Aops preA versus Algebra

[crazyforlatin]

Well, I'm in Silicon Valley so we see our fair share of young and gifted kids. It's a range of math abilities, some will be able to breeze through AOPS and some will have to really struggle through it. We praise the process of struggling through a math problem, want them to struggle and fail and rise up, but even I need a break now and then.

[EndOfOrdinary]

When teaching public school math for high schoolers and middle schoolers, I did not know a single kid who did not need to cycle back and re-learn or touch up on a concept.  That is just the nature of the brain - somethings stick right away, somethings are fuzzy.  I do not think that has anything to do with the program not being complete.  Nor do I think that is due to speed, youth, or whatever involvement from instructor/parent.  As far as I have ever seen, that happens with darn near every subject.

 

My son cycled back to do exponents again from the PreA book and we pulled a few fractions problems from an old Saxon book.  In no way is that a negative for AoPS.  That is just teaching.  Ds was freaked out about factions, so he needed a couple extra problems.  That's it.  That happens with traditional public school, stand alone texts all the time.  So it seems odd to me that this would become an issue with the AoPS curriculum.

 

As for the not wanting help or not being able to assess if a student is learning, just pull the summary problems as a test.  We use them in this way.  Half the challenge and half the summary problems are a study guide for one week (now about three days, but originally a week) and the other half are a test.  It gives you an instant assessment and the parent doesn't have to be involved in anything other than retyping and grading from the solutions guide.  The whole process took me less than an hour.  It was completely objective and if the kid failed, they had to accept help or do it again.

 

My son kicked and screamed and gnashed his teeth at AoPS, but it wasn't the curriculum.  It was my kid.  If Ds categorically would not allow help in a subject, he would be having a serious discussion with me, but I would never change the curriculum for it.  If that meant him failing high school, he would have failed high school.  I mean that 100 percent honestly.  The first year with AoPS we got through only 3 chapters.  He was fighting everything.  When he saw how much fighting didn't work, then he had to adapt.  I was willing to hold out as long as needed for him to understand that he had to use the words, "I don't understand," or "I need help."  It didn't even need to be with me, but he needed to see that he had to go outside himself and be open.  Without those two things no one can learn.  It is naturally uncomfortable to stretch yourself, but imperative in the global society we live in.

 

It would have been a different story if it was truly that the curriculum was a bad fit for him academically.  Saxon was a bad fit for how he learned.  We changed that after only two months.  It wasn't whole to parts, it was lots of repetition, it was low on concept.  AoPS issues were actual issues with Ds' mindset.  That is not the curriculum's fault and thus, it did not need to change.

 

I get that the program doesn't work for everyone, because what program does?  What I do not see is why that would be some kind of condemnation of the program?

[Woodland Mist Academy]

Condemnation of a program?? Oh dear. That was far from what I am trying to say. If you read back through my posts I even mention that I think it's a shame people leave it entirely. Perhaps I'm coming across in a way I don't intend to. I've probably said more than I should have. I'll be done. :)

[EndOfOrdinary]

You do not need to be done.  I probably just misinterpreted.

 

I have heard a bunch from people who seem to drop the program because they are uncomfortable with how non-traditional it is.  Not saying that is you, but I might have imposed that upon what you were saying inadvertently.

[crazyforlatin]

Thanks EOO, I've been away from the boards, but I now know what this board is for me - encouragement. I kept wondering why we need to review anything when we just went through pre-A, but I gave a test to DD and she had trouble with some procedural work, something that I did not bother reviewing at all for at least 2 years. So she had trouble with elementary stuff but was able to do pre-A word problems. That threw me off, don't even mention my own confidence, and since then I keep reminding myself we need to review or add in just a little more practice questions after an algebra chapter.

[Arcadia]

That was sort of my point. Some of the kids are just going too fast.

 

And so the race to calculus continues...

If it is the kids going too fast, they will back pedal when necessary. If it is the parent pacing the child too fast because of the rat race outside their window then that is a sad story.

 

My opinion is that describing physics as algebra based physics or calculus based physics on these boards (logic stage, high school) unintentionally feed into the frenzy to hit calculus "on time". I had Resnick and Halliday as my high school physics text, and I didn't have to care which category that text falls under. When the math is required in science, it is learned, life was that simple for me :)

 

Both hubby and I were PS kids all the way. For hubby, he found the equivalent of Calc BC too tough and took the "easier" math only. It was nice to have that choice and no one thought he was bad in math. People and their kids on this accelerated boards have different abilities. Comparison just gets people down if they already have a bad day.

 

My 9 year old younger boy just did one math question on simultaneous equations at the library today. He was too busy enjoying the beautiful new library :lol: (ETA: for those in Silicon Valley, the new Palo Alto library is open and have the AoPS books)

 

ETA:

Look at all the asian public schools. Lots of drills until it becomes second nature were involved. All the sweat and tears that people don't get to see but people get to see the math olympiad champs.

[Roadrunner]

So what would be the best way to review the material? I have seen people mention Dolchiani for extra practice in preA, but it's too easy. SM 7 seems to be a good companion to preA, but I don't need two programs. Workbooks seem very thin, so is that enough? Is textbook better for my purpose? Should I be devoting a day every two weeks to review or do a little every day? What do you find works the best?

 

I thought preA is intended for one school year. We started in October and just got into chapter 6. We don't feel rushed at all. Online class doesn't start until the end of February, so we have an opposite problem, too much time. It will take us a little over 8 months to go through the entire book.

[Arcadia]

Should I be devoting a day every two weeks to review or do a little every day? What do you find works the best?

Cross the bridge when you come to it.

Some kids need more, some need less. Some topics may not need any review at all.

 

ETA:

Sometimes my boys will say "I forgot" but after stewing for awhile, they remembered. It's good to keep calm and get a cup of coffee or a bar of chocolate :)

[EndOfOrdinary]

Thanks EOO, I've been away from the boards, but I now know what this board is for me - encouragement. I kept wondering why we need to review anything when we just went through pre-A, but I gave a test to DD and she had trouble with some procedural work, something that I did not bother reviewing at all for at least 2 years. So she had trouble with elementary stuff but was able to do pre-A word problems. That threw me off, don't even mention my own confidence, and since then I keep reminding myself we need to review or add in just a little more practice questions after an algebra chapter.

 

When I think about myself, there are some situations in teaching my son where I go "whoa, that's cool," and the concept just gets so much firmer in my brain.  It happened just the other day with physical and chemical changes in chemistry.  I have always had trouble with this concept.  For some reason, it eluded me.  That didn't stop  me from doing really well in science classes in college (I was an environmental studies major).  For some reason the way Apologia explained it just made sense in that moment.

 

This happens with everyone I know.  My husband is a high school English teacher.  He talks about how each year he will get a better glimpse of how to explain something when he has to work specifically with a student who is not getting a concept.  When the "normal" ways do not work he will have to find another.  Sometimes in the process it is a lightbulb moment for him with a connection. 

 

I have to reteach my son long division.  I watched him trying to convert a fraction to a decimal today and it was so very messy.  He got there, but Dude!  If it was a nice pretty fraction like 1/2 or 7/10ths he would have been short and sweet.  I know at one point the kid learned it!

 

We are human.  It is all a great big puzzle.  Don't beat yourself up too much.

[EndOfOrdinary]

So what would be the best way to review the material? I have seen people mention Dolchiani for extra practice in preA, but it's too easy. SM 7 seems to be a good companion to preA, but I don't need two programs. Workbooks seem very thin, so is that enough? Is textbook better for my purpose? Should I be devoting a day every two weeks to review or do a little every day? What do you find works the best?

 

I thought preA is intended for one school year. We started in October and just got into chapter 6. We don't feel rushed at all. Online class doesn't start until the end of February, so we have an opposite problem, too much time. It will take us a little over 8 months to go through the entire book.

 

That pace seems about right.  Once my son decided to turn his brain on, each section in AoPS took us one or two days.  Occasionally we would hit a bump, but in general about a chapter every week to ten days.  That makes it about eight months for PreA.  Some kids just go slower, some longer.  Many kids get through PreA before a full 10 months.

 

If you want to see how your son likes the AoPS materials, you can always get one of the shorter books like Intro to Number Theory or Intro to C&P.  My son loves C&P.  It is "fun math", because it doesn't do the traditional stuff.  Traditional stuff is "boring math."

 

Often times kids review the necessary materials by cycling back through them when they solve/learn other concept.  My son was converting fractions today when he was working in Geometry because he was using this very weird way to solve one of the problems.  It wasn't wrong, it was just different.  I noticed he was not using long division.  When I asked it was obvious we needed to go back and review.

 

Just do it if you hit a snag.  I am sure there are lots of concepts that many adults learned in school which if they were asked to do now might need some review.  They do not use them, so they become fuzzy.  It is in there, just not easily retrievable.  I wouldn't kill your kid loving math by having him review unnecessarily.

[serendipitous journey]

I've just come across this thread, and we are bouncing around the AoPS PreA & Introductory materials right now; A. is in 4th.  We started Pre-A in 3rd (after trying in 2nd when he'd finished elementary math, but he couldn't manage the big numbers in the early chapters though the concepts were fine -- we did some SM DMCommon Core and some Galore Park SYRWTLM before circling back around.  A. was acting bored (restless &c) with the concepts after a couple of chapters, so halfway through the year we moved into the AoPS Algebra.  THAT slowed him down and was a good fit.  A bit after we tried cycling through the Number Theory and Counting/Prob. books (doing 1 chapter Alg, one of the others, then back to Alg) which went fine. 

 

Once we hit chapter 6 and 7 of Algebra he struggled, we did the same topics in PreA first then revisited.  Algebra was feeling very slogging to me, and A. was not thriving, so I've brought us into the square root and then geometry sections of PreA and set the Intro books aside for the moment.  He is doing just fine, is challenged enough.  I plan to pick up with the geometry section of Algebra when we're done with PreA. 

 

I think one reason that you don't see more people using AoPS flexibly is that flexible use often draws criticism.  I cannot think of a time when I've discussed how I teach AoPS, often at the blackboard doing problems together, skipping challenge problems as I see fit, sometimes doing 1/2 of the arithmetic for A. if he tries to do a brute-force solution and there are lots of calculations -- well, I have never explained how we use AoPS without being criticized for teaching it this way.  People often insist the child ought to be at a lower level if he requires this scaffolding.  I myself want to keep him engaged and challenged, and the concepts that challenge him are just not always accessible without help. 

 

A. does not teach himself from the books.  He doesn't esp. enjoy maths, actually, but they seem to normalize and stabilize him.  So where necessary I explicitly teach, and where the challenge problems seem unproductive we bypass them.

 

So what would be the best way to review the material? I have seen people mention Dolchiani for extra practice in preA, but it's too easy. SM 7 seems to be a good companion to preA, but I don't need two programs. Workbooks seem very thin, so is that enough? Is textbook better for my purpose? Should I be devoting a day every two weeks to review or do a little every day? What do you find works the best?

I thought preA is intended for one school year. We started in October and just got into chapter 6. We don't feel rushed at all. Online class doesn't start until the end of February, so we have an opposite problem, too much time. It will take us a little over 8 months to go through the entire book.

 

  For basic arithmetic review we have tried various things; my favorite is Singapore's math sprints and oral drills, though the oral drills are annoying to do; at the moment we're not doing explicit fact review.  I plan to order Math Sprints (at 4th grade level, or maybe 5th) in the spring.  For the rest I am generally relying on review as we need it, and adding some memory work for certain concepts. 

 

Hope it is useful to hear how one family is using this with one child!  For sure, things will be different with N. ... he may be MEP all the way, not sure ...
 

[sunnyday]

So, in this series of discussions of the past few days, I find myself wondering what people's goal is in teaching mathematics to their kids. Is it about giving them the tools to do ever-more-complicated math problems in school and in college? Or is it about teaching the field of mathematics in all its messy complexity in order to pass along the greatest accomplishments of our culture?

 

For me, it's more about the latter than the former. So choosing a discovery approach is more about giving them a taste of Mathematics than about making sure they will always and forever for the rest of their days recall XYZ procedure to get the answer to a certain kind of problem. They have the gifted learning traits; they'll pick up the pattern of the problems they encounter in school math without a struggle. What they won't pick up is the general feel for A) how awesome the interconnections of mathematics are and B) how you start from what you know and work toward creating new knowledge armed with nothing but logic.

 

I don't know. I have Issues. I can't help but think that some of the perfectionist-type existential struggles I had once I reached 300-level and higher mathematics (at my college, up through 200-level courses were far more pattern-matching than proofs and problem-solving) or when I had my first encounters with competition math, could have been forestalled if I'd been taught explicitly that math isn't about getting the right answer. I guess I'm putting my eggs in that basket for my kids, anyway.

[Roadrunner]

So, in this series of discussions of the past few days, I find myself wondering what people's goal is in teaching mathematics to their kids. y.

Sadly, I think most of us don't know enough mathematics to give an intelligent answer to that question.

[go_go_gadget]

So what would be the best way to review the material? I have seen people mention Dolchiani for extra practice in preA, but it's too easy. SM 7 seems to be a good companion to preA, but I don't need two programs. Workbooks seem very thin, so is that enough? Is textbook better for my purpose? Should I be devoting a day every two weeks to review or do a little every day? What do you find works the best?

 

I can't tell you what would be the best way to review for your son, but my son is also 9 and working through Pre-A, and we're finding that using Alcumus a chapter behind for a couple of of review problems each day, and Khan Academy once a week for more ordinary problems that he's likely to encounter on exams in the future is serving him very well. Someone on here once said that the flip side to kids who learn like sponges is that if you don't keep wetting them, they dry out. My son learns concepts very quickly and can speed straight through curriculum, but without looping back and keep old topics fresh, he's bound to forget some. When he re-learns it's always faster than the original learning, but it's frustrating for both of us. Now that I've learned to keep that in mind and have this review system in place, we don't seem to be having ''drying out'' problems with old topics.

[Woodland Mist Academy]

 

As for the not wanting help or not being able to assess if a student is learning, just pull the summary problems as a test.  We use them in this way.  Half the challenge and half the summary problems are a study guide for one week (now about three days, but originally a week) and the other half are a test.  It gives you an instant assessment and the parent doesn't have to be involved in anything other than retyping and grading from the solutions guide.  The whole process took me less than an hour.  It was completely objective and if the kid failed, they had to accept help or do it again.

 

 

Just to clarify. I think we are speaking of a different level of understanding. The summary and challenge problems aren't always a sufficient assessment. Neither is Alcumus. YMMV, of course. I just wanted to point out that this isn't always the solution. :)  I'm not saying that is never is, just that it isn't always.

[Woodland Mist Academy]

.

[Woodland Mist Academy]

 

I get that the program doesn't work for everyone, because what program does?  What I do not see is why that would be some kind of condemnation of the program?

 

I'm sorry that my posts came across that way. Ironically, I was trying to do just the opposite. I was cautioning people that very few students use AoPS without review and supplements. If a student is doing that - FANTASTIC! If not, that's OK, too. In fact, that seems to be pretty much the norm. My caution is to be alert to which type of student is at hand. Some just need the program; some need extra review, supplement, or support; some would be better with a different spine and AoPS as the supplement; and others would be better using entirely different programs. Some students would be best served using the program at an early age, others would benefit most a bit later. I just think there are more shades of AoPS than perhaps are at first visible.

 

Truly, I was just reflecting and processing aloud, which I now regret. ;)

 

The last thing I want to do is contribute to the math wars.

 

(Sincere apologies to the OP for the derailment. I think I meant to post some of these musings on a different AoPS thread. Sorry!)

 

[boscopup]

I've found that my young son does need more "drill and kill" than what AoPS provides. I don't think using something after AoPS would work though... What would you use after that would be same level or harder? I can't think of anything.

 

Earlier in AoPS PreA, I had my son warm up with CLE 500 each day, then he'd do problems or exercises from AoPS. CLE was completely review for him, but it helped him get basic elementary math fully automatic and helped him with overall speed. Arithmetic was no longer an issue at all, so he could focus on problem solving in AoPS. When we hit a snag in AoPS (like the exponents chapter where he just needed more experience using them), I pulled out Dolciani and had him go through the section on that topic there, then go back to AoPS. Yes, Dolciani was ridiculously easy, but it HELPED. Again, getting those basics automatic helped him to have more brain energy for the problem solving in AoPS. So while Dolciani wasn't doing anything near as difficult as AoPS, my son was able to jump back into AoPS and easily get through that exponents chapter after doing exponents in Dolciani. I'm not so worried about drilling the AoPS-level stuff. I want the basics drilled.

 

For algebra, I plan to go through an easier text before doing AoPS. No, he won't be challenged every day while doing the easier text. I'm ok with that. I think his brain could use a break now and then. We'll do Jacobs, then follow up with AoPS Intro to Algebra. I think that route will be good for him, giving him plenty of practice with the basics first. I imagine most of the public school students taking AoPS classes are probably getting a regular course first, right? I'm replicating that at home. Not every kid needs that. For some kids, AoPS is plenty, since they just don't need much drill. My son does need some drill, so I'm providing it.

 

One thing I've learned the last couple years is that it's ok to not make everything challenging all the time. Sometimes my son needs to drill boring, easy arithmetic. And while he balked at first, I told him that if it's easy, he can do it quickly. Once it became quick, I knew he didn't need to drill it as much. This has been easier at ages 9-10 than it would have at 6 or 7.

[Roadrunner]

I am hoping SM workbooks will provide the similar difficulty level and more drill. Maybe I misread some posts, but it am under the impression that SM middle school is almost as challenging.

 

Boscopup, I think your plan is a sound one. Yes, most kids taking aops classes are doing an easier program as well. I know it won't work here though. He wants to move forward. He wants new material.

[Arcadia]

This is just my opinion. AoPS textbooks wasn't created for just future mathematicians. While Kathy in Richmond's daughter is math leaning, Regentrude's daughter and 8filmyheart children are more science leaning. Maybe the AoPS team aim was to make more people like math but I don't think they expect curriculum to "create" mathematicians.

A lot of the AoPS threads end up sounding like the Saxon math "wars". It is nice to be enthusiastic about a curriculum but our children aren't exact clones of us :) There is no need to pigeonhole curriculum.

It's like the Proof school that is opening in SF. My kids rather go to a school that is like the Mythbusters lab but that doesn't mean AoPS is a failure or I should use something else just because my kids are not math lovers.

 

 

Maybe I misread some posts, but it am under the impression that SM middle school is almost as challenging.
.

 

The DM series is less theoretical than the AoPS series. Some of the topics are in the DM additional math books instead of in the DM 7/8 common core or DM 1/2/3/4 books.  The scope and sequence of the two series are different.

 Sometimes my kids will complain "it's too hard" for any subjects when they mean "I'm too tired to think". My older boy also have growing pains before a growth spurt and those are our slow days. It's hard for me to estimate pacing as my kids like their math integrated. It just gets done eventually. I reside in Silicon Valley, I just ignore the competitive mayhem.

 

 

 

I'm sorry that my posts came across that way. Ironically, I was trying to do just the opposite. I was cautioning people that very few students use AoPS without review and supplements.

....... I just think there are more shades of AoPS than perhaps are at first visible.

 

I think people here classify supplements differently too.  Alcumus can be considered part of the curriculum or supplement.  AoPS online classes can be a core or supplement.  A parent or tutor reviewing corrected work with the child can be core or supplement.

 

Some parents are lucky enough that their kids can mark their own math work using the solutions manual.  I have to spend the time marking and evaluating whether my kids made a careless mistake or a conceptual mistake.  Its hard to tell from signatures how AoPS is used.

[Roadrunner]

I have an opposite problem. My kid refuses to do SM. He likes aops and doesn't want to do anything that smells repetition. I don't know if he needs review, but if most kids do, than he shouldn't be an exception. I feel like aops is spoiling all other curriculum. Proofs have been the biggest hit for him and the lack of repetition has made his day (not mine). I initially worried that if algebra is a big step up, we would need to do something else, and that wouldn't go down too well. It seems like we can probably continue on our path though.

 

DS attended a lecture by Dr. Zeitz. He was so taken. I wish we were in SF and had $35k to spare for his new school. :)

[Arcadia]

DS attended a lecture by Dr. Zeitz. He was so taken. I wish we were in SF and had $35k to spare for his new school. :)

 

Buy the Intro to Geometry book at the same time.  Lots of fun time with proofs (not so much fun for the marker).

 

If he like proofs, instead of SM for review, try these free problems from below links.   The solutions are on the same links

 

http://www.math.wisc.edu/talent/

http://mathcircle.berkeley.edu/index.php?options=bmc%7Cmonthlycontest%7CMonthly%20Contest

[go_go_gadget]

I have an opposite problem. My kid refuses to do SM. He likes aops and doesn't want to do anything that smells repetition. I don't know if he needs review, but if most kids do, than he shouldn't be an exception. I feel like aops is spoiling all other curriculum. Proofs have been the biggest hit for him and the lack of repetition has made his day (not mine). 

 

My son is the same, and that's why the game-like aspects of Alcumus and Khan Academy are so helpful in making doing a few review problems more palatable to him. Before implementing this system I tried using other curriculum for review, and it *not* go over well.

[Roadrunner]

Buy the Intro to Geometry book at the same time. Lots of fun time with proofs (not so much fun for the marker).

 

If he like proofs, instead of SM for review, try these free problems from below links. The solutions are on the same links

 

http://www.math.wisc.edu/talent/

http://mathcircle.berkeley.edu/index.php?options=bmc%7Cmonthlycontest%7CMonthly%20Contest

Thank you!!!

[VANURSEPRAC]

Hello All, I am brand new to the forum and I am learning so much from you wonderful educators. My Dd is in 6th grade and is currently in preAP 6th grade math in an all girls' public middle school. She is going to Mathnasium right now for grade acceleration. She has taken the 7th grade credit by exam math A exam (pending result) and now needs to prepare for 7th grade math B exam. I just ordered the AoPS  Prealgebra  book and solution book. I am wanting to stop Mathnasium because it is very expensive. I am hoping she and I can work on this together. I am excited and want to give it a shot. She loves Mathnasium and I fear she will not like the frustration that comes with stretching her brain. (I know I don't do well with frustration).  

[lewelma]

I think one reason that you don't see more people using AoPS flexibly is that flexible use often draws criticism.  I cannot think of a time when I've discussed how I teach AoPS, often at the blackboard doing problems together, skipping challenge problems as I see fit, sometimes doing 1/2 of the arithmetic for A. if he tries to do a brute-force solution and there are lots of calculations -- well, I have never explained how we use AoPS without being criticized for teaching it this way.  People often insist the child ought to be at a lower level if he requires this scaffolding.  I myself want to keep him engaged and challenged, and the concepts that challenge him are just not always accessible without help.

 

 

I've been off tramping, so missed this thread.  But I did want to respond to your post, Serendipitous Journey.  If I am one of the ones who has ever criticized you for doing what works, then I am deeply sorry.  These boards have taught me to be so much more open minded to different teaching methods than I was when I first started homeschooling.

 

Ruth in NZ

 

[lewelma]

Hello All, I am brand new to the forum and I am learning so much from you wonderful educators. My Dd is in 6th grade and is currently in preAP 6th grade math in an all girls' public middle school. She is going to Mathnasium right now for grade acceleration. She has taken the 7th grade credit by exam math A exam (pending result) and now needs to prepare for 7th grade math B exam. I just ordered the AoPS  Prealgebra  book and solution book. I am wanting to stop Mathnasium because it is very expensive. I am hoping she and I can work on this together. I am excited and want to give it a shot. She loves Mathnasium and I fear she will not like the frustration that comes with stretching her brain. (I know I don't do well with frustration).  

 

Welcome! There are so many great minds here to learn from.

 

Ruth in NZ

[madteaparty]

 

 

I'm surprised using a different spine with the original AoPS books as supplements isn't more popular.

 

We're doing something like that, I guess, which is, going through pre-A using a different program and then going for the enhanced AoPS pre-A experience. For Algebra, it will be Foersters as the spine and any AoPS to follow on.

 

[madteaparty]

Condemnation of a program?? Oh dear. That was far from what I am trying to say. If you read back through my posts I even mention that I think it's a shame people leave it entirely. Perhaps I'm coming across in a way I don't intend to. I've probably said more than I should have. I'll be done. :)

 

I wish you wouldn't feel like you have to delete your posts. I find them helpful/hopeful.

[Dmmetler]

I suspect the reason you don't hear much on using AOPS as a supplement is that, frankly, it takes too long. I can't imagine a kid being able to jump in at the challengers without the warm up as to how AOPS expects them to think provided by the earlier problems. There's just too much difference between how the program is set up. With other math programs in earlier grades, I found it much easier to pick and choose without having to do it all.

 

I think I would have had the same feeling with BA if we'd been using it on level, instead of when DD was several levels beyond it. And even with BA, she read the full guides and did most of the activities.

 

So, what we do is use AOPS on level, other books here and there to supplement, and Mathletics a level behind to review and for fluency. I've also found a few times where there is a problem type in Mathletics, set to common core, that DD simply has never seen before, and since she has to take tests that are/will be CC aligned, that seems like a good thing to find out. It's never anything Terribly hard, only different.

[kiana]

If one were intending to use AOPS as a supplement it would probably be a better choice to go with the original AOPS books (vol 1 and 2) as those were actually designed as supplements. 

[Woodland Mist Academy]

If one were intending to use AOPS as a supplement it would probably be a better choice to go with the original AOPS books (vol 1 and 2) as those were actually designed as supplements.

Exactly! Those are the books I am referring to when I say the originals.

[kiana]

Exactly! Those are the books I am referring to when I say the originals.

 

Clearly I missed your post. At any rate I agree with you. :)

[Woodland Mist Academy]

Clearly I missed your post. At any rate I agree with you. :)

 

I am quite grateful you posted! It reassured me that I'm not completely off base by saying that! Thank you!!

 

[madteaparty]

I suspect the reason you don't hear much on using AOPS as a supplement is that, frankly, it takes too long. I can't imagine a kid being able to jump in at the challengers without the warm up as to how AOPS expects them to think provided by the earlier problems. There's just too much difference between how the program is set up. With other math programs in earlier grades, I found it much easier to pick and choose without having to do it all.

 

 

This is true. Plus, in our very limited experience, there's the special AOPS way of teaching things, such as weaving number theory, etc. in pre-algebra which as far as I can tell, other programs do not do. We were trying to answer a fairly simple question on perfect squares in alcumus the other day. But it was a number theory type question, not a "calculate this" type, so of course we got it wrong, and I realized that we could have finished everything Lial's has to say about perfect squares and we still would have likely got that question wrong without going through the AOPS lessons. And this can be very defeating for non-math geniuses or no geniuses of any sort which is what we have here.

 So I do not find it easy to pick and choose and supplement, but what we'll do is just a do-over ;)

[Roadrunner]

If one were intending to use AOPS as a supplement it would probably be a better choice to go with the original AOPS books (vol 1 and 2) as those were actually designed as supplements.

Yes, those supplements look great. Or taking their AMC classes.

 

I can't imagine using the regular books as supplements as well, given their size! :) I am going to do this backward. After finishing Aops we will use SM as sumner review. It seems like SM 7 lines up perfectly with preA and SM 8 with intro to algebra. That way we can use summers to let the material sink in.

I think asking a kid to do a complete do-over is tough. My kid would throw a fit if I had him repeat the course.

[serendipitous journey]

I've been off tramping, so missed this thread.  But I did want to respond to your post, Serendipitous Journey.  If I am one of the ones who has ever criticized you for doing what works, then I am deeply sorry.  These boards have taught me to be so much more open minded to different teaching methods than I was when I first started homeschooling.

 

Ruth in NZ

 

 

oh, Ruth, this does not apply to you at all!  (and I don't have a particular poster, or posters, in mind)

 

I am esp. appreciative for your contributions to the thread I started a long while back, when I realized A. was showing signs of "boredom" in PreA and was looking for ways to use the Algebra materials with a young-ish child.  You gave very specific and useful feedback, which has come in very handy. 

 

I also am so glad that you share how your older child has used the materials and how self-directed he was with them: it has been helpful to see the range of approaches with these materials.  Knowing that some children can grab hold of the AoPS books for themselves helps me gauge A.'s interest & engagement and plan my method of teaching him. 

[kiana]

Yes, those supplements look great. Or taking their AMC classes.

 

I can't imagine using the regular books as supplements as well, given their size! :) I am going to do this backward. After finishing Aops we will use SM as sumner review. It seems like SM 7 lines up perfectly with preA and SM 8 with intro to algebra. That way we can use summers to let the material sink in.

I think asking a kid to do a complete do-over is tough. My kid would throw a fit if I had him repeat the course.

 

Doing the discrete math books (nt/cp) as a supplement or as a summer course would also be great. The awesome thing there is that if you only get through one or two chapters ... so what? it's extra. You already covered your basics. 

[Roadrunner]

Doing the discrete math books (nt/cp) as a supplement or as a summer course would also be great. The awesome thing there is that if you only get through one or two chapters ... so what? it's extra. You already covered your basics.

I thought I needed to get through algebra 1 first to take those.

[Arcadia]

I thought I needed to get through algebra 1 first to take those.

Nope :lol: one of my boys did NT before PreAlgebra. I don't recall Intro to C&P needing anything from Intro to algebra too.

[Roadrunner]

Nope :lol: one of my boys did NT before PreAlgebra. I don't recall Intro to C&P needing anything from Intro to algebra too.

Maybe I remember somebody's (lewelma?) post that content was somewhat difficult to wrap the head around. I just assumed these were more mature books.

You think we can take this online over the summer before algebra?

[lewelma]

Maybe I remember somebody's (lewelma?) post that content was somewhat difficult to wrap the head around. I just assumed these were more mature books.

You think we can take this online over the summer before algebra?

 

AoPS *Intermediate* Number Theory is HARD! and Intermediate C&P quite challenging too.  I don't remember much from the intro series, but I do remember that Intro C&P is quite tricky, not mathematically hard exactly, just tricky.

[kiana]

Maybe I remember somebody's (lewelma?) post that content was somewhat difficult to wrap the head around. I just assumed these were more mature books.

You think we can take this online over the summer before algebra?

 

There's a huge difference between working through the book as a supplement and taking the course. When you're taking the course you really, really need to be able to keep up with the pace. I'd have no hesitation starting them before algebra for enjoyment and enrichment but I really wouldn't try the online course. When I said summer course I was thinking student/parent directed, sorry. 

[Roadrunner]

AoPS *Intermediate* Number Theory is HARD! and Intermediate C&P quite challenging too. I don't remember much from the intro series, but I do remember that Intro C&P is quite tricky, not mathematically hard exactly, just tricky.

O.K. I missed the intermediate part. :)

[Arcadia]

Maybe I remember somebody's (lewelma?) post that content was somewhat difficult to wrap the head around. I just assumed these were more mature books.

You think we can take this online over the summer before algebra?

The intermediate books are hard but the intro are doable as enrichment. We didn't do the online classes. Older boy has to think long for intermediate C&P.

[Roadrunner]

Which one would you do first? NT?

[Arcadia]

Which one would you do first? NT?

It depends on your child's interest. My older likes C&P more. He did the iMacs foundation free class before NT so there was overlaps.

[Roadrunner]

It depends on your child's interest. My older likes C&P more. He did the iMacs foundation free class before NT so there was overlaps.

This will be the first time being introduced to these topics with the exception of probability chapter in Beast, which i thought was confusing. NT seems to have some overlap with preA.

[lewelma]

I personally did both the Intro NT and the Intro C&P.  Intro NT is super easy until the last few chapters, then it becomes a doable challenge.  Intro C&P is easy chapter by chapter, but then when you mix the ideas together, it gets very tricky to figure out when to use what.  So it is pretty important to do a lot of mixed review with C&P.  So overall, I found NT easier than C&P, but I found C&P more interesting and relevant to me.  Neither rely on the other, so the order is irrelevant. I can't remember how much algebra was in either, but if any it was *really* basic.

 

As for the intermediate level, I agree with Arcadia, they are definitely doable, but the order you do them is important.  Don't do the NT class (with no textbook) as your first foray into the Intermediate world!  Ask us how we know (and ask Quark!).   There is no intermediate book for NT or Geometry which makes them harder (in fact they changed the name of intermediate Geometry to Olympiad Geometry because it was basically too hard to go in the intermediate set.)  So best order for the Intermediate books/classes is how they are listed on the website: Algebra, C&P, NT, PreCalculus, Olympiad Geometry. 

[Roadrunner]

I personally did both the Intro NT and the Intro C&P.  Intro NT is super easy until the last few chapters, then it becomes a doable challenge.  Intro C&P is easy chapter by chapter, but then when you mix the ideas together, it gets very tricky to figure out when to use what.  So it is pretty important to do a lot of mixed review with C&P.  So overall, I found NT easier than C&P, but I found C&P more interesting and relevant to me.  Neither rely on the other, so the order is irrelevant. I can't remember how much algebra was in either, but if any it was *really* basic.

 

As for the intermediate level, I agree with Arcadia, they are definitely doable, but the order you do them is important.  Don't do the NT class (with no textbook) as your first foray into the Intermediate world!  Ask us how we know (and ask Quark!).   There is no intermediate book for NT or Geometry which makes them harder (in fact they changed the name of intermediate Geometry to Olympiad Geometry because it was basically too hard to go in the intermediate set.)  So best order for the Intermediate books/classes is how they are listed on the website: Algebra, C&P, NT, PreCalculus, Olympiad Geometry. 

 

So given my son's age (he will turn 10 in the spring), NT would be a better start, right? I am thinking  about saving C&P  for when he is in middle school. I know about confusion. That little chapter in BA had my head spinning (his head surprisingly handled it better than mine did :) ) Age hasn't been too kind to my reasoning ability.