Beast Academy - Actually teaching the strategies?

[momma2three]

I sort of dread posting this, because I only hear raves about it, but I'm having a tough time here.  Maybe we're just not very smart?  I kind of think that's it, to be honest, but I'd still like to plug through.

 

The first chapter of 3rd grade is all about geometric puzzles.  The reading was clear and interesting, and we made all the cube shapes out of actual wooden cubes, and my kids are loving playing with them, but then we got to the workbook puzzles later in the chapter (particularly putting together the pentomino shapes, and the "move 2 toothpicks in this triangle to make another triangle" type of problem), and it's just not working for me, or for her, and I'm disappointed. 

 

I kind of thought that the point of this was to teach HOW to do these sorts of logical thinking puzzles, and not just to present page after page of them, with no walk-through or suggestions or breaking down of how to do each problem.

 

Even if the break down explanation was just "try to move random toothpicks around and see if something looks promising" (which is our strategy, because it's the only one I know how to explain), it would still be an explanation of sorts.  But instead I just feel like I'm really missing something, and have just bought a book of the kind of logic puzzles you see on restaurant placemats and either feel dumb or smart when you can do them.

 

I guess I like it as a book of logic puzzles, though I kind of feel like there are better, cheaper ones out there.  And the textbook clearly teaches some good math concepts.  They're just not the logic concepts that seem to show up in the workbook, and I don't really understand why there's a disconnect, or how people use this.  Do you give hints to your kid?  Do you make them get the problem right before you move on to the next one?  Because even doing the first, and not the next one (though I've generally been trying to get all the problems on the 2-page spread done before moving on to the next one), my formerly logic-puzzle-loving kid is starting to hate this and think it's a total slog and not even worth trying (though she's still enjoying reading the textbook).

 

And I've read all the posts on here about how AoPS is for a specific type of self-motivated learner and all that, and that the way it teaches is by making the kid figure things out for themselves... but I guess I don't really think that "move random toothpicks until something starts to look right, and Mom winks and nods" is actually teaching anything except to take random stabs and hope that something works out... which, I mean, yeah, sometimes life is like that, but it's not really why I buy math curriculum. 

 

I guess I'm just disappointed.  I was looking forward to a book that taught processes more clearly.  Can anyone walk me through how they use the book, and what their expectations for their kids are?  Are mine just unrealistically high? 

 

I admit that I'm feeling pretty dumb right now, and kind of clinging to my LSAT score as proof that I can't, objectively, be THAT bad at logic games.

 

[kateingr]

No, no, don't feel dumb at all! Those puzzles at the end of the first chapter are ridiculously hard. (Check out the FAQ--there's even a specific mention about them:

 

A note about Guide and Practice 3A, Chapter 1: This Shapes chapter is often described as the most difficult third-grade chapter. This may be due in part to students getting used to Beast Academy’s challenge level, but the spatial thinking required in the chapter can be very difficult (especially in the later Practice problems). If your student becomes frustrated while working through Chapter 1, feel free to move on to Chapter 2 and come back to Chapter 1 later.

 

 

It's truly fine to skip the end of the first chapter and move on to chapter 2. The level of scaffolding definitely increases after that. You can also use the solutions to help your child if she gets stuck on what to do on a particular page. When my son is really stuck, I read the solution myself and explain one of the problems to him, and then use that reasoning to help him tackle the next ones. 

 

Sorry it's been frustrating so far--I hope things feel better once you get to the next chapter!

[momma2three]

Thank you.  I totally missed that in the FAQ.  

 

I guess I get why they opened with this chapter, because it's fun and different and eye-catching, but it's really hard, and I feel like we were just plunked in the middle of it.  Maybe the 2nd grade book will have more specific tools?

 

We'll just move on to chapter 2, and maybe work more on this over the year.

[Julie of KY]

Every once in awhile I find that certain puzzles just don't click with us - that's okay. If you are learning lots from the program then you are good. I remember having problems with some of the toothpick puzzles, and we don't usually have any problem. Don't forget also that sometimes you can learn from reading the solutions.

[FairProspects]

It is discovery method, which I'll be honest, my kids don't enjoy sometimes. We do look at the solutions in those cases and work backwards. Sometimes I even *horror* skip a few pages if the concepts are clearly not resonating with us. Sometimes we come back to it, sometimes we don't. Sometimes we come back to it after we have worked through a more didactic approach to the same material (the variables chapter after Hands on Equations, for example). The puzzles are fun if they are challenging but making my child hate math through total frustration because they have no idea how to start is not my goal. Sometimes the puzzles are best approached after more incremental exposure with other sources. JMHE. :)

[Farrar]

The teaching is in the solutions. Obviously, it's more than that - there's teaching in the comic, there's teaching in the layout of the puzzles from easier to harder so that kids can discover how they work slowly, in a step by step way. However, primarily, the real meat of the teaching is in the solutions. If you need help scaffolding Beast, read the solutions ahead of time. And have your child read the solutions as well.

 

I did give hints. Sometimes I just straight out walked my kid through the problems. That was good for him. It often helped him go on and solve the next problem. I think that's a totally fine way to do Beast.

 

I agree with the advice above - that first chapter of 3A is absurd for the most part. We didn't finish everything in it. Just skip it if you need to.

 

But also, Beast isn't for every kid. It's not even for every smart mathy kid. They're extremely popular on the boards right now so a lot of people are using it. I assume that as time goes on, more families will realize it's not really right for them because it's not a program for all kids.

[momma2three]

The teaching is in the solutions. Obviously, it's more than that - there's teaching in the comic, there's teaching in the layout of the puzzles from easier to harder so that kids can discover how they work slowly, in a step by step way. However, primarily, the real meat of the teaching is in the solutions. If you need help scaffolding Beast, read the solutions ahead of time. And have your child read the solutions as well.

 

I did give hints. Sometimes I just straight out walked my kid through the problems. That was good for him. It often helped him go on and solve the next problem. I think that's a totally fine way to do Beast.

 

I agree with the advice above - that first chapter of 3A is absurd for the most part. We didn't finish everything in it. Just skip it if you need to.

 

But also, Beast isn't for every kid. It's not even for every smart mathy kid. They're extremely popular on the boards right now so a lot of people are using it. I assume that as time goes on, more families will realize it's not really right for them because it's not a program for all kids.

 

I have no idea how to multi-quote, so I'm going rainbow.

 

I guess I don't see this AT ALL.  I assumed that this was how it would work, but it doesn't.  Both in the pentomino set, and the toothpick triangle page, the hardest for any of us was the first one.  When we finally skipped it and went on, other ones were easier.  This has happened throughout the book for us... on one of the pages, the one my daughter had the easiest time with, and which I thought was really easy when I read it, was a double-star one.  I seriously question the order of some of their problems, and how they classify them as easier/harder.

 

The solutions teach how to solve that particular problem, not how to find the solution.  When I read about BA, and bought it, I was expecting more something that taught how to find solutions.  In exactly the way that the textbook teaches about the checkerboard trick.  But then the toothpicks and pentominoes come out of nowhere... I mean, the logic puzzles on restaurant placemats sometimes come with solutions, too... I was hoping for more  from a textbook.  This is clearly where the "they figure it out as they go along" comes from, but I guess I'm not convinced that this is actually how it works at this level, nor do I particularly see it working.

 

 

This is affirming, though not what I usually look for when I buy a curriculum :)

 

I'm really glad that a bunch of people, including apparently the AoPS authors, seem to agree with this, to some extent at least.  Well, I'm glad for me.  It's kind of making me wish we had started with a different chapter, or that I'd known ahead of time so that I could have approached it a little differently.

 

Thank you everyone!

 

I'm not meaning to sound as negative as I think I'm coming off.  I want to like it, and I like a lot of it.  I guess I'm feeling pretty frustrated by the fact that this chapter is holding us up, and that we're moving sooooo slooooowly because I'm expecting my daughter to find the answers herself (with minimal help), and I don't want to totally burn her out.  We'll start chapter 2 next week.

[melbotoast]

Just chiming in to say that we found that chapter really difficult and I thought about bailing, but we've just finished 3D and the other chapters went much more smoothly. Hang in there!

[Farrar]

While the later chapters do get a bit easier, I think maybe Beast is the wrong program for parents who aren't willing to sit down and walk a kid through at least some of the problems. The AoPS people clearly put a lot of stock in their solutions - it's one of the specific things they've asked for feedback about Beast in regards to. I did find them to be really useful and instructive to me. Yes, they're about specific problems, but they're also meant to be illustrative of solutions as a whole. For all but a tiny fraction of kids, there will be problems in Beast that are too hard for them to solve and the learning will come from trying and trying, not getting it, then getting to walk through it and having a lightbulb moment about it. If that's not something a parent feels comfortable with having happen, then it's probably the wrong program for you.

 

I tried it with both my boys - twins. For one of them, the problems built in difficulty (for the most part... I can't remember about that specific set). He learned a lot from the challenge of them, he was engaged in the deeper meaning, etc. For the other, everything was super easy or super hard. I walked him through things, but it didn't help him engage in the next problem more. The program was all wrong for him.

[mathnerd]

I use the solutions to teach any problems that are difficult for my DS. The strategy is in the answers - sometimes they show 2-3 different ways of doing the same thing in the solutions and that is where we spend a lot of time even if DS comes up with one correct solution - we go through all the other ways that we could have solved the problem - I explain it to him like looking at a beautiful view from one window and the same beautiful view would look different from another window. BA is a goldmine of reasoning, critical thinking in math and problem solving. It may not be for everyone, but, that does not mean that the child cannot learn to think like the beasts :) So, please don't feel dumb, and it is OK for the parent to read through the solutions and help the child to approach the problems from a different perspective.

[momma2three]

Okay, I think the last few posts are really shining light on my issue, and making me understand what I'm missing.

 

I think I'm too used to the emphasis being on the question, and the answer is just what you quickly check to make sure that you did the problem right.  I've been treating the answers as a closely-guarded secret, only revealing them when she's figured things out.  I clearly need to shift my way of thinking to spending more time on the answers.

 

Thank you, everyone.  I feel much better about all this, and will shift the way we approach the curriculum now.

[SilverMoon]

I have no idea how to multi-quote, so I'm going rainbow.

 

I guess I don't see this AT ALL.  I assumed that this was how it would work, but it doesn't.  Both in the pentomino set, and the toothpick triangle page, the hardest for any of us was the first one.  When we finally skipped it and went on, other ones were easier.  This has happened throughout the book for us... on one of the pages, the one my daughter had the easiest time with, and which I thought was really easy when I read it, was a double-star one.  I seriously question the order of some of their problems, and how they classify them as easier/harder.

 

Fwiw, in our experience, that struggle through the first problem is probably why the other problems were easier. It taught us what we needed to get started, and the others generally build on each other. AoPS is much more about the understanding than it ever is about the number you get at the end of the problem.

 

If all else fails, show her the answer on purpose and then reverse engineer the problem together to find out how they got that answer. Then she'll know how to tackle the same sort of problem if she's faced with it again.

[momma2three]

Fwiw, in our experience, that struggle through the first problem is probably why the other problems were easier. It taught us what we needed to get started, and the others generally build on each other. AoPS is much more about the understanding than it ever is about the number you get at the end of the problem.

 

If all else fails, show her the answer on purpose and then reverse engineer the problem together to find out how they got that answer. Then she'll know how to tackle the same sort of problem if she's faced with it again.

 

Yeah, that makes sense, and I suspect it's how it was supposed to work, but it wasn't really our experience.  Both the first pentomino and the first toothpick question remain unsolved, though most of the others have been.  I think it mostly taught frustration, and lessons were taught in the ones that she could actually solve.

 

But I think that if we had used the answer key to solve the first one, more lessons would have come from that.  And it sounds like this is maybe how it's supposed to be used.  And, if so, it makes sense to have the harder one first.

[TheAttachedMama]

Okay, I think the last few posts are really shining light on my issue, and making me understand what I'm missing.

 

I think I'm too used to the emphasis being on the question, and the answer is just what you quickly check to make sure that you did the problem right.  I've been treating the answers as a closely-guarded secret, only revealing them when she's figured things out.  I clearly need to shift my way of thinking to spending more time on the answers.

 

Thank you, everyone.  I feel much better about all this, and will shift the way we approach the curriculum now.

 

BINGO!

I was just going to post something like this, and I am so glad I read to the end of the thread first.  (blush)    I had to come to grips with this exact same concept when I started using Singapore math because it is very different than how we approach math in the US (typically).   Coming from Singapore, I see the same type of thought used in Beast.

 

In the US, we put a lot of emphasis on finding the right answer.   In fact, that is nearly all we put emphasis on!   Most math curriculum, teach kids a method of solving the problem and then we give them lots and lots of practice finding the answer.  We change the numbers slightly, or make other subtle changes, but for the most part, we emphasize practicing the method taught and finding the right answer. 

 

For example: 

We give the student a problem like,

327+158=  

And we teach them to stack the numbers, carry when necessary, etc.  Then we give them a ton of practice finding the right answer.   If you are lucky, you at least understand why we can stack the numbers and carry---but there is very little emphasis put on the process in the US.   The process is just a means to the end.

 

Math is not taught that way in other countries....like Singapore for example.   In fact, even "Singapore math" as written doesn't exactly capture the way math is taught is truly taught in Singapore.  That is because much of the learning happens in the discussion surrounding the process of finding the answer in the classroom.    Sure getting an accurate answer is important.   But what is treasured is the process and the thinking method involved.  

 

So, in Singapore, the teacher might give the class the same problem:

327+158=

And then student might share their answer.  But then the real learning happens around the discussion.   The answer is really just some secondary thing in the background.    "Bobby solved this by stacking the numbers.   But who else can think of a different way to solve this?"  Sally stands up and explains how she can easily solve the problem mentally.   And the teacher invites Sally to explain her method of doing that.   Sally says that she figured out that she could solve it mentally by first adding the 100 (427), then adding the 50 (477), then adding in the 8 (485).   Another boy stands up and says that there is actually an easier way to solve it mentally.   And he shares his method.  Sure the answer was discussed and is important.  But the real emphasis is on how to think about math.

 

Math is taught conceptually.   In fact, there is even a lot of creativity treasured in math.  (Yes, math can be creative.)   Who can find the quickest most efficient way to solve it?   What other ways could have been used to solve this same problem?   The answer (while important) is secondary to the thought process.

 

The same is true with Beast.   The answers are there for you to look at.   They are there for you to learn from.  What counts is NOT that you came to the correct answer.  You want to get there eventually.   But what counts is that you understand HOW they got that answer.   I promise you:  the more often you walk through how other people solved one of these complex logic problems, the next time you see one you will be more likely to learn how to problem solve.   You aren't learning a method, you are learning to think.  

 

Awhile back there was this viral math problem going around the web from Singapore.   It was very hard.  I couldn't solve it.   But seeing how the problem was worked out, I probably would be better at solving a similar problem the next time I see it.   The learning didn't come from the answer.   The learning came from the process. 

 

Also---I know I keep mentioning Singapore in a Beast thread.   I just think that their methods of teaching math are sort of similar.  

 

I want to give you hope to with Beast.   We are using it in our home, and my son is NOT especially gifted in math.  I don't mean that in a negative way, he is just a regular kid.   I see a lot of value in having him attempt Beast.  We often look at the answer.  (Because half the time, I am learning right along with him how to problem solve.)   Then we sort of have an "OH!" moment---as we work backwards to solve the problem.   The learning happens in figuring out how they got to that answer.   Not the answer. 

[Coco_Clark]

You've gotten great answers but I'll throw my 2 cents in. I was personally hoping Beast could be pretty independent but I agree with others that it really requires a parent willing to step in and walk the child through difficult problems.

 

We read the comic together, stopping to solve of course. Then my son gets a set # of pages to do for that day (1-4 depending on difficulty). He does what he can. He skips what he can't. Later we go over the skipped problems together. Either I walk him through it, or we go to the answers. The answers are so soo key! There really is a lot of teaching in there!!

 

There were a few sections in that first chapter where we walked through every. Single. Problem. Together. That was ok with me. If a parent isn't on with that occasionally, I'd say Beast just isn't a good fit. That said if you are walking through every problem on every chapter...it may be too hard.

 

I do think there is little straight forward teaching in Beast- this is a puzzle, this is how you solve it. But I think that's kind of the point. You are SUPPOSED to logic it out. It's supposed to occasionally be unsolvable. That's why they include the explanations in answers. Because they know you will need them.

[FairProspects]

While the later chapters do get a bit easier, I think maybe Beast is the wrong program for parents who aren't willing to sit down and walk a kid through at least some of the problems. The AoPS people clearly put a lot of stock in their solutions - it's one of the specific things they've asked for feedback about Beast in regards to. I did find them to be really useful and instructive to me. Yes, they're about specific problems, but they're also meant to be illustrative of solutions as a whole. For all but a tiny fraction of kids, there will be problems in Beast that are too hard for them to solve and the learning will come from trying and trying, not getting it, then getting to walk through it and having a lightbulb moment about it. If that's not something a parent feels comfortable with having happen, then it's probably the wrong program for you.

 

I tried it with both my boys - twins. For one of them, the problems built in difficulty (for the most part... I can't remember about that specific set). He learned a lot from the challenge of them, he was engaged in the deeper meaning, etc. For the other, everything was super easy or super hard. I walked him through things, but it didn't help him engage in the next problem more. The program was all wrong for him.

 

Oh my gosh, yes. For two kids now. Although really I still find value in using some of the puzzles for understanding. But not as the main math program as much as I wish that were true.

[momma2three]

You've gotten great answers but I'll throw my 2 cents in. I was personally hoping Beast could be pretty independent but I agree with others that it really requires a parent willing to step in and walk the child through difficult problems.

 

We read the comic together, stopping to solve of course. Then my son gets a set # of pages to do for that day (1-4 depending on difficulty). He does what he can. He skips what he can't. Later we go over the skipped problems together. Either I walk him through it, or we go to the answers. The answers are so soo key! There really is a lot of teaching in there!!

 

There were a few sections in that first chapter where we walked through every. Single. Problem. Together. That was ok with me. If a parent isn't on with that occasionally, I'd say Beast just isn't a good fit. That said if you are walking through every problem on every chapter...it may be too hard.

 

I do think there is little straight forward teaching in Beast- this is a puzzle, this is how you solve it. But I think that's kind of the point. You are SUPPOSED to logic it out. It's supposed to occasionally be unsolvable. That's why they include the explanations in answers. Because they know you will need them.

 

I'm totally okay with this... I've definitely been sitting next to her (often puzzling them out at the same time she is) the whole way through.  Where I was going wrong, it's clear to me now, was the amount of solution I was willing to give as she worked through it.

[kirstenhill]

I just scanned through the replies, and it looks like you've already gotten some great advice.  My DS8 is now in book 4B, and we've rarely had as much trouble as we had in that first chapter on the toothpick problems.  I am very, very weak personally in visual-spatial intelligence (I nearly failed a college "intro to Engineering design" class because, among other things, I just could not look at a shape and draw what it looked like from the opposite view.).  So, I couldn't really "see" the solutions either, and really my DS was generally better at solving those problems that I was.  I don't think anyone's degree of success in that chapter is necessarily an indication of how successful they will be at doing the other chapters, since the visual problem solving uses some very different skills than the more numerical problem solving.

[zarabellesmom]

I started 3A and proceeded through all the currently published books with with my oldest (she was 6 when we started, super mathy advanced kind of kid) and she enjoyed the challenge. That said, I started 3A just recently with my second child and it was awful. Absolutely horrendous. She and I were both frustrated (and I've taught it before, go figure). We tabled it for now. It never even occurred to me to move on to the next chapter (duh) and I've already used all the published editions. In response to the poster above... My oldest is very very Visual-Spatial. It's a definite strength for her an an absolute weakness for me. I absolutely adore Beast as it brought joy back into math for my oldest. I was so looking forward to going through it again with my youngest but I'm not sure that's going to happen (and I already bought a second copy of all the workbooks, argh!!!).

 

[Peaceful Isle]

We tried Beast last year with my son. It was fun to read, but it wasn't a good fit for him. We did it as a supplement to MUS, so we just dropped it and use MLFLE now with MUS. It is a much better fit.

[Laura Corin]

 

 

In the US, we put a lot of emphasis on finding the right answer.   In fact, that is nearly all we put emphasis on!     

 

I think that multi-choice exams are partly to blame for this.  Hobbes is doing GCSE exams this year, and the maths exam is not a multi choice.  As far as I understand, there are marks for (any acceptable) method and also marks for a correct answer.  So using a correct method but making a silly error due to nerves will still net you some marks.  It throws more focus back onto the method rather than onto gaming the multi choice.

[Kiara.I]

That said, I started 3A just recently with my second child and it was awful. Absolutely horrendous. She and I were both frustrated (and I've taught it before, go figure). We tabled it for now. It never even occurred to me to move on to the next chapter (duh) and I've already used all the published editions. In response to the poster above... My oldest is very very Visual-Spatial. It's a definite strength for her an an absolute weakness for me. I absolutely adore Beast as it brought joy back into math for my oldest. I was so looking forward to going through it again with my youngest but I'm not sure that's going to happen (and I already bought a second copy of all the workbooks, argh!!!).

 

Your youngest is 7?

I wouldn't say her ability to do it without frustration *right now* is any indicator of how she will do with it say, 6 months from now.  Or a year and 6 months from now.

[LMD]

You've gotten some great advice!

 

I'll just quickly say that beast has quite a learning curve IME. Because you have to think, actually think!, every single time. There's no flying through! My oldest struggled with the first chapter of beast, sometimes through tears of frustration, but we got through it and her mental dexterity and stamina grew and the rest wasn't so hard, and she learned that hard doesn't equal bad. She adores beast now! We're in 4c and its pretty independent for her!

[zarabellesmom]

Your youngest is 7?

I wouldn't say her ability to do it without frustration *right now* is any indicator of how she will do with it say, 6 months from now.  Or a year and 6 months from now.

 

Absolutely. And we will definitely try again when she's more ready.