TabletClass or Videotext??

[happyhome]

For those who have used these two programs, can you provide some input?

 

My oldest daughter is a rising 7th grader who has finished Math Mammoth 6 and is currently working through Lial's Pre A (only topics that are not review). We are looking into Algebra 1 for next year. I went through AP Calc in HS (for no reason at all, I went into Advertising :cursing: ) but I do not remember enough to teach her right out of a book. With some support, I think this will come back quickly?? So, some type of professional math teacher helping us out is a must. I looked at Jacobs or Foerster's with the DVD components. She's not a fan of the teaching style. We'll keep those books as reference to use for a "different angle" when we need it.

 

So we are now looking at Videotext or TabletClass.

 

I like the "mastery" approach of Videotext (largely why we went with Math Mammoth). I like the customer service reports on Mr. Zimmerman at TabletClass. That kind of hand holding is very attractive. My daughter is on a STEM track (we think) so I am looking for rigor with review only as needed.

 

Thoughts??

[dereksurfs]

I looked over both along with KineticBooks. Videotext and KB had very mixed reviews which gave me pause for thought. Realizing than some programs work better for some vs. others I wanted to demo them for ourselves. That was where TabletClass won out with its clear instruction and great support. By contrast the other programs felt more rigid in their design with the sense that are you left on your own once signed up. Pricing was also more attractive with TC, even better when on sale like now. At $50 a course it's pretty hard to beat. TC is also mastery based.

 

Keep in mind with whatever program you select you can always supplement to give differing perspectives, especially for algebra. AoPS and Khan Academy are great for that with a variety of tools available.

 

I recommend demo'ing each with your DD to see what she thinks. It will help to get her input even though you will have the final say off course.

[happyhome]

I looked over both along with KineticBooks. Videotext and KB had very mixed reviews which gave me pause for thought. Realizing than some programs work better for some vs. others I wanted to demo them for ourselves. That is was where TabletClass won out with its clear instruction and great support. By contrast the other programs felt more rigid in their design with the sense that are you left on your own once signed up. Pricing was also more attractive with TC, even better when on sale like now. At $50 a course it's pretty hard to beat. TC is also mastery based.

 

Keep in mind with whatever program you select you can always supplement to give differing perspectives, especially for algebra. AoPS and Khan Academy are great for that with a variety of tools available.

 

I recommend demo'ing each with your DD to see what your thinks. It will help to get her input even though you will have the final say off course.

 

 

Hi Derek....I was hoping you would chime in. I spent some time at the Videotext booth at the FPEA conference yesterday. I have to say, his approach is interesting. I'm going to do some more research on TabletClass this weekend. DD will do both demos tomorrow and we'll see. I have some concerns about a "complete" Algebra course over two years, one that my daughter would finish in 8th grade (she's 7th next year). SAT's aren't until 10th/11th grade. Will she remember everything? VT author assures me "yes" because everything is taught slowly and completely. He refers to himself as the "why guy" teaching the why of Algebra, not just the tricks, shortcuts and formulas. Sounds good, but does it work? This would be for a self declared STEM kid, so math is a priority for us. With either program, I would plan to use Foersters and Jacobs as reference to fill in holes, approach from a different angle, etc. The idea of getting Algebra done completely and well in one solid comprehensive course (without the "break" of geometry) sounds appealing. Can it be done? Not sure yet. I'd love to know what the other math gurus here know. I was good at math, but I am by no means a mathematician.

[dereksurfs]

I also really like the idea of spending more time in Algebra to solidify its concepts and lay the foundation for all higher level math to follow. That is why I have multiple sources and plan to use them over more than a single school year.

 

With a stronger STEM student I also recommend considering AoPS even if just for Algebra 1. The AoPS Intro to Algebra text is excellent and well worth the cost. Even if your DD doesn't use it as a primary resource you could use it as a follow up to any other program for more challenging problems. Initially I was planning on doing TabletClass first and then follow with AoPS. But after finishing a strong year with TC Pre-A I thought I would see what ds11 thought of AoPS. He ended up really liking the style though 'more wordy' than he was used to with previous programs.

 

We also have Foerster, Dolciani, and TC Algebra 1 which I plan to still use along the way. In addition the AoPS intro Algebra text covers Algebra 1 & II providing an interesting option to finish both before starting formal proof based Geometry. However we also have Patty Paper Geometry which I like and will do as a Pre-Geometry to provide introductions as well as variety through 7th and 8th grade. Here is another interesting resource for middle school which could be used concurrently with any Algebra program: http://www.criticalt...id=06930&code=c

 

I like the method of weaving in past (review), present (new concepts in current curriculum) and future studies (next level up). This is sometimes referred to as a three strands approach.

[happyhome]

I also really like the idea of spending more time in Algebra to solidify its concepts and lay the foundation for all higher level math to follow. That is why I have multiple sources and plan to use them over more than a single school year.

 

With a stronger STEM student I also recommend considering AoPS even if just for Algebra 1. The AoPS Intro to Algebra text is excellent and well worth the cost. Even if your DD doesn't use it as a primary resource you could use it as a follow up to any other program for more challenging problems. Initially I was planning on doing TabletClass first and then follow with AoPS. But after finishing a strong year with TC Pre-A I thought I would see what ds11 thought of AoPS. He ended up really liking the style though 'more wordy' than he was used to with previous programs.

 

We also have Foerster, Dolciani, and TC Algebra 1 which I plan to still use along the way. In addition the AoPS intro Algebra text covers Algebra 1 & II providing an interesting option to finish both before starting formal proof based Geometry. However we also have Patty Paper Geometry which I like and will do as a Pre-Geometry to provide introductions as well as variety through 7th and 8th grade. Here is another interesting resource for middle school which could be used concurrently with any Algebra program: http://www.criticalt...id=06930&code=c

 

I like the method of weaving in past (review), present (new concepts in current curriculum) and future studies (next level up). This is sometimes referred to as a three strands approach.

 

 

Yup....AoPS is in the mix too. She's working on PreA now for a "fun" (her word) diversion from Lial's. If we do TC or VT, she'll do Intro to A as an "off day" schedule. VT has 176 lessons to complete the full Algebra course. Spreading that over two years would probably mean a lesson every other day so AoPS and other resources could be plugged into the "off" days. Maybe a TC/VT and AoPS Intro to A sequence on alternating days??

 

Thank you for the other suggestions too. I just ordered Patty Paper Geometry. She HATES Geometry so this will hopefully be a fun introduction before it gets harder later. I'm also going to revamp all three kiddies to the "three strand approach." Need to look for resources for the 5th and 3rd graders but this makes so much sense to me.

[Mom-ninja.]

So does TabletClass not teach the why of math? It's not conceptual?

[dereksurfs]

So does TabletClass not teach the why of math? It's not conceptual?

 

I asked my son this question tonight since he went through the TC Pre-A course. Honestly, he was a little puzzled by it. He said that the way TC works is that the instructor teaches through working problems and then 'explaining' them. Through reviewing over some of the Pre-A lessons myself I would say that he is teaching both with these explanations with more of an emphasis on practical how-tos. ds11 learned the algebraic 'concepts' through these very practical lessons and then working the problems himself.

 

However I am not sure when one asks about 'conceptual math' all that they are really implying. IMO, conceptual math seems to be a hugely trendy thing right now on the forums. I'm just not sure that drawing those distinctions is as cut and dry as some seem to make them. AoPS for example is definitely known as a conceptual math program. But yet it spends great lengths showing students 'How' to work problems with detailed examples in the text. Likewise the AoPS videos similar to TC and Khan Academy show how to solve problems quite a bit.

[Mom-ninja.]

Thanks Derek. When I ask about conceptual math I mean teaching the why behind the steps as opposed to just teaching the steps.

 

I'm not talking about a discovery type of learning which AoPS leans towards. My ds does not do well with that at all. For him explaining the steps and why those steps work is what I'm looking for. I agree that some don't consider this conceptual math, but in my book it is. :D

 

I was taught math by simply being told to memorize steps, formulas, algorithms but was never taught the why behind it. I was not intuitive enough to figure out the concept of why things worked on my own.

 

Using RS in the younger years and then MM has really opened my eyes to the why. I could give you the answer but have no idea what it meant. My kids understand math on a level that I never did. I want that to continue.

 

We use Zaccaro and Beast Academy to keep things fun while doing RS and MM. Throw in some Khan as well on days when they kids have earned "play time" on the computer. :p

 

RS recommends VT but oh the videos seem so boring. Maybe we'll just deal with it. I'm just having a dickens of a time deciding between VT and TC

[dereksurfs]

Thanks Derek. When I ask about conceptual math I mean teaching the why behind the steps as opposed to just teaching the steps.

 

I'm not talking about a discovery type of learning which AoPS leans towards. My ds does not do well with that at all. For him explaining the steps and why those steps work is what I'm looking for. I agree that some don't consider this conceptual math, but in my book it is. :D

 

I was taught math by simply being told to memorize steps, formulas, algorithms but was never taught the why behind it. I was not intuitive enough to figure out the concept of why things worked on my own.

 

Using RS in the younger years and then MM has really opened my eyes to the why. I could give you the answer but have no idea what it meant. My kids understand math on a level that I never did. I want that to continue.

 

We use Zaccaro and Beast Academy to keep things fun while doing RS and MM. Throw in some Khan as well on days when they kids have earned "play time" on the computer. :p

 

RS recommends VT but oh the videos seem so boring. Maybe we'll just deal with it. I'm just having a dickens of a time deciding between VT and TC

 

IMHO, whatever engages the child more will also help them remember the algebraic concepts more. If they find the lectures boring, zone out, or are not very engaged the subject matter can get lost in translation no matter how wonderful it may be. That is why I think the student is an important factor in the decision making process since they will be the ones who have to listen to and work with the program day in and day out. ds11 found TC engaging. He got the algebraic concepts and retained them which is evident now that he is using them in AoPS which he also finds engaging. Gifted instructors are not an easy thing to find. Sal Khan of Khan Academy I feel is another who can take complex subjects and break them down in a way which makes a lot of sense to his students. The light bulb of learning turns on with those 'Aha' moments. Whether or not they do so using a more conceptual approach or not is secondary for me as long the child understands the concepts and can extend those into other problem solving situations.

 

But I know for some this conceptual math thing is much more important as is the distinguishing between one program to the next. That being the case I would have to question how 'different' they really are in a quantifiable way. For example how much time does VT spend devoted to teaching concepts vs. explaining how to solve problems? In the end is the difference all that great?

[happyhome]

So does TabletClass not teach the why of math? It's not conceptual?

 

I've been following this conversation but haven't had a chance to pipe in due to a loooong 4 day road trip with the three kiddies, the dog, a half done science experiment and a salamander :):). Is it really Summer already?

 

Anyway......I've been thinking about the whole conceptual math idea recently, and have been doing quite a bit of outside reading to get a better idea of what real mathmeticians are shooting for when they are writing "conceptual" math programs/curricula. There is a lot of debate in educational circles on this very topic and I am not sure there are any "right" answers. Here's my take, FWIW.

 

Conceptual math is not a new idea. In the US, children in the 17 and 1800's were always taught the "why" of math. They were also taught phonics for reading and grammar/mechanics for writing. I recently got my hands on a 4th grade math primer from 1870 and the entire book is on fractions. It is a deep, slow, point by point look at the entire concept of fractional values. I thought I knew fractions.....until I read this very thick book. The interesting thing is that a great deal of the text is written explanations (rather than numerical) to explain the math. It really is a "text" book.

 

I think the education movement got away from the incremental way of teaching in an effort to go broad and shallow and, in their view, teach "more." The result, I think, is several generations of students who know a little bit about a lot of different things but never had the time or depth to make connections. In math, that translates into memorizing math vocabulary, formulas and shortcuts but not understanding how the three are related. If I understand it correctly, I think that is what the "conceptual math" trend is all about; going back to the incremental, step by step approach that allows children the time to learn the pieces well, build on what they've learned and make the larger connections as they go.

 

All of that said, I think I agree with Derek to some extent. Different children learn differently. So, a good teacher for one is a lousy teacher for another and a good program for one will not work for another. That is a large reason why we took our kids out of school. The one size fits all just doesn't work. Each of my three had a very different take on that 1870 math primer, for example, despite the fact that I would absolutely consider it "conceptual." My goal for them is that they like and understand math. That includes operational understanding but also the real life aspect too. This was lacking in my education which is why I learned to hate math despite being a straight a student in two AP math classes.

 

I am in the process of putting together my "conceptual math cocktail" for each child for next year. The path for getting them to understand the "why" of anything, let alone math, looks different for each of my dc. MM has worked as a spine if you will, but filling in the other angles looks very different for each kid. One likes games, one likes manipulatives, one likes "text" books, two like rods, another an abacus, etc. I think it's more important to find the individual path to true understanding than to buy into what each curriculum is promising. I've read a lot of reviews on many curricula here, and in other places, and I have found much to be true for my dc and much that was the exact opposite. We're figuring it out as we go with solid spines and added in extras.

 

Oldest dd has finished MM now, hence the post on video based Algebra. We're looking for the next spine. With regard to VT and TC, dd has only sampled VT so far and she liked it. She did an intro lesson on grouping symbols (operation signs and parentheses) and why the actual, literal meaning of those signs dictates the order of operations. The lesson was clear and straightforward. The teacher was friendly and consise. VT specifically states that they want the focus to be the lesson, not the teacher. The author really loves math so I guess he feels that a math concept, taught well, is engaging enough. My second dd would not agree. 1st dd's take? "Mom, this is so cool. If they would just teach you like this in school, you wouldn't have to remember dumb sayings like please excuse my dear Aunt Sally." For her, the author is correct, the math itself is all that matters. We'll try TC and a couple of others in the coming weeks and see where we net out. For this kid, VT would get the "conceptual" job done. For my second daughter, not so much. As Derek said, it can be a great program, taught perfectly, but if your child doesn't like it and doesn't retain it, it ceases to have the "conceptual" benefit.

[chirowife]

My daughter started with VT in 7th grade and she absolutely hated it - the lectures were long and boring to her. She's not a math kid but gets it quickly. We ended up selling the whole thing on eBay after a few months. Never tried Tablet Class...

[happyhome]

My daughter started with VT in 7th grade and she absolutely hated it - the lectures were long and boring to her. She's not a math kid but gets it quickly. We ended up selling the whole thing on eBay after a few months. Never tried Tablet Class...

 

 

Ugh!!!! We'll see how dd likes the rest of the demo. So far so good but it was only a couple of lessons. What did you wind up using?

[chirowife]

For Alg 1 and 2 we used Life of Fred and the books that the local high school use for their honors math along with some TT (only the Alg 1). We just did not like the videotext at all. I didn't even think to save it for my younger daughter. I especially did not like the fact that there were many different books, one for lessons, one for tests, one for anwers, etc. It seemed like we were always just trying to find the right book. She did like the TT in that every single problem is worked out for you so if there was something she didn't understand all she had to do was click on the problem to see it explained to her. I think that is route we are going to take for geometry next year then revaluate for pre-calc...

I know a lot of homeschoolers that use videotext and love it but it was not for us. I am a big believer in using whatever works. My daughter is more of the lanueage arts, creative type but I do want her to have a solid math background because you never know what she will decide to do. I had a tutor for the last few sections of Alg 2 just to make sure everything was covered and she was actually understanding the concepts. He gave her a final that would be for an honors or advanced Alg 2 and she got a 94. I don't like to piece together curriculum - esp math so I was nervous. My younger daughter just finshed TT prealg and she loved it so I'm thinking of just letting her do that for Alg 1 next year and supplement with LOF.