GD Math questions

[Skylark]

I had different questions about teaching Math, many of them been answered already in the previous thread, thank you everyone!

I have another one. We had to take a break in math ( we were using LM and our computer did not work), its been a 3 week break, which is quite long. Before the break my daughter enjoyed math more then any other activities ( I hope she will still )

I am not sure what to do, do I just pick up where we left off. Or do I do some kind of a review before going on in our lessons? We are doing GD classical schedule ( 3 sessions of 2 sets of 5 numbers each; and we have started equasions shortly before the break)

I was under impression that I should be just starting again from where we stopped ( no review necessary), but then I have read in a fee threads, that they tend to forget what they learned. So now I am not sure...

Also, I have another question. I started equasions when we reached number 50 9 instead of 20), what would you say, can I use all the numbers up to 50 in making equasions, or is it better to start with "smaller" numbers first. I was under the impression that it does not matter, since they "see quantity", and it does not matter whether it is 2 or 48 ( since they do not count it but just see it). But was wondering what GD tells about that, or if you have an experience or opinion you wanted to share...

Also, I am a bit confused about the nature of equasions. I tend to feel that it is better to have random unpredictable equasions. However, I did read a few posts that people were using consequent order predictable equasions, ie 5+1=6; 6+1=7; 7+1=8. etc.....

Is it good to do that? What would be the benefit of doing that, if at all? Is it bad to do that? Or should it be done once in a while, just to show child some harmony in that? At what point? Will appreciate some opinions! 

[Chris1]

Hi Skylark,

I would suggest that you use all of the cards to ensure adequate review of the quantities taught. GD states that we should avoid doing predictable patterns of equations in one session.

For example:
1+2=3    1+3=4 and 1+5=6 etc. Instead his example of an ideal session is: 1+2=3   2+5=7   4+8=12

The book also recommends restricting the initial addition sessions to two steps as this keeps the sessions “very zippy and crisp”
Have you considered using the LM grid arrangements-my approach of using cards with 10 dots alongside unit cards produced very good results.
 
I will loan you the Teach Your Baby Math book if you contact me with postal details.

Chris.

[Chris1]

A reply posted earlier from IAHP.

"We have no systematic rigorous longitudinal study showing the positive effect of the use of Dot Cards in developing "number sense," which is another name for quantity recognition; and we also have no studies showing a direct correlation of the development of number sense with the later academic work of children in studying Math.  We have, however, a consensus feeling among hundreds of mothers who have used the Dot Cards program that it has been helpful to their children's later development of Math skills.  The absence of rigorous studies is due to our refusal to use "control groups" who are deprived of any educational advantage we know about.  We continue to operate by offering all we know to anyone who will listen, and the "control group" has to be the rest of the world."

This would suggest that the claims made in the GD maths book are grossly exaggerated.

I have not been able to find any evidence to support the claim that babies or adults can subitize larger quantities.  Daniel Temmet’s book,Embracing the Wide Sky ,discusses this lack of evidence- page141 .   http://www.optimnem.co.uk/book.php

Also see, Doman- Mom’s site, Life with a preschooler   http://grhomeschooling.blogspot.com/ 

Why does the IAHP recommend random arrangements? It might be better to only use grid arrangements.  I realise that some of my posts have not been appreciated, (i have received at least 20 negative Karmas) but this observation needs to be considered. 

Chris

[Skylark]

Hi Skylark,

I would suggest that you use all of the cards to ensure adequate review of the quantities taught. GD states that we should avoid doing predictable patterns of equations in one session.

For example:
1+2=3    1+3=4 and 1+5=6 etc. Instead his example of an ideal session is: 1+2=3   2+5=7   4+8=12

The book also recommends restricting the initial addition sessions to two steps as this keeps the sessions “very zippy and crisp”
Have you considered using the LM grid arrangements-my approach of using cards with 10 dots alongside unit cards produced very good results.
 
I will loan you the Teach Your Baby Math book if you contact me with postal details.

Chris.

1) Thank you, Chris,  interesting. I would agree, that predictable equasion patterns would not work that great...

2) Thank you for offering to loan the book. Unfortunately it would not work, as I am working internationally and have no predictable address to use at this point  But it was really thoughful of you. Appreciate it!

Having all the posts and information here on the foruim is really a great help

[Chris1]

A reply posted earlier from IAHP.

"We have no systematic rigorous longitudinal study showing the positive effect of the use of Dot Cards in developing "number sense," which is another name for quantity recognition; and we also have no studies showing a direct correlation of the development of number sense with the later academic work of children in studying Math.  We have, however, a consensus feeling among hundreds of mothers who have used the Dot Cards program that it has been helpful to their children's later development of Math skills.  The absence of rigorous studies is due to our refusal to use "control groups" who are deprived of any educational advantage we know about.  We continue to operate by offering all we know to anyone who will listen, and the "control group" has to be the rest of the world."

"The absence of rigorous studies is due to our refusal to use "control groups" who are deprived of any educational advantage we know about.  We continue to operate by offering all we know to anyone who will listen, and the "control group" has to be the rest of the world."

Does this explanation make sense?    

[TheyCan]

My interpretation - For an offical study, they'd have to have x number of kids whom they carefully protect from being presented any of Doman's methods in any form.  I guess they're saying that they believe in their methods so much that they wouldn't feel right having contact with those kids and not presenting them with the methods.

Guess I'll have to continue with my own personal "study" and get back to you in 18 yrs

[Skylark]

My interpretation - For an offical study, they'd have to have x number of kids whom they carefully protect from being presented any of Doman's methods in any form.  I guess they're saying that they believe in their methods so much that they wouldn't feel right having contact with those kids and not presenting them with the methods.

Guess I'll have to continue with my own personal "study" and get back to you in 18 yrs

Great great reply, Jad! Awesome, Will join you in that! 

Also, there are two types of people - those who look for possibilities and encourage positive results; and those who look for excuses why something might not work    Most of the criticism of early education comes from the second type. As far as I am concerned, I will like to give my baby fun positive environment to learn and to develop her own God given potential.

Results I am looking for? Happy adjusted baby!

I am not ( and neither is Doman institure from what I can tell) looking to create a genius, ha    There always be people who will tell "No your baby is not counting, she is guessing. Your baby is not reading, she is just following your eyes and taking chances for corect answer...", but... in the long run it does not matter. Those who want to see and believe would not need too many explanations and persuasions, and those who do not want to believe, well, they dont care to be "persuaded" And in the long run it is all about happy challened and fulfilled babies!

[Skylark]

Still looking for input on my original questions... Anyone?

Trinity Papa, missing your comments 

Just though to hear of other experiences with longer breaks and picking up how tos...

I 've been thinking on it... If I will be doing simple additions using the numbers that she learned already, it would "remind" her of those numbers in a way even though we had a break, so there will be no need to just "review" numbers by themselves. What do you think?

[TheyCan]

As far as I am concerned, I will like to give my baby fun positive environment to learn and to develop her own God given potential.

Totally agree - and before I found Doman, I was totally confused/lost on how to best do that.  I love having the guidance of the program.  If it "works" or not, I'm spending lots of great quality time with my baby and have control/confidence in teaching him.  I can't even dream of anything better than that (okay - LR has to be in the dream somewhere because it allows me to still have personal time ). 

Back to your orginal question!!    When in doubt, I always always go back to the main "rule" - make sure your baby isn't bored.  If you decide to review and she seems bored - stop.  If not, keep going.   Hope that helps!

[Chris1]

I have another one. We had to take a break in math ( we were using LM and our computer did not work), its been a 3 week break, which is quite long. Before the break my daughter enjoyed math more then any other activities ( I hope she will still )

I am not sure what to do, do I just pick up where we left off. Or do I do some kind of a review before going on in our lessons?
 

Hi Skylark,
 
This is what Glenn Doman advises we do following a short break of a few days, weeks or even months-“When you are ready to go back to a consistent program start back exactly where you left off. Do not go back and start over again”

I 've been thinking on it... If I will be doing simple additions using the numbers that she learned already, it would "remind" her of those numbers in a way even though we had a break, so there will be no need to just "review" numbers by themselves. What do you think?

  I agree-this was the reasoning behind my initial response to your question.

Chris

[Chris1]

Guess I'll have to continue with my own personal "study" and get back to you in 18 yrs

Hi jad,
Thank you for your reply. I am reporting back 18 years later!      Karma 

http://forum.brillkids.com/teaching-your-child-to-read/reading-and-maths/msg8358/#msg8358


 

[Skylark]

Thank you, Jad!

[Chris1]

You might find this excellent Doman Inspired Parenting site interesting-I think our DomanMom has posted on this site.

http://domaninspiredparenting.blogspot.com/2008/11/math-dots.html       Just realised that this is our Texaslady22's site.

"This is the first time we've been a bit frustrated with Doman, though. I've read of so many parents who do the full math program and their child excels and then just suddenly "loses" the math ability...how does that happen? Why does that happen? It seems like they really need to do more research in this area."

Regards, Chris.

[Maddy]

Hi Chris

I have ordered Embracing the Wide Sky but it hasn't arrived yet, and page 141 is not available for preview on Amazon.

Would you be able to type in what Tammet has to say about the lack of evidence for children being able to subitize (or summarize it)?

*I* gave you karma by the way.

Thanks

Maddy

[KL]

"The absence of rigorous studies is due to our refusal to use "control groups" who are deprived of any educational advantage we know about.  We continue to operate by offering all we know to anyone who will listen, and the "control group" has to be the rest of the world."

Does this explanation make sense?    

Doesn't it make sense? I read it to mean that in order to do a rigorous study, you need to have a control group, which is a group of test subjects (kids) who would NOT be given the benefit of Doman math, for direct comparison purposes, similar to how you would give placebo pills (like sugar pills) to the control group for medical studies.  They are saying that they feel that would be unfair to the kids in the control group.

I realise that some of my posts have not been appreciated, (i have received at least 20 negative Karmas) but this observation needs to be considered. 

Goodness! I checked your stats and you've received 31 negative karmas!!   
You've posted nothing but excellent observations, so please don't let any of that deter you from continuing posting as you do! I for one greatly appreciate your posts!  Heaps of karma back to you!

document.getElementById('recent_loading').style.display = 'none';document.getElementById('recent_page_box').style.display = '';

Page: 1/4  

Loading...

Members

• Total Members: 214772
• Latest: addisonjones

Stats

• Total Posts: 110526
• Total Topics: 19136
• Online Today: 459
• Online Ever: 826
• (January 22, 2020, 12:09:49 AM)

Users Online

• Users: 0
• Guests: 395
• Total: 395