Kakids Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 Is there a curriculum that teaches with more of a top down style? We're currently looking at a K/1 level, but I'm looking for information for future reference also. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farrar Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 If the OP means a curriculum where the teacher is the holder of the knowledge and the student is there to receive it, then I wouldn't automatically think AoPS. Plus, she wants K/1 and AoPS doesn't have that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FairProspects Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 If by top down you mean "discovery" method, where the student looks at the whole and intuits the parts, I'd say Miquon for K-1 math, and GEMs or Intellego Science. I also think SOTW can be taught this way. There is not really much this style for LA until the student gets older (teaching reading is pretty sequential), then there is MCT for 3+. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wapiti Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 :iagree: By "top-down," do you mean big picture before the details, a.k.a. whole-to-parts? As in, for a visual-spatial learner? Then Miquon for math for that age, followed by Beast Academy, followed by AoPS. Other math recommendations would include those programs that are heavier on teaching concepts, such as SM and MM. It is possible to search for threads about curricula for VSLs - somewhere there is a long-ish one - let me see.... here's an old post where I collected a list of threads. Be aware that some of the recommendations may be from a visual standpoint rather than a whole-to-parts standpoint. I don't know of any large thread collecting specifically whole-to-part resources across subjects (there are a few scattered tiny threads), though I suppose there's no time like the present. Also, some people may have differing understandings of what whole-to-part is about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kakids Posted July 5, 2012 Author Share Posted July 5, 2012 If by top down you mean "discovery" method, where the student looks at the whole and intuits the parts, I'd say Miquon for K-1 math, and GEMs or Intellego Science. I also think SOTW can be taught this way. There is not really much this style for LA until the student gets older (teaching reading is pretty sequential), then there is MCT for 3+. Yes. I'm sorry, I thought about putting in an explanation of what I meant by top down but couldn't come up with a way to express myself. I'm interested in things that show you the whole of what will be learned and the specifics are built after. See, even that sentence of mine doesn't quite do it for me. I know we are a bit young yet for this to be in play very much, but want to try where I can. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farrar Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 Oh, see I interpreted that really differently - like from the teacher down. That's what "top down" means to me and that's the way I always heard it used in the education world. Whole to parts sounds more like what you're talking about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mavy Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 After hearing what you mean by top down, I realize you are describing what I like in a program. I am using WRTR, BFSU, and Singapore math because I could read the manual/guide and see the goals to be learned, and then move to the lessons on how to teach it, and go from there. I tried Righstart Math and it drive me crazy to just follow the lesson. I have no doubt it is a great program, but I do not like not knowing where it is going. My husband would ask what the kids were learning in math, and I would have to say,"I have no idea." Spiral, scripted, open and go programs are not usually for me. Am I close to what you mean? I will be curious what others recommend to you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LucyRev Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 Also: Every Child is Spatial, Building Foundations of Scientific Understanding, and the Language Experience Approach (not a curriculum, exactly). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hunter Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 Wow, I have been using that term to mean planning from what a grade 12 graduate needs to know, and then breaking that up into 12 years of school work, starting on the easiest bits first. Planning from a goal, instead of concentrating on where a student currently is, and not focusing on child development or what the student needs to know now. Maybe I've been using the term wrong? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.... Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 I'm interested in things that show you the whole of what will be learned and the specifics are built after. Are you talking about Visual-Spatial Learners? If so, I did a ton of research and realized that 2 of my 4 kids are VSLs. I've spent years trying to figure out "what's going on" with my son and I unschooled my daughter last year, because there didn't seem to be a lot of curriculum out there for her. When my son went to public school, he was being pulled out to work with the Special Ed teacher every day. At the end of the year, they STILL had not taught him how to read. He was checked for LDs by our school district and he doesn't have any. IOW, it's been an ongoing struggle for about 4 years with my son. Sorry for rambling. I'm very new to this. So far, the "perfect-fit" programs for my son and daughter have been: Beast Academy (this is the first math program that my son has been able to do independently - I feel like traveling to the Beast Academy headquarters and hugging them :tongue_smilie: ) Five in a Row All About Spelling Wordsmith Apprentice :bigear: Very interested in what other parents have to say. I wish I knew more about this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kakids Posted July 24, 2012 Author Share Posted July 24, 2012 Wow, I have been using that term to mean planning from what a grade 12 graduate needs to know, and then breaking that up into 12 years of school work, starting on the easiest bits first. Planning from a goal, instead of concentrating on where a student currently is, and not focusing on child development or what the student needs to know now. Maybe I've been using the term wrong? Wow, I have been using that term to mean planning from what a grade 12 graduate needs to know, and then breaking that up into 12 years of school work, starting on the easiest bits first. Planning from a goal, instead of concentrating on where a student currently is, and not focusing on child development or what the student needs to know now. Maybe I've been using the term wrong? I am the one who is probably using the wrong terminology.:blush: Are you talking about Visual-Spatial Learners? If so, I did a ton of research and realized that 2 of my 4 kids are VSLs. I've spent years trying to figure out "what's going on" with my son and I unschooled my daughter last year, because there didn't seem to be a lot of curriculum out there for her. When my son went to public school, he was being pulled out to work with the Special Ed teacher every day. At the end of the year, they STILL had not taught him how to read. He was checked for LDs by our school district and he doesn't have any. IOW, it's been an ongoing struggle for about 4 years with my son. Sorry for rambling. I'm very new to this. So far, the "perfect-fit" programs for my son and daughter have been: Beast Academy (this is the first math program that my son has been able to do independently - I feel like traveling to the Beast Academy headquarters and hugging them :tongue_smilie: ) Five in a Row All About Spelling Wordsmith Apprentice :bigear: Very interested in what other parents have to say. I wish I knew more about this. Thank you for sharing what has worked for you. In a way I am talking about Visual Spatial learners, but I don't know that they need to be exclusively that type of learner. It's as if the goal of what a concept will be for needs to be known so that the steps learned along the way have a place to reside while waiting for all the steps to be taught. Otherwise some teachings appear randomly unrelated to anything and are easily forgotten instead of being filed away in the proper brain file for future reference. For example, in a traditional teaching environment where only a step by step approach is used some things can not be learned unless taught a second time after seeing the whole sequence and where it is supposed to end up. They must learn things twice, and in my opinion waste time, because the lesson has to have perspective to actually be learned. Wapiti had the best phrasing I have seen with whole to parts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angela in ohio Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 I am the one who is probably using the wrong terminology.:blush: No, you aren't. Top-down is commonly used to refer to whole-to-parts instruction. That's the way my oldest and I learn best, too, so I've thought about it a lot. MCT's language arts materials would be perfect. For math, you will *not* want a spiral or incremental apporach. Singapore, MCP, R&S, BJU would all be fine. For history and science, having a spine (such as an Usborne or DK encyclopedia) will be helpful in showing how topics relate to each other. A discovery approach to science would be a bad fit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hunter Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 For example, in a traditional teaching environment where only a step by step approach is used some things can not be learned unless taught a second time after seeing the whole sequence and where it is supposed to end up. They must learn things twice, and in my opinion waste time, because the lesson has to have perspective to actually be learned. Wapiti had the best phrasing I have seen with whole to parts. I often have to learn things twice. and so do some of my students. Sometimes we cannot understand the whole until we have looked at a few parts. That is why I need to find narrow scope and sequences with fewer topics covered. I avoid anything that people call "complete" and search for those curricula that people call too "narrow". We do need whole-to-parts here, but we need parts-to-whole first. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.