Math help

[MistyMountain]

My youngest dd can pick up on math concepts well and does well with learning things conceptually like how numbers can break up. She was working above grade level and she did good learning things with Cuisenaire rods, ten frames and base ten blocks. An issue I am running into though is she forgets what she learned if she is not regularly reviewing previous concepts. I was using conceptual mastery curricuoums like Signpaore and Beast Academy and at first it seemed like she was doing well but when we return to topics she actually has forgotten stuff.

I am trying to decide whether to try to add spiral practice to a mastery program or use CLE but add hands on conceptual learning to it. I am trying adding spiral practice (mathematical reasoning) to math mammoth but it seems to be too much since math mammoth lessons take a while and not the right kind of spiral. 

[Emba]

Well, I tried to add spiral review to MM and I hated it. I find it much easier to add conceptual elements as they show up in a more spiral program. It seems more natural to me, and less work.

[Sarah0000]

What kind of topics? Arithmetic concepts or things that don't come up frequently like rotational symmetry? 

If it's the latter I personally don't worry about it if a quick reminder of the definition allows him to continue the review easily. 

[Ellie]

7 hours ago, MistyMountain said:

My youngest dd can pick up on math concepts well and does well with learning things conceptually like how numbers can break up. She was working above grade level and she did good learning things with Cuisenaire rods, ten frames and base ten blocks. An issue I am running into though is she forgets what she learned if she is not regularly reviewing previous concepts. I was using conceptual mastery curricuoums like Signpaore and Beast Academy and at first it seemed like she was doing well but when we return to topics she actually has forgotten stuff.

I am trying to decide whether to try to add spiral practice to a mastery program or use CLE but add hands on conceptual learning to it. I am trying adding spiral practice (mathematical reasoning) to math mammoth but it seems to be too much since math mammoth lessons take a while and not the right kind of spiral. 

The thing with doing all those conceptual things is that often the practical things are not taught. Doing a traditional math like R&S or Saxon really makes it possible for children to use their math in ways that they'll actually use math IRL.

[idkm]

11 hours ago, OKBud said:

 

Hmm you can go either way. Add review to a good mastery program, or add more conceptual, reaching information to a spiral, but not at her peak conceptual level, program. Which one sounds more straightforward to you?

My own preference is for the latter, just because it gets there eventually and in the meantime we can do other things (mathematically and otherwise). However, I have friends who've done the former beautifully. And it's not all that onerous... sometimes it's as simple as doing a word problem a day in morning time...like from Denise Glaskin's book... together. Sometimes it means running separate curricula simultaneously. Or just a workbook... Singapore Challenge problems or Evan Moor daily work problems or whatever... on the side while continuing with MM or whatever works. 

 

Singapore Challenge problems can be found at free test papers.  There are math problems at 1st to 6th grade.  Grade 4 to 6 problems are quite challenging.

[BusyMom5]

This is what I do...  I use 2 curriculums.   Saxon is our base.  I use it to start the school year and reintroduce math.  When we get to a new topic, say adding fractions, immediately get out my mastery program (MM, MiF, ect) and we stop Saxon and spend a week or two on the new topic.  Sometimes I will alternate Saxon and MiF every other day.  Other tines we may do a mif page together, then they do the Saxon set on their own.  

[MistyMountain]

She has forgotten some arithmetic too. I was leaning towards getting a spiral math but adding conceptual teaching to it as it fits. I think I will try CLE as a base and add things like Beast Academy which she prefers to MM or the FAN math books to do when she needs to learn a concept or alongside when it works out time wise. 

Edited March 23, 2019 by MistyMountain

[Holly]

CLE has worked wonders for my DD who struggled with remembering past concepts. 

[MamaHill]

On 3/20/2019 at 4:29 PM, MistyMountain said:

My youngest dd can pick up on math concepts well and does well with learning things conceptually like how numbers can break up. She was working above grade level and she did good learning things with Cuisenaire rods, ten frames and base ten blocks. An issue I am running into though is she forgets what she learned if she is not regularly reviewing previous concepts. I was using conceptual mastery curricuoums like Signpaore and Beast Academy and at first it seemed like she was doing well but when we return to topics she actually has forgotten stuff.

I am trying to decide whether to try to add spiral practice to a mastery program or use CLE but add hands on conceptual learning to it. I am trying adding spiral practice (mathematical reasoning) to math mammoth but it seems to be too much since math mammoth lessons take a while and not the right kind of spiral. 

This situation describes my girls exactly.  They seemed to do well with the conceptual math components, but they needed daily spiral review and drilling of math facts.  I used both Singapore and MM, neither of which were appropriate for my girls.

I tried my absolute best to make MM spiral - emailed Maria the creator (she was very kind and as helpful as she could be), I bought more spiral-type add-ons, and I pleaded with the Hive here for help.

The bottom line is that my girls all needed the spiral built into the program with drilling of math facts. Period.  It did them no good to "understand" the conceptual portion of math, without simple, foundation knowledge that was not regularly revisited.  Even though they "understood" at the time, they couldn't remember the concepts when we circled back around weeks or months later.

We switched to Rod & Staff Math, which I understand is very similar to CLE in the way it spirals and drills.  In my experience, it is much easier to teach concrete, spiraling mathematics as the spine and add the conceptual ideas periodically and as it comes up in day to day conversation.

[daijobu]

I had my kids take a MOEMS once a week, both for review and to introduce new concepts they will officially learn later.  

[ktgrok]

2 hours ago, square_25 said:

 

That's super interesting. What did they forget without spiral drill? 

Not the person you were asking, but my son forgot EVERYTHING if we didn't use a spiral method. We tried others and ended up with CLE. He could figure out the concept, but then promptly forget it and have to re-figiure it out the next time. Very frustrating. CLE and later Teaching Textbooks worked for him. 

[ktgrok]

9 minutes ago, square_25 said:

 

I'm a big believer in spirals, as I've seen this effect firsthand. When you say everything, you mean like, definitions? Or ways of calculating? 

Sorry, not trying to be annoying, I'm just curious how this looks like in elementary school. I've seen it myself in high school students, where they'd forget even the basic definitions without a spiral. 

How to multiply, how to figure area, how to add fractions, etc etc etc. 

[ktgrok]

Just now, square_25 said:

 

Interesting! Would they remember what area WAS and visuals for adding fractions, or not even those? 

 It was like he was seeing it for the first time, every time. So he'd have to figure out how to solve the problem, which he could do, but that's a stupidly inefficient way to do math. 

Using a program like CLE or Teaching Textbooks, with a section of mixed review each day, kept things in his memory. 

[Garga]

My oldest was fine with a mastery program.  My youngest wasn't.  When I moved him from mastery to spiral, it was great.  After years of CLE, he is doing eons better than when he was doing mastery.

Note:  I had to change my expectations.  When we first started CLE, a new concept would be introduced.  I was so used to mastery, that if he didn't immediately understand the concept as thoroughly as I'd like, I'd stop and keep trying to teach it myself to him.  Or if he bumped into it on a practice problem and got it wrong, I'd go back and reteach the entire concept again.
 

Over time, I learned that if the student is first introduced to something in CLE and they're still shaky on the concept or if they forget it the next time they see it, that's ok.  CLE will come back to that concept many, many, many, many times.  Maybe not in the very next lesson...maybe not even for a couple of lessons, but they *will* come back to it, and they'll come back to it a lot.  When I could trust the process, my son started doing better and better in math because I wasn't dragging it out and trying to force mastery in a spiral program.  Just let the spiral naturally occur.  It'll sink in over time, but you have to let the time pass.

[Tomik]

We started out with Singapore years ago but even though I liked the program, our kids were not retaining the concepts.

Now I am using R&S with two kids and CLE with one. I prefer the way R&S is organized. To me CLE feels too all over the place. Both review continuously.