........becuase I disagree with how the author is introducing mathematical concepts from an educational theory perspecitive.

 

it relies too much on algortihms without enough conceptual understanding. This makes me suspicious of the rest of the series, even though I haven't seen it. .

 

This is my opinion as well. I only own Fractions and Decimals. I didn't use Decimals b/c I was dissatisfied with Fractions. I understand what other posters in this thread and other threads are stating and perhaps the other books do teach differently. However, I have read numerous posts claiming that Fractions teaches conceptually and my assessment is that no, it does not; it teaches algorithmically.

 

Others are free to love the series as much as they like. However, as someone who reads this forum and appreciates multiple perspectives, I am always glad to read various assessments. So, I am glad that others are expressing their POV and this just happens to be mine. ;)

Edited June 8, 2011 by 8FillTheHeart

[Storm Bay]

Regarding the Math Wars, my two cents is that New Math, Back to Basics Math, Constructivism, Whole Language, Phonics, you name it... Any new educational theory that gets forced on school districts from the powers that be, has a great chance of failing if the teachers are not adequately trained on how to implement the new material. This hits math education especially hard, as an ironic outcome of improving women's rights.

 

.

:iagree::iagree::iagree: Teachers need to know how to teach something. Also, there are many teachers who aren't comfortable teaching math, just as there are homeschooling parents who are. I do have issues with how math is often being taught now, because I believe that getting the right answer is just as important as understanding the concept (it's okay to make a mistake, which is why you use pencil), so once a child gets the concept, I'm all for algorithms. Another problem is that you get something that's good and you get knock offs that aren't nearly as well done, which happened with New Math and other things. I prefer high school math texts to be written by mathematicians (having it checked by high school teachers is a plus, of course) and not some of the others who write the books, but of course, that's my opinion based on my experience, etc.

 

Even in Singapore, not everyone uses math methods taught the SM way (MUS sells well there, for eg.), at least not in the homeschooling world, so I'm mainly happy that we have the freedom to choose what works for us at home.

 

I like the idea of a child writing their own math book, and wonder if my dc would fight me on it or embrace the idea. Teaching something yourself helps the student understand and the teacher see what they do and don't understand.

[kentuckymommy]

Food for thought on this subject...a friend of mine is using these exclusively with her high schoolers, who are very math inclined. Both boys passed their CLEP exams for algebra last month and scored over an 83...She is very happy with the outcome. The boys background was from Singapore and a short stint with Teaching Textbooks...The oldest is studying for two more CLEP exams including Calculus...he is newly 15.

[Surprise Symphony]

Thank you for posting this. We use LOF exclusively with our boys, and I always find myself worrying that things might be better/more rigorous/more appropriate? elsewhere every time that there are posts about LOF as a supplement.

 

My admittedly mathy boys, have up until now, tested very high in the math sections of standardized tests as well (but it sure helps to hear success stories and be encouraged that their test results may well continue).

 

Lisa

[regentrude]

As a side note, my husband is an engineer and he has always said that he is 100% supportive of not teaching our children to learn math by means of traditional algorithms, like those often included in LOF Fractions. Engineers have to have true, conceptual understanding of why mathematical concepts work, not just mindly plug away at math-magic equations.

 

(bolded emphasis is mine)

As a physics instructor, I completely agree that drilling the traditional algorithm should not be the only thing and that a conceptual understanding is absoltely necessary. Some curricula, however, go for the other extreme and emphasize concepts while neglecting algorithms. Understanding the concept is not useful without having acquired the skill to actually perform the calculations, and that requires practice.

For instance, a student who knows in principle how to multiply, but did not practice the skill to proficiency will have trouble later on in math or science, when this has to come automatically. A student who may have understood the concept of solving linear equations, but who has not practiced this and does not have this skill at his fingertips will have trouble with physics because he gets too hung up in math and won't have his head free for the physics behind the problem (something I see every semester)

So, a purely conceptual approach without practice is useless - as is a pure drill approach without true conceptual understanding.

Unfortunately, many curricula are unbalanced in one of these two ways.

[kiana]

(bolded emphasis is mine)

As a physics instructor, I completely agree that drilling the traditional algorithm should not be the only thing and that a conceptual understanding is absoltely necessary. Some curricula, however, go for the other extreme and emphasize concepts while neglecting algorithms. Understanding the concept is not useful without having acquired the skill to actually perform the calculations, and that requires practice.

For instance, a student who knows in principle how to multiply, but did not practice the skill to proficiency will have trouble later on in math or science, when this has to come automatically. A student who may have understood the concept of solving linear equations, but who has not practiced this and does not have this skill at his fingertips will have trouble with physics because he gets too hung up in math and won't have his head free for the physics behind the problem (something I see every semester)

So, a purely conceptual approach without practice is useless - as is a pure drill approach without true conceptual understanding.

Unfortunately, many curricula are unbalanced in one of these two ways.

 

I should just follow regentrude around and hit 'I agree' :P

 

I had someone in a college algebra class who couldn't multiply. Her method of finding 5x8 would be to draw a 5x8 grid of dots and count the dots.

 

She understood it conceptually and could set up word problems correctly. But the fact that she had absolutely no way to do single-digit multiplication other than this extremely tedious way meant that she never finished an exam on time (departmental policy doesn't permit calculators) and ended up withdrawing from the course.