The New New Math: Back to Basics

[Spy Car]

I'm not at home right now, but I will look when I get there, and see if it is in the actual text. If not this is going to be a methodology issue vs. bad program.

 

I will see if I can dig out any of his worksheets from 3rd and 4th grade too.

 

I would like to know. If you can find it in one of the textbooks I will try to pull the appropriate year book out of the school to have a look.

 

Bill

[Beth in SW WA]

 

https://www.box.com/shared/t2irivk1ca

 

 

 

I don't have any issues with this sample. I appreciate the instructions for dividing fractions at the bottom of the page.

 

 

Sounds like your son's school used EM methods w/ enVision. *I won't have that issue here.*

I would like to know. If you can find it in one of the textbooks I will try to pull the appropriate year book out of the school to have a look.

 

Bill

 

Grade 5 enVsion videos. No lattice.

 

Of course it teaches content later than I choose to teach it to my dc. But I don't have a problem with the content.

Edited October 2, 2012 by Beth in SW WA
Typo

[jeninok]

I don't have any issues with this sample. I appreciate the instructions for diving fractions at the bottom of the page.

 

 

Sounds like your son's school used EM methods w/ enVision. *I won't have that issue here.*

 

 

Grade 5 enVsion videos. No lattice.

 

Of course it teaches content later than I choose to teach it to my dc. But I don't have a problem with the content.

 

I misspoke earlier, we no longer have the Envision books, they have been returned to his elementary school. But here is a website I have saved that shows exactly how they were teaching multiplication. It uses references to the lessons in EnVision.

 

http://teachersites.schoolworld.com/webpages/PurefoyFourth/files/multiplication%20strategies.pdf

 

Since I can't pull up the specific pages from his textbook, I don't know how directly they correlate to the actual lesson, but this IS how the kids were taught.

 

I find it very interesting that the point is made that the typical algorithm is considered to be the most difficult, especially if taught before the children can make up there own to find solutions!

[Beth in SW WA]

I misspoke earlier, we no longer have the Envision books, they have been returned to his elementary school. But here is a website I have saved that shows exactly how they were teaching multiplication. It uses references to the lessons in EnVision.

 

http://teachersites.schoolworld.com/webpages/PurefoyFourth/files/multiplication%20strategies.pdf

 

Since I can't pull up the specific pages from his textbook, I don't know how directly they correlate to the actual lesson, but this IS how the kids were taught.

 

I find it very interesting that the point is made that the typical algorithm is considered to be the most difficult, especially if taught before the children can make up there own to find solutions!

I don't see lattice in your attachment. In fact, I have no problem with what I read there. What is your complaint? :confused:

[jeninok]

I don't see lattice in your attachment. In fact, I have no problem with what I read there. What is your complaint? :confused:

I am glad that you are a fan of the program. I am also not attempting to insult you personally. :confused: I have explicitly explained beyond lattice multiplication why it was an issue for us. But once again.......

 

I understand the Envision is in large part a program that tries to reconcile the math wars, using both "fuzzy math" and traditional. Depending on the teacher and school, this leaves the chance that one side or another can be ignored.

 

1. Too much topic jumping, not enough sequential review to master any given topic. Something like factors, and how they related to fractions, as shown in my earlier link, were introduced months apart, maybe not even in the same year, with no review of the concept in between.

 

2. Too much emphasis on group work, discovery of problem solving methods that the children were encouraged to invent. :glare: The only time mastery was emphasized was with multiplication facts. There was little to no class time spent on this though, they expected us to do it every night, and followed up with timed tests 3 times a week. (I have no problem with working at home obviously, but to leave it up to the parents, then have repeated high pressure timed tests on material not covered at school is not good IMO)

 

3. Nearly exclusive focus on the process or concept with not nearly enough focus on how to get the right answer efficiently correctly and quickly. Children were encouraged to keep guessing and get "close".

 

4. Materials were visually overwhelming, with little thought to how the eye travels over a page, and without using color to emphasize or highlight important parts.

 

5. The partial product method was horribly confusing to my son, I know that many other kids were struggling with it. Having children draw large arrays for simple problems time and time again is very time consuming, that along with the partial product method left huge room for small errors that threw the entire answer off. Using these methods in the beginning is one thing, keeping them as primary ways to solve simple problems is ridiculous.

 

7. The partial quotient division was even worse, I can't even understand it.

 

8. When the child was taught so many different algorithms, he was left totally confused about which one he was supposed to use, why each one worked, and

how on earth they were all connected.

 

When the standard Algorithm was finally introduced, it was sometimes discouraged as old fashioned or too hard, or more likely just lumped in as one more way to solve a problem.

 

 

All I can say is lattice was taught, along with these alternative methods at the expense of clear simple instruction. Whether or not lattice in and of itself was specifically in the textbook, it was the primary method of multiplication taught to my son in 3rd and 4th grade.

 

Obviously it is being taught using better methods in other schools.

Edited October 2, 2012 by jeninok

[Spy Car]

I understand the Envision is in large part a program that tries to reconcile the math wars, using both "fuzzy math" and traditional.

 

I disagree with the premise. I do not see enVision as "fuzzy math," if anything it is a math program that trys to find a middle ground between traditional math programs and ones like Singapore math.

 

I do agree that not enough attention is paid to mastery of concept in enVision. There is too much skipping around for my taste. But "fuzz" math? Don't think so.

 

Bill

[Beth in SW WA]

I disagree with the premise. I do not see enVision as "fuzzy math," if anything it is a math program that trys to find a middle ground between traditional math programs and ones like Singapore math.

 

I do agree that not enough attention is paid to mastery of concept in enVision. There is too much skipping around for my taste. But "fuzz" math? Don't think so.

 

Bill

 

:iagree:

[Roadrunner]

I disagree with the premise. I do not see enVision as "fuzzy math," if anything it is a math program that trys to find a middle ground between traditional math programs and ones like Singapore math.

 

I do agree that not enough attention is paid to mastery of concept in enVision. There is too much skipping around for my taste. But "fuzz" math? Don't think so.

 

Bill

Really? We feel like it has too much review, moves at a snail's pace and isn't challenging at all. The first two months of grade 2 is only review, enough to master the concepts 100 times over. I agree that there is nothing controverscial at all in how it teaches concepts. Nothing fuzzy about enVision. It does borrow a lot from SM. But unlike SM, it offers nothing for mathy kids. Zero challenge.

[Spy Car]

Really? We feel like it has too much review, moves at a snail's pace and isn't challenging at all. The first two months of grade 2 is only review, enough to master the concepts 100 times over. I agree that there is nothing controverscial at all in how it teaches concepts. Nothing fuzzy about enVision. It does borrow a lot from SM. But unlike SM, it offers nothing for mathy kids. Zero challenge.

 

Third grade gets better. If it were up to me, our schools would ditch enVision in favor of Primary Mathematics in a heartbeat. While it is not the ideal program for math adept kids, some of the problems labeled "algebra" or "reasoning" do take some thought.

 

I do think the program moves from day to day without fully developing the most important strategies. To me, it seems like they try to get in a large "feature set" but then treat all the objectives equally, and the priorities are misplaced.

 

You, Beth, and I have different levels of enthusiasm over enVision (I fall in the middle). I aslo know you and I are supplementing with materials that are a year (or more) ahead of grade level at home, and we both use the most challenging work we can find. It would be very hard for a public school math program to seem "challenging" to a child who is math adept and working ahead with this sort challenging work at home.

 

The one thing we all agree on is the enVision is not "fuzzy math."

 

Bill

[Beth in SW WA]

Third grade gets better. If it were up to me, our schools would ditch enVision in favor of Primary Mathematics in a heartbeat. While it is not the ideal program for math adept kids, some of the problems labeled "algebra" or "reasoning" do take some thought.

 

:iagree:

 

You, Beth, and I have different levels of enthusiasm over enVision (I fall in the middle). I aslo know you and I are supplementing with materials that are a year (or more) ahead of grade level at home, and we both use the most challenging work we can find. It would be very hard for a public school math program to seem "challenging" to a child who is math adept and working ahead with this sort challenging work at home.

 

The one thing we all agree on is the enVision is not "fuzzy math."

 

Bill

:iagree:

 

Dd is currently doing cwp/ip 4, prealg concpts with Crewton R, TT6. Her enVision experience is problem-solving sets only and 2 hours/week of class. It's just fun and 'enrichment' for a kid who lives for math. She loves going to 'school' with friends, a teacher, playground, lunchroom, etc.

 

A mom came up to me yesterday after class at the ALE and said, "Your daughter has been helping my daughter with math at their table." I loved hearing that. Aly feels so confident in her math skills and loves helping to explain concepts to her little friends. :001_smile: