Jump to content

Menu

Abeka math


Mom2three8383
 Share

Recommended Posts

I like A Beka for review, but I don't prefer it as a main math program. The trend, for good reason, is away from "procedural math" and toward "conceptual math." A Beka is procedural: learn the steps, and do many problems that are similar. They've been doing it this way for 50 years, and won't be changing any time soon. But more up-to-date math is going toward the international standard of children understanding what they're actually doing when they do those steps. 

 

The problem comes when you ask an A Beka taught math student "why do you solve the problem that way?" Many times, they have no idea. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One reason is that the 3rd grade book is HARD! Your kid can transfer right into Saxon 5/4 if they don't finish the Abeka 3 book and 6/5 if they do finish it.

 

Also, after zooming as quickly as possible up through the 3rd grade book, Abeka slows way down and just makes the numbers bigger. So, 4, 5, and 6 could be covered in two years with a different process.

 

I have used 1st throughout Algebra 1 with Abeka math. They have just changed Algebra to a new edition and I wasn't happy with the holes it left, so I don't plan to use it again.

 

I have one in Pre-A. If they update that edition, I won't use it again. I do plan on continuing 1-6. (My third kid just started 6. My last kid is finishing up 1.)

Let me know if you have any other questions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We do Abeka K-5. I skipped Abeka 6 and my son went into BJU 7. I like Abeka for elementary, and I'm really liking BJU so far, so I am planning to use that for 7+, or at least until I need some outside help. Ahem, Geometry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't grade 4 where the books stop being easy to write in? Neither of mine were happy when they couldn't write their answers in Abeka anymore. We used Singapore also and they could still write in those.

 

I am going to be honest and say Abeka was our spine all the way through high school. Some books were done totally others a chapter or two. In one ds did all the story problems. Generally all the tests were taken just to make sure I wasn't skipping something needed. Not a fan of their geometry but otherwise solid.

 

We also used Singapore through NEM. Life of Fred and Lials for parts of high school.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't grade 4 where the books stop being easy to write in?

Lots of room in 4, I think. There is extra practice in the back and Homework sections that don't have much room to write. The story problems in 5 and up don't have room to work the problem right there sometimes, but my kids usually squeeze their work in the margins.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We started it with A Beka, but it was getting too challenging for my kids who struggled with math. Regarding a previous post about being too procedural, I think that is one of the good things about that programs, especially for younger children. Younger children need to know how to do it, not why. And they need to have a firm foundations on the "hows". This is consistent with child development and Classical Education. The "whys" can come later.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is Singapore 3a equivalent to abeka 3?

You would have to sit down with a scope and sequence and compare.

 

I never made an effort to attempt to put them in sync with each other. We simply started the next book when one was finished. At that age most days we did a lesson from both curriculums(also had Challenging Word Problems for Singapore). I liked Abeka for its spiral methods and Singapore for it's frequently slightly different more intuitive approach. They did compliment each other really well but not on a daily or weekly basis. I did notice that if one of the kids was having a problem grasping something I could simply discretely set the book aside and within a couple of weeks the other curriculum seemed to tackle the topic with a slightly different approach. Back to both books! :)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think in general Singapore 3A and B would be similar to ABeka 3. They do approach it in quite different ways IMO. I use ABeka math for K5. I like it, but I like MUS better. Now that I understand from ABeka how important it is to continually drill, I make sure to add that in to how I teach MUS. But I like how MUS explains and shows with the manipulatives what is happening. My kids' understanding of place value is rock solid with MUS. With ABeka, you explain a lot with flashcards. Flashcards with arrows pointing to a digit to show place value, flashcards with domino dots to illustrate addition, lots of flashcards and speed tests. I think that's the difference people are thinking of when they contrast conceptual with procedural. I really liked ABeka for their wonderful scripted, open-and-go teacher's manual, colorful workbook, and spiral and thorough scope and sequence.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We started it with A Beka, but it was getting too challenging for my kids who struggled with math. Regarding a previous post about being too procedural, I think that is one of the good things about that programs, especially for younger children. Younger children need to know how to do it, not why. And they need to have a firm foundations on the "hows". This is consistent with child development and Classical Education. The "whys" can come later.

 

I could not disagree more.  I feel the "whys" are a critical component of any math program, and I rarely teach a "how" without the "why", even if it means doing lessons out of order or making up some of my own.  Generally speaking, if a student can't understand the "why", they are not ready for the "how".  There are a few exceptions, of course, but when these come up I make a point of explaining that there is a "why" which they will see later on in their math education.  I feel strongly that a firm foundation on the "hows" comes through a firm understanding of the "why".  And if you don't know the "why", you can get stuck not knowing when to apply the "how", and likely can't extrapolate your knowledge to new concepts and problems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They all have such different scope/sequences that it is difficult to compare. For example, Abeka 3 and Horizons 3b/4a cover some of the same ground from an addition/subtraction/multiplication/division standpoint. However, Horizons covers geometric shapes a ton more both in depth & frequency. Abeka has a weakness in metric units and geometric shapes/geometry. Horizons also covers fractions better.

 

I've only used Singapore 1a & 1b and found them good books as a summer review of what my eldest had learned in Abeka Arithmetic 1. I did not continue with that practice of using Singapore as review. We simply moved into the next Abeka book when we were done with the previous one. I did use some Horizons books as a review & reinforcement for dd#2. She benefited from the different presentation & from the delayed introduction to division that Horizons had (vs. Abeka).

 

I also used CLE's 400 series with the eldest (my guinea pig) instead of Abeka 4. There was a lot more decimal & metric unit coverage expected going into that level than what Abeka had covered. DD and I found the grass was not greener.  :001_rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are using it through 4.  5 and 6 slow down more and can even get a little redundant.  Plus I feel that is the time they need to get deeper into problem solving.  A Beka is great for the grammar stage facts of math.  It is not as strong in the conceptual and problem solving math.  As kids get closer to logic stage, that is more important, imo.  

 

It is strong on measurements, math facts, time, temperature and those types of things.  It has story problems, but it could be better.  It is weak overall in geometry.  The main reason I use it through level 3 at least is that I find that it teaches math facts in logical sequential order best.  It's colorful and engaging for my kids.  Keep in mind that all curricula is a tool.  You are the teacher.  I constantly pull out manipulatives and go over concepts to supplement their lesson when needed.  We do Right Start math games and other apps when I think it's a good fit.  You can always gauge how well a child understands something and teach any gaps of a curricula as you know your child best.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My dh wanted us to use Saxon.  The non-consumable hard cover books start at 5/4.  I asked him if we could use Abeka workbooks for grades 1-3 since I was already familiar with them.  Also, the Abeka books are more colorful than the early Saxon books which is important for visual people like me.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...