Proportion of EL Time Devoted to Math? (split from 2- year old thread)

[Kerileanne99]

Eschlem-
Thanks so much for the links! I am always looking for fun new ideas and games, especially to reinforce a topic in her RS 'spine'...or anything else that catches her interest
I made a discovery with Marshmallow Math, long ago: she loved doing the activities, and would have enjoyed them one-by-one. But I read through the book as a whole, implementing the activities and games within our day. I honestly think this is what amped her excitement for math!
Now I use this idea daily. We still keep a math spine because I want to ensure we don't leave any gaps in understanding, but supplement (A LOT!) with various things and programs. In addition, I don't follow a linear progression of 'recommended' topics for LOs other than with a spine- so we play with geometry, graphing, measurement, time, money, any thing and everything she seems interested in.
We also play a version of 'I Spy' math in the world.  No matter where we are, we will play this as a fun way to pass the time. Anything math-related ( and that's everything, isn't it!) goes, and this has really made her aware of how integrated and ubiquitous math is!
An Analogy that works for me:  LR is an awesome program for teaching LO's to read. If you used it on it's own, I strongly believe that most, if not all, kids would learn to read... But the more you supplement with fantastic books on all topics, phonics, word games, phonemic awareness games, word puzzles, spelling, etc, the faster, and more efficiently they learn to read. Not to mention that their enjoyment, understanding, and overall exposure increases exponentially!
I guess the question is, what percentage of a day do we spend on reading activities, compared to math activities? While I do believe that all learning must begin with reading, I think that (at least in the US!) schools spend a tiny fraction of the day on math, and then wonder why kids don't like/understand math?
Any thoughts on this? What do many of you think is reasonable for EL?

[nee1]

I guess the question is, what percentage of a day do we spend on reading activities, compared to math activities? While I do believe that all learning must begin with reading, I think that (at least in the US!) schools spend a tiny fraction of the day on math, and then wonder why kids don't like/understand math?
Any thoughts on this? What do many of you think is reasonable for EL?

Keri, you hit the nail on the head! The very issue I've been reading about. Math is very much neglected in most schools so I have decided to hit it very, very, very hard. Just yesterday, I was reading an article by Harold Stevenson et al. titled 'Mathematics Achievement of Children in China and United States'. Here is an excerpt from a subsection titled 'Teachers' Attitudes'

``Teachers' attitudes.-
Children's attitudes about mathematics must also be influenced by those of their teachers. In general, mathematics held a lower status in the eyes of the American than of the Chinese teachers. Only 9% of the Chicago teachers, but 34% of the Beijing teachers, mentioned mathematics as the most important of all the subjects they teach. Moreover, when asked what subject they most liked to teach, only 32% of the Chicago teachers, but 61% of the Beijing teachers, said mathematics. Chicago teachers preferred to teach language arts (46%).

In a subsequent question, the teachers were asked about their skill in teaching. Fewer Chicago teachers thought they were skilled in teaching mathematics than thought themselves skilled in  teaching language arts (25% vs. 48%). Beijing teachers were equally divided between the two subjects (45% vs. 46%).

The difference in the attitudes of the teachers cannot be attributed to factors such as sex of teacher or educational level. The teachers were predominantly women in both locations: 94% in Beijing and 95% in Chicago. The educational level of the Chicago teachers was high; all held the bachelor's degree and 37% had received the master's degree. Most of the Chinese teachers (60%) had attended a teachers college for 2 or 3 years after graduating from high school; 37% had attended only high school.'' QUOTE ENDS.


Hence, I've decided to hit math very hard in our home, as it is most likely to be neglected or taught badly in schools. PokerDad started a thread recently (http://forum.brillkids.com/general-discussion-b5/we-can-do-by-moshe-kai/), and there he discussed the influence of math on school success. There was research cited on that thread that showed that math guaranteed greater school success than reading only. And most of the child prodigies discussed on that thread are extremely good in math too. So there must be a connection between being very  good in math and general academic succcess. And LDSMom made salient points on the thread too. An excerpt of her comments:

``It does seem like these kids are in college early based on their Math ability. I wonder if there are many early college goers who get there through language arts. I have been hearing a lot lately from my friends "your son will be fine in Kindergarten if he's already reading, they will just give him books at his level and in a few years all of the kids will catch up anyway" - The first part of this statement may be true, and the second part debatable (and perhaps hasn't been thoroughly studied, give it another 5-10 yrs when this new age of early learners get older).

Early college entrance was never my intention, hadn't thought about it until reading through these articles and seeing that common theme. It's making me reevaluate my "plan" if you will.  I've got great schools picked out until middle school, and then what? let him decide, encourage early college, or will we get to that point far earlier as these children have.  I wish I could talk one on one with one of these parents who have been there to hear how they weighed their decision and the experiences they've had.

It also drives home the point to me that while reading is extremely important, we shouldn't forget about Math! The more I read about these kids area of study, the more important I realize Math is in certain degrees that may interest my child. Just because I don't use much Math, doesn't mean that he won't.

When I learned how to read, I loved it and read all of the time, quickly becoming a great reader far above my class level - this had no impact on jumping me up a grade, I simply read well and was always comfortable reading out loud and could sit and read for hours and hours.  Perhaps it's my perception, but with Math, unless a child is extremely interested and finds ways to study on their own, they will pretty much always be near grade level unless encouraged or taught from a parent or older siblings advanced levels of math, or home schooled where they can move ahead at their own pace. '' QUOTE ENDS.

Link to the entire thread - http://forum.brillkids.com/general-discussion-b5/we-can-do-by-moshe-kai/.

[Mandabplus3]

I used to teach a group of first year in school kids. ( age 4/5) these kids were from a really low socio-economic environment. Many of them did not have a single kids book at home and some came to school without breakfast or lunch. Many were on scholarships for uniforms and supplies. Kowing where they came from we spent much of our time reading quality literature to them and teaching them their abc's and basic stuff. ( how to blow your nose, look after your things and be kind!)
The decision was made that these kids needed to be good at math to survive in their current/ and likely future lifestyle so we allocated the ENTIRE afternoon session every day purely to math concepts. The session was 1 hour 15 mins ( I think..) we had to start right at the beginning with them. Concepts like on, under, behind, their colours ( they needed to learn colours before we could teach them patterns) shapes....

Anyway as the session was after their outside play, they were often exhausted and hot. This posed a number of problems but what it did do was force me to make math hands on and interesting, to ensure active participation. We had a very low budget so all manipulatives were recycled. ( bottle lids were just THE BEST!) anyway I can say that these kids finished the year with a very very strong grounding in math. In a 36 week year it appears 1 hour and 15 mins is plenty for EL. I doubt very many 2/3 year olds would sit actively envolved for this long in one sitting. BUT if you can manage this amount in smaller sections of time, 5 days of most weeks of the year, you would be laughing
So I figure aiming for one 1/2 hour block a day every day, or two 15 minute blocks. Or slightly longer sessions if you can't manage it every day. In reality your kids will decide one month they LOVE math and the next they LOVE geography and math won't get much attention. You do need to be pretty repetitive with some concepts as some math concepts need to be LEFT brain available before you can move onto understanding the next concept. Math is a very linier learning pathway.

[Kerileanne99]

I think this is such an incredibly important topic for All parents, but especially EL!
I don't want it to get lost in the two-year-old thread so I split the topic hoping that more people will chime in and discuss
Nee1 and MandaB:
Awesome replies and I was incredibly intrigued reading your thoughts. I can't wait to discuss them with you further!

[nee1]

Keri,

My thoughts are that math is very important for school and cognitive success.

1) For example, there was a recent thread in the forum on Gifted Children in the Early Years (http://forum.brillkids.com/general-discussion-b5/article-highly-gifted-children-in-the-early-years/15/). On page 2 of that thread, diva7 made salient points. She remarked that her kid had recently been given an IQ test, and that a math whiz would have aced the test easily. I agree with her completely. Most kid IQ tests are very mathy, a child very well versed in math will ace those test very easily. I was recently looking at some of the practice questions from the testing mom website  (www.testingmom.com). IQ tests such as the Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) are very mathematics-based, a child well versed in math could ace that test without breaking any sweat. Same with other tests like the Bracken School Readiness Test, etc., etc. Yes, Bracken does have a vocabulary component in which kids with good vocabulary would do well on. But it also has math components, hence being versed only in reading but not in math may not help. So math is very, very important.

2) On PokerDad's thread on We Can Do (http://forum.brillkids.com/general-discussion-b5/we-can-do-by-moshe-kai/. ), there were discussions of some clever kids who had gone on to college early. And I kept seeing the trend - the kids were also very good in math. And LDSMom made very insightful remarks that have stayed with me since then - that it seems those kids were in college early based on their math ability, and that it would be interesting to see if there are kids to get to college early based on their reading ability only. She also said:
``It also drives home the point to me that while reading is extremely important, we shouldn't forget about Math! The more I read about these kids area of study, the more important I realize Math is in certain degrees that may interest my child. Just because I don't use much Math, doesn't mean that he won't."

I agree completely. Math is very important. And the research cited in PokerDads' thread showed that math was more predictive of school success than reading only. In other words, while literacy is very important, numeracy is also very important.

3) And apart from the prodigies discussed in PokerDad’s thread, there are some other ones like Ruth Lawrence (math child prodigy in UK, started degree in Oxford at age 12) and  Zohaib and Wajib Ahmed (brothers – math prodigies). Zohaib got A*grades at A level math while still in primary school at age 9. When I watched interview and read transcript by their parents, their father hinted he intended them to start University at age 14. Another early college admission based on math ability!

Media report on Zohaib and Wajib
a) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/4979604/Nine-year-old-becomes-youngest-ever-to-pass-A-level-maths-with-Grade-A.html.
b) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/7941327.stm
c) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1164614/Britains-cleverest-family-They-got-maths-A-levels-primary-school--thanks-hours-study-night-75p-Dad.html. (This reporter appears biased against EL - read with discernment).

Interview and testimonial from Zohaib and Wajib’s parents:
a) http://www.channel4.com/programmes/child-genius/articles/video-interview-with-wajih-and-zohaibs-parents.


4)  And in my post above, I  cited from Harold Stevenson's research that some schools neglect math too much for comfort. In the conclusions to his article  he wrote:

``It is obvious from these data that American children's deficiencies in mathematics are pervasive. This was apparent neither to the American mothers, who believed that their children were doing well in mathematics, nor to the children themselves. We do not purport to say that children in all schools in China would perform as well as children in Beijing. Clearly, this is not the case. In China, no less than in the United States, differences exist between urban and rural schools and between schools that receive differing levels of financial support. What is evident, however, is that children in the Chicago metropolitan area were not competitive in the various aspects of mathematics with their peers in Beijing.

The data indicate that American children hold favorable attitudes about mathematics, but their poor performance suggests that these positive attitudes were not derived from a clear understanding of mathematics or an appreciation of its complexities. Rather, the American children believed that mathematics is easy and that they were doing well. These beliefs were supported by the positive attitudes of the American parents, who held a very favorable attitude about their children's accomplishments. The American children  were as sensitive to differences among children's performance in mathematics as the Chinese children, but they generally had much more favorable views of their performance than would be merited in cross-national comparisons. This positive self-evaluation reflects, we believe, the lower standards held for children's performance in Chicago than in Beijing.

Another critical factor in influencing American children's attitudes about mathematics was the teachers' deemphasis of the importance of mathematics. Children's motivation to work hard in school is influenced by the attitudes and evaluations of their parents and teachers. When we ask how American children's performance can be improved, it is necessary to acknowledge such differences in attitudes between the two countries. It will be difficult to convince American children that they should strive harder in mathematics if their parents maintain low standards and express high satisfaction with their children's progress. Moreover, the ability of teachers to provide effective instruction in mathematics may be diminished when mathematics is a topic for which they express little fondness and profess modest skill.'' QUOTE ENDS.

And he made some astonishing findings: ``At fifth grade, only one Chicago school had a mean score as high as the lowest-scoring Beijing school''.
In other words, the highest-scoring school in math in Chicago equated the lowest-scoring school in Beijing!

The major lesson I drew from this is that as long as teachers and parents deemphasize mathematics and set very low standards for their pupils/children, math proficiency will continually drop. And while kids may hold favourable opinions of themselves and how good they are in math, may those opinions be based on reality.

[sonya_post]

Nee, that was a wonderful post.Thank you. I'ave been neglecting these boards and have now found myself going back to read all these threads in the last 4 days or so. Thanks again.

[PokerDad]

The following was geared more for home schooled children, but I'm posting just to give a benchmark of some sort.

You'll recall the young math wiz from Houston that I discussed in the Moshe Kai thread, named David Levy. His father, Robert Levy, in one of his many notorious Amazon reviews/discussions had this to say regarding time spent each day on mathematics:

Overall, the best thing to do, in my opinion, is to try to get 2 or 3 hours of work in each day. It sounds like a lot for very young kids, but it's like language immersion, you get through it with much less overall effort (i.e., review, forgetting, etc.), if you work at a fast pace...and as I told my kid, he only has to learn it once (so he could see light at the end of the tunnel). So, if a 'normal' kid spends, say 4300 hours learning math (figure 2 hours for each school day - 1 hour in class, 1 hour studying/homework), you can at least cut that in half using Saxon - if at a rapid pace with no long breaks in between. At least that's the way it worked out for us.

[Mandabplus3]

Now that's interesting. I don't know very many kids in school who clock up anywhere near 2 hours a day. Especially if they are good at math ( which likely means they are working at a level that is too easy for them and zooming through it) but I am Aussie so maybe it's different here? High schoolers here get 6/7 math periods a week of 40 mins each. Primary may get an hour session a day...but not many of them that's for sure.
Also worth noteing is that one on one for 1 hour is worth at least 2 hours of one on 28 in a classroom.
Homework in math here would be about 30 mins a day average, it doesn't seem to vary much for math as the grades go up, just the level of difficulty, not the amount of time spent. Perhaps that is the entire problem?
I do agree with the idea that getting in all learnt in a shorter period of time helps with remembering. As the content gets harder you are constantly pulling on previous knowledge to solve problems and so repetition becomes a part of your study. If you space it out too much, children forget and just work out problems slower as the solution/ techniques are distant memories that need to be relearnt. Each time we have spend a few weeks/months with a strng math focus the results have been greater than expected.
Three hours a day of math for a 9-15 year old is entirely feasable, but it does take a large chunk of time away from other possible learning areas so you would need to be pretty committed ( and sure) to a math based pathway in life. Sure does make EL sound like a good idea doesn't it, 1-2 hours from birth or 3 hours a day from teenage years?

[Wolfwind]

This thread has been very inspiring.  I focused much more on language than math, because I love reading and am happy to do it at the drop of a hat, and it's easy to have physical books all over the house to remind me.  We spend about the same amount of time on "teaching" reading (phonics games, sight words, etc) as we do on math, but much less time on "living math" than on "living reading" (reading books, signs, pointing out letters, spelling, etc).  Reading these posts definitely makes me want to change that!

The biggest thing that's helped me start incorporating math into our lives was getting "Marshmallow Math."  Since getting the book less than three months ago, my daughter has learned to count to twenty, count out objects up to five, use zero accurately, and has started to count backwards from ten to zero.  That's maybe a third of the ideas in the first section.  And as Kerri said, it's easy to use the concepts throughout everyday life: we count as we build with blocks, we count toys we're putting away, we count down until I'm done with whatever I'm doing and can play with her, etc.  But I really want to be better at noticing the math in life all around me and helping her see it.

Maybe I'll make some lists and post them around, so when she tells me she wants to play, I can look at a list of math possibilities and incorporate them into playing farm or tea party or whatever she wants.  A half hour of math a day would be fabulous!  I hope we get there around when she's two.  Maybe when she starts "school" at age five we'll be able to do the two hours a day.  We'll see.

[cokers4life]

After reading this thread, I really got to thinking about my early learning focus on an every day basis.  I even picked up "Marshmallow Math" again to get inspired again with easy math activities.   In the last three days, I have been more intentional with doing math activities with the kids.  I am using lots of different manipulatives to change up through out the day.  Money, grapes, chocolate chips, cars, blocks, animal toys, etc.  Its surprising how just changing the manipulative can reignite their excitement for counting and math.  With my own self-made dot matrix worksheets (to get me by until we can get Jones Math), the manipulative games, Leappad math games and MEP worksheets,  I am finding that its not that hard to get in two hours of math a day as long as its spread out all day.  Of course we haven't really gone anywhere this weekend so I don't know how achievable it is once we start going back to the YMCA everyday (yeah for car trouble).  You also have to take in the fact that the 3 and 4 year old take turns during the games so maybe its more like an hour depending on how you see it.  Although I think they learn a lot from watching each other. 

As much as I think reading is important, I definitely have decided to put math at the forefront.  I even went to the math area of the kid's library and pulled lots of wonderful math books to read.   I was surprised by how many wonderful books in story form are on the subject of math.  These are some of the kids favorite books right now.  I am going to be more intentional with playing math games with the children after reading everyone's valid points on early math learning. 

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

Page: 1/4  

Loading...

Members

• Total Members: 214813
• Latest: Smaged

Stats

• Total Posts: 110524
• Total Topics: 19134
• Online Today: 162
• Online Ever: 826
• (January 22, 2020, 12:09:49 AM)

Users Online

• Users: 0
• Guests: 116
• Total: 116