Why don't you like spiral math programs?

[Aspasia]

Unless you do. In that case, tell my why you prefer them. :tongue_smilie:

 

Thanks!

[Chrysalis Academy]

Yeah, we hate 'em. Miss P's ps math was spiral, and we tried TT. We don't like how scattered they are, and how scattered the learning feels - you get introduced to a topic, and just start to sink your teeth into it, and then you're off revisiting a bunch of other things, in a kinda random-feeling way. It was really hard to go deep, to consolidate, and to feel like she had really, really, learned anything from the spiral programs. It seemed like she was just skimming the surface. We're really preferring the mastery-type programs we've been using (MM and BA), although LOF which we also love is pretty random! Totally different feel, though.

 

To me it is the whole shallow vs. deep thing. I can't remember where, but I've seen a comparison chart of what is covered in typical US math programs vs Asian math programs, and the US programs tended to be much broader but more shallow. That's not what we are looking for in math, we want to achieve mastery of foundational topics before moving on, so that there are no holes and the pyramid is secure - KWIM?

[Tess in the Burbs]

I didn't like them but ds did. He HATED MUS for mastery. We moved to Horizons and he liked it. Liked the variety. Like being able to have something he recognized/familiar day to day. And honestly, his personality is just that...likes something familiar in his life, not new things. Dd is just a traditional girl who could be happy either way. So we have stuck with spiral. We complete the K-6 grade series this year and I have no idea which way to go with Algebra......

 

But we did spiral b/c it worked well for Ds. Drives me batty:lol:

[Susie in MS]

I agree with the first poster. Nibble here and nibble there. No digesting happening at all. My dd was so confused by all of the change, and was not able to get a good understanding of what was wanted of her.

[Aspasia]

Do mastery programs do a lot of review along the way, or do they incorporate previously mastered concepts in some other way?

[TracyR]

Its one of those things that to each his own. Some children do well with mastery math and some do not. My oldest does well with mastery and my younger three do better with a spiral approach. For me I like whatever gets the job done.

[magnificent_baby]

Oh, dear. I should stay out of this thread. I thought I was all set on curricula for the year and I don't want to change my mind! :lol:

 

We use CLE and love it. I like spiral because it continually brings up previous concepts, and so the information stays fresh in the mind. In the year we have used it, I can't recall that she has ever forgotten how to solve a problem (though naturally she makes mistakes from time to time). I was pleased with her ITBS scores in math, but this was the first year she has taken them, so nothing to compare them to.

 

We do supplement (MM last year, CWP this year and I'm open to adding another supplement).

[Farrar]

I have twins - one using MM, which is very mastery based, and one doing Miquon, which is spiral. Different kids, different needs.

 

I think spiral programs are maligned a lot because there are more really solid conceptual math programs that are mastery based out there. As well, a lot of the really, really bad ps math curricula, like Everyday Math, are super spiral. But I don't think that means you can't do math well in a spiral way.

[SunnyDays]

Do mastery programs do a lot of review along the way, or do they incorporate previously mastered concepts in some other way?

 

Some mastery programs hardly review at *all*. Others do incorporate some review. Singapore Standards, for example, has some cumulative reviews tucked in on a regular basis. Math Mammoth doesn't have review in the main "document" of the curriculum, but has them in the supplemental resources to use.

 

Agree with Farrar that spiral isn't necessarily a bad thing, but probably gets a bad reputation because of some of the programs out there.

 

A PP mentioned CLE, for example. We've used that in the past, and will again if I don't feel DS is getting enough review and practice with MM. CLE may not be as conceptual as something like Singapore, but it does have conceptual teaching and a solid base.

 

It really comes down to individual preference, while making sure you're getting a solid program.

[boscopup]

Mastery programs usually do have built in review. For one thing, math tends to build on itself. It's hard to do multi-digit multiplication if you don't know how to add, and you don't have to practice adding separately from such problems because you're using it in the multiplication problem.

 

I use Singapore, and it has plenty of review for my kids. There are cumulative reviews after each unit, and the units aren't very long. My kids and I do better learning a concept, practicing it enough to become good at it, then moving on to something that uses that concept. All of my kids are mathy (as I am), and we all get bored doing mostly review problems that we already know how to do.

 

I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with a spiral program. Some kids learn better that way.

[Susie in MS]

Oh, dear. I should stay out of this thread. I thought I was all set on curricula for the year and I don't want to change my mind! :lol:

 

We use CLE and love it. I like spiral because it continually brings up previous concepts, and so the information stays fresh in the mind. In the year we have used it, I can't recall that she has ever forgotten how to solve a problem (though naturally she makes mistakes from time to time). I was pleased with her ITBS scores in math, but this was the first year she has taken them, so nothing to compare them to.

 

We do supplement (MM last year, CWP this year and I'm open to adding another supplement).

 

If it is working then stick with it. My dd has probs with spiral, but my oldest 3 didn't. They did quite well with it, and appreciated the variety.

[regentrude]

My children perfer to thoroughly explore a topic and go from one related subtopic to the next in a logical fashion. We prefer to work on one thing until it has been thoroughly mastered and then move on to the skill that comes next.

We find spiral math programs highly irritating: they jump between unrelated topics; they give you only morsels but do not feed the appetite for a comprehensive teaching of one skill; they are constantly revisiting old concepts (which feels boring) and just deliver another tiny morsel of knowledge (only to jump to something unrelated when one is just beginning to immerse in the topic.)

 

A good mastery based program does not require artificial review because the topics build upon each other, and previously acquired skills are needed in teh subsequent concepts. If the material has been truly mastered (and not just comitted to short term memory), this kind of built-it review is sufficient.

[ErinE]

A good math program will continually build on concepts without drilling the child constantly.

[Professormom]

I agree with the previous poster who made the point that sometimes the type of program (more conceptual like Singapore or more traditional - for lack of a better word - like Horizons) can be identified with whether or not it is mastery-based. I use a combo of these two programs and depending on how you teach them and what your expectations are, both can be considered mastery-based. Singapore simply introduces one concept at a time and focuses on it for multiple lessons in a row, while Horizons introduces a concept and integrates the teaching of that concept with the review of other concepts that have come before.

 

You don't really master something unless you keep practicing it at the elementary level. I think some people will hear a program like Singapore referred to as mastery-based and assume that means that a program like Horizons has no mastery components in it. Kind of like throwing the baby out with the bathwater:lol:

 

Sometimes I think a clearer term for programs like Singapore and MM would be something closer to focused-concept or something like that, because newer hs'ers get the impression that you aim for mastery in a program like Singapore, but not in Horizons, which isn't really accurate. Both are good programs. They are just two different methods to get to the same point. And the final product - how much your student learns - from either method will be largely dependent on learning styles, personalities, etc. That is why you will find such polar opposite opinions on this board. :D

 

All that being said, I want to end by clarifying - and this is why I use both programs - that the WAY concepts are explained or broken down are usually very different between the two types of programs. I have my own opinions on which I think is more conducive to true mathematical thinking. :001_smile:

But, true mastery of the mathematical concepts can be accomplished with either type of program, depending on your teaching style and your child's learning style. So, after you read through all of the gazillions of opinions on these boards, pick out a few people who you seem to identify with the most and weight your choice based on those thoughts... It will help you pick through the clutter and focus on what might work best for your family.

 

Hope that wasn't too much of a ramble:-). Good luck!

[Serenade]

I like the spiral approach for my kids, particularly my oldest, because it seems to be a better fit for a kid who has working memory issues. With the spiral approach, it is easy to catch it early if he "forgets" something, plus the constant repetition keeps things fresh in his mind. Horizons did such a good job reinforcing things for him, that he's been able to skip from Horizons 5 directly to Saxon Algebra 1/2.

[Aspasia]

I like the spiral approach for my kids, particularly my oldest, because it seems to be a better fit for a kid who has working memory issues. With the spiral approach, it is easy to catch it early if he "forgets" something, plus the constant repetition keeps things fresh in his mind. Horizons did such a good job reinforcing things for him, that he's been able to skip from Horizons 5 directly to Saxon Algebra 1/2.

 

Interesting. My dd really picks up on math concepts easily and enjoys it, but if we work on something else for a week and then go back, it's almost like starting all over with her. I wonder if a spiral approach may be a better fit for her. I guess we'll just have to give one a shot and see how it goes....

[kbpaulie]

My kids get it and want to move on. End of chapter review, however, is good. One that covers other chapters and concepts as well. We've found this in Singapore Math Stds version

[Chrysalis Academy]

I've found that MM has plenty of review. Although each chapter focuses on a single topic, there is a chapter-end review and a cumulative review after each chapter. And, as pps have said, each concept is built upon by the next, so that while you don't keep repeating the exact same thing, you are always using it and building on it. But there is a logical progression, rather than the seemingly random jumping around I've seen in the spiral programs I'm familiar with.

[jer2911mom]

We appreciate the spiral review of topics like money and time that are often covered in only one chapter in mastery-based programs. There are some things that it seems helpful to review all year. I think spiral programs are good for those who need to see topics frequently to ensure long-term retention, and for kids who like a lot of variety each day. I think mastery programs are good for kids who like to hone in on one topic, focus on it, and then move on, and who can retain what they've learned until they see it in a later cumulative review or the following year when it is covered again.

 

HTH,

Kathy

[Hunter]

In my experience I need to place students lower in a spiral curriculum, if they are going to handle the juggling of so many topics. There can be such a temptation to place a child in the curriculum with the biggest number on it. Honestly, I think many people hate spiral because it requires placing a student lower, even if they don't realize it.

 

I like to place students super low in a spiral curriculum, that is hopefully narrow enough that people complain it isn't "complete". Then skip the tests and replace that time by introducing topics not yet covered with living books, games and conceptual methods.

 

That is all easier said than done though :tongue_smilie:

 

My goal is low, narrow, spiral as the spine, with a focus on speed and accuracy. Then play at hard new topics.

Edited August 20, 2012 by Hunter

[NittanyJen]

Good mastery programs still incorporate plenty of continual review.

 

For example, Singapore Math is mastery, but even if you are working on a unit about fractions or decimals or multiplication, you will see word problems involving time, money, measures (and fractions, decimals, multiplication . . .) and everything else that has been covered. You simply cannot do the problems without remembering the other concepts.

 

Many concepts are repeated either every semester or at least every year.

[SilverMoon]

I don't like spiral math curricula because expecting my oldest to learn math from them is like putting him in front of a brick wall and telling him to run. He was most successful with Rod and Staff. R&S math has a strong mastery approach, which includes a review section at the end of every lesson.

 

I do like spiral math curricula because my next two kids swear it makes math more interesting. They've used a hodgepodge. The older of these two will be in algebra soon, and the younger is going to use Horizons math this year.

[Serenade]

Interesting. My dd really picks up on math concepts easily and enjoys it, but if we work on something else for a week and then go back, it's almost like starting all over with her. I wonder if a spiral approach may be a better fit for her. I guess we'll just have to give one a shot and see how it goes....

 

I think the bolded is somewhat true for a lot of children. Bot of mine have done this -- both the one with processing/working memory issues, and the one who's the mini-engineer. I have found that with lots of repetition and the Flashmaster, some of this stuff is finally starting to stick with my oldest, and I've just realized recently he's actually good at math. Before, he was always so slow because he didn't have his math facts committed (again, the working memory issue), but when he finally got that stuff down, he could breeze through the math -- for him, this started happening at the end of Horizons 4, and all through Horizons 5, there were far fewer of those memory lapses.

[Spy Car]

*If* a math program teaches for true understanding then the mastery vs spiral question is only a minor issue of preference.

 

If a child understands place value, unit values, and addition and subtraction it doesn't matter if they are working with money, time, or measurement.

 

The problem comes when math programs fail to teach for understanding and instead only teach procedures that children use (unless they forget how) to "plug and chug."

 

The problem with many spiral programs is they attempt to cover for a lack of actual comprehension and competence by repeating procedures which masquerades as as "understanding."

 

Better to ask if a program teaches for understanding (or not) and if the answer is affirmative the spiral vs mastery issues are small. If the answer is negative it is a program best avoided in any case.

 

Bill

[kiwik]

New Zealand has always had spiral maths as far as I know (at least since the 1960's when the textbooks we used in the 70's were published. You do the same topics each year in the same order each year only more advanced. It seemed to work. We always thought that doing algebra, trigonometry etc as separate subjects at high school wad a bit strange (a whole year of algebra!). As far as I can work out the early use of calculators is far more of an issue.

[Mom22ns]

New Zealand has always had spiral maths as far as I know (at least since the 1960's when the textbooks we used in the 70's were published. You do the same topics each year in the same order each year only more advanced. It seemed to work. We always thought that doing algebra, trigonometry etc as separate subjects at high school wad a bit strange (a whole year of algebra!). As far as I can work out the early use of calculators is far more of an issue.

 

Even while doing an upper level math for an entire year, the subject can be taught with a spiral approach.

 

My kids were frustrated by a spiral approach. They did well, but they never felt they understood. They believed they were bad at math while getting As. Ds, who is dysgraphic, also had trouble with the number of problems done in a day by the typical spiral program.

 

Switching to mastery based math allowed them to work all the way through a topic and feel they understood it before moving on. It has made all the difference in math here.

 

I do think the one that is best is the one that fits your child's personality. That is the enormous advantage to homeschooling when it comes to math. Bill is right though, if a program teaches for understanding, not memorized methods, either system should work.

[Crimson Wife]

I prefer "soft spiral" programs where each topic has its own chapter or unit but there is review from year to year. A true "mastery" program like MUS where each topic is its own level I don't like. And "spiral" programs that mix topics in each lesson drive me nuts as ADD-ish. I don't mind reviews and my oldest is using Horizons Pre-Algebra with Singapore Discovering Math 1 to add review.

[angela in ohio]

I find it easier, when I am really teaching math well, to use a mastery program.

 

For my math-loving dd, spiral programs are like torture, too. :001_smile:

[Tanikit]

We have only really started doing Math this year with any programme but I have found that I need both spiral and mastery so am using Horizons K and Singapore 1 as well as MEP 1(haven't quite figured out where MEP fits into this as it is a very different spiral to Horizons with a mastery component since they are teaching a certain numeral to mastery almost) We use the spiral for more independent work since because it is so repetitive my DD feels comfortable doing it with minimal help. MEP is used to add depth and Singapore is there for teaching a concept and making sure it is thorough.

[Greta]

We tried two spiral programs. Initially, I placed my daughter at a level where it was all review, and that did just fine. But once we got to a point where new concepts were being introduced, it was a total disaster. Changing topics every day, never spending enough time on one concept to feel like she really got it, it left her head spinning, and left a very math-competent child hating a subject she had previously loved. We now avoid spiral programs like the plague, but I'm not necessarily claiming they're inferior -- just that they do NOT work for my dd!

[SnowWhite]

The "spiral-ish" programs we used (Christian Light, Teaching Textbooks) had more review on a daily basis than my ds likes or needs. He is fine tackling new concepts and does not forget the old ones. BJU Math and Thinkwell concentrate on the new topics but also feature review. He's done well with them.

 

The "Look" of the spiral programs, with a long line of similar looking problems each day so that Wednesday looks like Tuesday which looked like Monday becomes monotonous for my ds.

[umsami]

I think it really depends on the kid as to which works best. You need to be open to switching or realizing that just because one works for one child, it might not be the best choice for another.

 

In general, I don't think there is a perfect math program out there that will solve all of your problems. At least I haven't found one. When we did Right Start, we supplemented with Math Mammoth. Now DS2 and DD1 are doing Saxon, so we're supplementing with Singapore. DS1 is starting Beast Academy this year.

 

If DS1 was less math-inclined, I'd probably use a different program.

[Paige]

I liked spiral for my son when he was young. He'd get bored doing the same thing every day and liked jumping around. He had a good memory and math was easy for him and there were no issues.

 

We moved to mastery when he got older just because it was the program I picked. He did fine- great even- but I think he would enjoy a spiral program more. I've started pulling pages from different chapters in MM for him so he does several concepts a day and he likes it a lot better. He's happier and making fewer small mistakes because he's not so bored. I disagree that MM doesn't review, however. It has the cumulative reviews after each chapter and every year it goes back and reviews the same skills. Each level has an addition and subtraction section, for instance, where students practice harder problems but the same operation that they had previously learned.

 

My girls, however, cannot handle spiral. I tried when they were young and every day was like starting over with everything. All of the different things to do in one day overwhelms them, they get stressed, can't focus on anything, and I see no progress. For them, they need to really work on one thing at a time until they completely get it before doing something new.

 

So, in my experience, a spirally kid will do ok with a mastery program but a mastery kid will fail in a spiral program.

[*Michelle*]

We're just starting out, so who knows how I'll feel 5 years down the road, but I prefer a spiral approach. The education I received was very focused on mastery, except it really turned into mastering what was going to be on the test. Our exams were rarely cumulative, so a lot of people basically trained themselves to absorb what they needed to pass that semester and cleared the slate for the next one. I had a hard time dropping this habit later on when I needed to retain what I was learning in school for my profession.

 

One of the things that drew me to TWTM was the revisiting of the same subjects at each educational stage. It's a spiral approach on a grander scale. It reminds me of reading a good book as a teenager, then again as a young adult, then again as a parent. I get something more out of it each time I revisit it because I'm approaching it with a more extensive knowledge base.

 

We're on our second year of Saxon now and I'm already seeing my son making connections as we come back to subjects that we covered previously. Last year, I had to work at guiding his observations, but this year he's already coming to interesting conclusions on his own. As long as it keeps up, we'll stick with the spiral approach.

[Mommy22alyns]

Spiral works very well for us. They don't get bored and they don't forget things.

[a27mom]

We are switching from spiral to mastery. The review was too tedious. My daughter would learn a new concept and want to work on it and get to do a couple problems then jump back to something she had mastered instanly 30 lessons ago. She is very organized and all the jumping around just became annoying. She is very mathy and simply doesn't need the amount of review in the program we were using. I figure it will be easier to select problems to skip, since a mastery program will let us be organized about what topic we are focussing on - or mastering, until she learns it well.

[Seshet]

We prefer mastery because it works better for my kids. Plus, I just personally think it makes more sense. The revisiting of the same concepts year after year always just annoyed me. Honestly, I don't get why people keep calling Singapore a mastery program. To me, a mastery program focuses on one concept until it has been mastered. Then, it moves onto the next concept. I've seen the scope & sequence of Singapore, and that's not what it does. (I don't want to argue about if it would be considered a mastery program or not, I'm simply saying that I don't see it as one)

 

My kids are both very good at Math. They grasp concepts easily & master them quickly. They want to master it & move on. They hate review. A spiral program would just irritate them & prevent them from being able to move through Math at their own pace.

 

As has already been stated, once you have truly mastered a concept, there is no need for drill sheets to review. Math builds on previous concepts. So, there is always built-in review.

 

This is all just my opinion, though, based on my experiences. To me, spiral just doesn't make sense. Mastery seems like a much more stream-lined way to cover Math. I don't think that spiral allows a child to truly go at their own pace the way that a mastery program does. I also think that spiral programs spend more time than is needed on certain concepts, especially place value.

[angela in ohio]

We prefer mastery because it works better for my kids. Plus, I just personally think it makes more sense. The revisiting of the same concepts year after year always just annoyed me. Honestly, I don't get why people keep calling Singapore a mastery program. To me, a mastery program focuses on one concept until it has been mastered. Then, it moves onto the next concept. I've seen the scope & sequence of Singapore, and that's not what it does. (I don't want to argue about if it would be considered a mastery program or not, I'm simply saying that I don't see it as one)

 

Mastery/spiral has usually been determined by how the program works in a single year. So revisiting a concept the next year doesn't make a program spiral. A sprial program is one which returns to the concept and reviews it periodically throughout the same year: a week later, then another week or two later, and so on. Most mastery programs will cover similar concepts in the following year, except for a few "hyper mastery" homeschool programs. :001_smile:

Edited August 21, 2012 by angela in ohio

[Seshet]

Mastery/spiral has usually been determined by how the program works in a single year. So revisiting a concept the next year doesn't make a program spiral. A sprial program is one which returns to the concept and reviews it periodically throughout the same year: a week later, then another week or two later, and so on. Most mastery programs will cover similar concepts in the following year, except for a few "hyper mastery" homeschool programs. :001_smile:

 

Ok, that makes sense. I guess I may have been wrong about Singapore being a mastery program then. Personally, I don't like programs that revisit at all, either throughout the year or year after year. I see it as a waste of time. I prefer to focus on one concept until it is mastered, meaning there is no need to revisit it later. Once the basic operations are mastered, stuff like fractions, percents, decimals, converting between fractions/decimals/percents, negatives, etc, are so simple to master. I think the programs that revisit throughout the year & year after year, adding a little more here & a little more there, slow down the process. So, maybe I should say I prefer "hyper-mastery" programs.

[angela in ohio]

Ok, that makes sense. I guess I may have been wrong about Singapore being a mastery program then. Personally, I don't like programs that revisit at all, either throughout the year or year after year. I see it as a waste of time. I prefer to focus on one concept until it is mastered, meaning there is no need to revisit it later. Once the basic operations are mastered, stuff like fractions, percents, decimals, converting between fractions/decimals/percents, negatives, etc, are so simple to master. I think the programs that revisit throughout the year & year after year, adding a little more here & a little more there, slow down the process. So, maybe I should say I prefer "hyper-mastery" programs.

 

For some students, though, the extreme mastery programs are a death blow, because they *do* need review of concepts at least from year to year. Just as much as a spiral (or more accurately, an incremental program) was awful for my dd.

 

Singapore is definitely mastery; in fact, the complaint most offered about it is "lack of review." :001_smile:

 

I actually just found out that our local PS uses Saxon in the elementary and middle schools. :svengo: They have the best test scores in the county, and they won the local MathCounts competition. Personally, I loathe Saxon, but apparently it works okay there.

[Seshet]

For some students, though, the extreme mastery programs are a death blow, because they *do* need review of concepts at least from year to year. Just as much as a spiral (or more accurately, an incremental program) was awful for my dd.

 

Singapore is definitely mastery; in fact, the complaint most offered about it is "lack of review." :001_smile:

 

I actually just found out that our local PS uses Saxon in the elementary and middle schools. :svengo: They have the best test scores in the county, and they won the local MathCounts competition. Personally, I loathe Saxon, but apparently it works okay there.

 

I'm just speaking from my experiences. I prefer mastery, and both my kids work better with it. I understand that some people work better with spiral or incremental programs. They just don't work in my experiences with them, though. They don't for us, but I'm glad they exist for those who do prefer/need them.