Saxon + Conceptual Math?

[momtofive]

In the past, my kids have used CLE with great success, and have recently made the move to using Saxon. Believe it or not, Saxon is taking *less time* than CLE, and my kids have been finding a good fit here. ;)

 

My question comes from a desire to add a more conceptual supplement to what we're already doing each day. They say if it ain't broke, don't fix it, so I do want to keep going with Saxon, but also desire for my kids to really get what's happening in math...the conceptual side of things. Can anyone recommend a good supplement to add this, without overwhelming my kids with math each day?

 

Eta: Fixed a typo. :)

Edited February 5, 2017 by momtofive

[SparklyUnicorn]

what grade level?

 

 

[Ellie]

In the past, my kids have used CLE with great success, and have recently made the move to using Saxon. Believe it or not, Saxon is taking *less time* than CLE, and my kids have been finding a good fit here. ;)

 

My question comes from a desire to add a more conceptual supplement to what we're already doing each day. They say if it ain't broke, don't fix it, so I do want to keep going with Saxon, but also desire for my kids to really get what's happening in math...the conceptual side of things. Can anyone recommend a good supplement to add this, without overwhelming my kids with math each day?

 

Eta: Fixed a typo. :)

 

What makes you think Saxon isn't "conceptual"? :confused1:

 

Which level are you using?

 

Janet in WA, one of our long-ago members, posted about Saxon teaching the why's (which I'm assuming is what you mean by "conceptual"):

 

In my experience, Saxon always teaches the “whyâ€. And they always introduce new concepts by relating them to previous ones. In fact, another criticism I’ve heard about the high school level books is that the lessons are too long -- too wordy. That’s because they spend so much time explaining. However, because of Saxon’s incremental design, you won’t always find the full explanation for “why†in any one lesson. Sometimes it takes many lessons, over a protracted period of time, before the student has all the pieces to a concept, and knows why he’s learned it and how it will be applied. For example, he’ll learn and practice a particular method of solving simultaneous equations. He’ll practice it for many days, in fact, with no real certainty why. Then, when he’s gotten proficient at that technique, Saxon will introduce a new kind of word problem for which that method of equation solving is useful. The student THEN sees why he learned that method. In other more traditional texts, with concepts taught in chapter format, this connection would be made more quickly and obviously. As carol nj says, Saxon is a “parts to whole†kind of math. You need to look at the whole picture to appreciate Saxon -- not just each book as a whole, but the whole series.

 

Also, sometimes the “why†of a concept isn’t found in a lesson because the student has seen that concept before in a previous book -- and the “why†was explained at the time the concept was first taught, not when he sees it as review. Now and then we’ll hit a lesson that seems to just tell the student how to do something new, and never much about why, but those always turn out to be things Saxon doesn’t place much importance on, and the student won’t see them or use them much.

 

Now let me say, the fact that Saxon explains the “why†behind concepts doesn’t mean a student will understand that explanation -- or remember it. With Saxon’s incremental format, some students have difficulty mastering concepts, and connecting them. And the tone of Saxon’s high school books is rather “academicâ€, and the length and wordiness of the lessons turns some students off. But the content is there.

 

Let me also say that though I like Saxon for high school, I never recommend that someone start using Saxon for the first time at that level. It is so different from anything else that I think the chances are good that it will be difficult for a student to switch to it at that point. Some students do fine, but I’m not comfortable making that recommendation myself. So please don’t think that you should switch to it because of anything I’ve said. The only point of my posts is to reassure people that Saxon isn’t lacking.

 

[SparklyUnicorn]

I agree that it does teach conceptual with a lot of stuff.

 

I think an easy addition is games.  Kitchen Table Math has lots of ideas.

 

 

[momtofive]

what grade level?

Grades 3-9

[momtofive]

What makes you think Saxon isn't "conceptual"? :confused1:

 

Which level are you using?

 

Janet in WA, one of our long-ago members, posted about Saxon teaching the why's (which I'm assuming is what you mean by "conceptual"):

 

In my experience, Saxon always teaches the “whyâ€. And they always introduce new concepts by relating them to previous ones. In fact, another criticism I’ve heard about the high school level books is that the lessons are too long -- too wordy. That’s because they spend so much time explaining. However, because of Saxon’s incremental design, you won’t always find the full explanation for “why†in any one lesson. Sometimes it takes many lessons, over a protracted period of time, before the student has all the pieces to a concept, and knows why he’s learned it and how it will be applied. For example, he’ll learn and practice a particular method of solving simultaneous equations. He’ll practice it for many days, in fact, with no real certainty why. Then, when he’s gotten proficient at that technique, Saxon will introduce a new kind of word problem for which that method of equation solving is useful. The student THEN sees why he learned that method. In other more traditional texts, with concepts taught in chapter format, this connection would be made more quickly and obviously. As carol nj says, Saxon is a “parts to whole†kind of math. You need to look at the whole picture to appreciate Saxon -- not just each book as a whole, but the whole series.

 

Also, sometimes the “why†of a concept isn’t found in a lesson because the student has seen that concept before in a previous book -- and the “why†was explained at the time the concept was first taught, not when he sees it as review. Now and then we’ll hit a lesson that seems to just tell the student how to do something new, and never much about why, but those always turn out to be things Saxon doesn’t place much importance on, and the student won’t see them or use them much.

 

Now let me say, the fact that Saxon explains the “why†behind concepts doesn’t mean a student will understand that explanation -- or remember it. With Saxon’s incremental format, some students have difficulty mastering concepts, and connecting them. And the tone of Saxon’s high school books is rather “academicâ€, and the length and wordiness of the lessons turns some students off. But the content is there.

 

Let me also say that though I like Saxon for high school, I never recommend that someone start using Saxon for the first time at that level. It is so different from anything else that I think the chances are good that it will be difficult for a student to switch to it at that point. Some students do fine, but I’m not comfortable making that recommendation myself. So please don’t think that you should switch to it because of anything I’ve said. The only point of my posts is to reassure people that Saxon isn’t lacking.

This is GREAT! Thank you, Ellie! ;) Your post confirmed my original thoughts with Saxon, that it *does* contain conceptual thinking. I've recently been looking at a few programs in the "conceptual" category, and I'm realizing that my kids are already picking up, and doing those things within their daily math lessons.

 

Ok, so where this is coming from...I was reading in TWTM4, and it was saying that Saxon is more procedural and that those programs should/could be supplemented with something more conceptual in nature. In fact, it says that they strongly recommend you combine it with one of the recommended supplements listed in the book.

 

Since moving everyone over to Saxon, I've noticed much more conceptual thinking vs. procedural. My kids also seem to really thrive with the incremental lessons and thorough practice of each concept. Their math understanding is growing so much. :)

 

Thank you! ;)

 

Eta: We are using Saxon 5/4 up through Algebra, for 4 kids right now.

Edited February 6, 2017 by momtofive

[Maryam]

Zaccaro's Math books are great supplements

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[shinyhappypeople]

Math games, and anything that allows you to play with numbers.  

 

I personally love Saxon.  And, fwiw, DD's using old school 6/5 and we've found that she's been able to transfer what's she's learning to "Common Core" type math assessments she deals with at the homeschool-charter we're temporarily using, even though old school 6/5 is most definitely not CC-aligned.

Edited February 15, 2017 by shinyhappypeople

[Farrar]

I find Saxon really dry and dull. I think telling students the how and why is different from really teaching it and constructing problem sets that lead to a deeper understanding of it. I think that's why so many people say it's not "conceptual." Not that it leaves out any information about the reasoning behind the math, but that it doesn't encourage thinking about it and it encourages retention of the methods and algorithms over the whys. My limited experience with it when I was teaching school led me to believe Saxon is weaker conceptually.

 

That said... what works, works. And if your kids are parts to whole learners may learn better that way. And if math is going well and you want to add in some thinking in other ways, I think most kids benefit from that. And I'd look at the Relaxed Math thread that's pinned on the General Ed board for ideas about games and living math books and so forth.

[EndOfOrdinary]

Saxon is not proof based. Itius procedural in that it builds incrimemtally, but it does not create a situation where you are examining the fundamental mathematical principles which construct mathematical systems. It teaches you to do a lot of process inside and out. It teaches you to use those processes together for various results. It does not teach you that negative numbers are the opposite form of positive numbers so that the numberline and thus the infinity scales are balanced so that all numbers can have an identity property, fractional exponents and negative exponets work, reciprocals exist, ect. It teaches you that dividing is the same as multiplying by the reciprocal, but it does not take that apart to the point that you understand how all the operations are essentially functions on adding, all based back to that same balanced numberline and that is the reason you flip the fraction when you divide fractions.

 

Do most people need that? Probably not. Does a math geek enjoy the beauty and simplicity of mathematics when it is explained like this? You bet. Does that same individual love math because to them it is a creative art? Yep. Saxon does not teach creative mathematical thinking. It teaches you to know process. It is not bad. That statement is not judgmental. It just is. Neither way of working with numbers is a bad thing.

 

IEW is a very formulatic writing program. Brave Writer is the opposite. Both a very good curriculums. They just serve different students. Same deal with Saxon.

[MistyMountain]

Saxon is definitely more procedural. It does not explain concepts in the way a more conceptual program does. It explains a little of course but not in a very concrete way that you think about what actually is happening to the numbers. It has some explanations of course. It is not working for my dc because it is so procedural and because the way the spiral is set up. It just has too few problems at first. I can see it working if a child has a really good base already. If it is working when other things did not then it sounds like it is a good fit for your dc.