TT question...mathy types please!

[4wildberrys]

DD has been doing TT algebra 1, but started running into some difficulties about lesson 54. Apparently, the teacher lecture on the cd was not helping her and without indexes or reference numbers (like Saxon has), she was having trouble locating which lesson to go to for help. So, for the first time I decided to step in and teach/help dd--this has been a BIG no-no after our Saxon year of horror. So, I am reading the lesson and I am wondering if this is NORMAL to teach in a high school Algebra level as far as reducing fractions. Instead of reducing with and LCD, TT has them break the numbers and exponents down to prime numbers, and then cross off the extras to come up with an answer. For example: 6x/18 = 2*3x/3*3*2. Cross out the primes on top and bottom and voila! your answer is 3x/2. This seems REALLY weird and not really up to high school level. Then, when trying to help with a problem like 2-11x= 5+8x, I was explaining about "isolating the variable" and my dd was totally stumped with my terminology!! So my question was "SO, how exactly ARE you being taught to do these problems?". "Well, not like that mom." TT uses terminology like "freeing the trapped x's"!! So far, I have seen NO reference to LCD, GCF or any other normal math terminology for teaching concepts. I am so angry at this "babytalk" for high school algebra because even thought the program is slow and gentle---it leaves me in a position that I will have to read basically every lesson and learn this new "gentle" math language just to help relate to dd with algebra! I want to drop this program SO badly and just have her do Life of Fred---but it was expensive!! And this will be the 2nd time I will have bought and sold TT Algebra 1 out of frustration!

SO---math experts---what do you think?? Am I just being overly sensitive, or is this program as behind and "off" as I am beginning to think?

[jcooperetc]

I know it is hard to follow math stuff when you can't write it vertically but I think you are talking about is canceling? The wording from the program does seem a little "babyish" I agree but the technique is common. It is adding the extra step that you kind of do in your head when you find common multiples and factors. TT is like Saxon as far as we are concerned in that it is agonizingly s l o w sometimes. We use it way above grade level to introduce and reinforce american type math stuff since we mostly use Singapore.

[nevergiveup]

Both of my sons are using Teaching Textbooks. I don't care what terminology they use as long as the kids can remember it and apply it. However, if they had trouble, I never felt that I had to use the same terminology as Teaching Textboods--teaching the concept is what is important, so I would explain what the goal is and another way to do it. I have always stressed to my kids that there is more than one way to do the problems and do what works. My older son did Algebra 1 entirely on his own, and while some of the techniques were not what I was taught, he liked them and understood them. TT's Math 7 does talk about Least Common Denominators and Greatest Common Factors, by the way. The workbooks have a Table of Contents, so it is easy for me to find the lessons.

[Nan in Mass]

I'm bumping this for you. If you don't get a response, try reposting it with "math terminology". I think sometimes people skip the TT posts thinking they are just asking, "Is it enough?", which seems to be an unending argument. -Nan

[4wildberrys]

I'm bumping this for you. If you don't get a response, try reposting it with "math terminology". I think sometimes people skip the TT posts thinking they are just asking, "Is it enough?", which seems to be an unending argument. -Nan

Thank you! I was wondering what/if there was a problem :001_smile:

[Jane in NC]

I'm bumping this for you. If you don't get a response, try reposting it with "math terminology". I think sometimes people skip the TT posts thinking they are just asking, "Is it enough?", which seems to be an unending argument. -Nan

Well Nan hit the nail on the head as why I did not respond!

Bottom line: if you think that TT or any other curriculum is inadequate, that is reason enough to supplement or switch. Any number of anecdotal stories would not convince me to stick with something with which I was uncomfortable or dissatisfied.

Jane (who better slink out of here before the tomato tossing begins!)

[4wildberrys]

Well Nan hit the nail on the head as why I did not respond!

Bottom line: if you think that TT or any other curriculum is inadequate, that is reason enough to supplement or switch. Any number of anecdotal stories would not convince me to stick with something with which I was uncomfortable or dissatisfied.

Jane (who better slink out of here before the tomato tossing begins!)


I do understand that---I was just hoping to be "swayed" in one direction or the other! Math has always been a struggle for this particular dd---but I guess I am realizing that no matter which curriculum we use I just need to be there to tutor and supervise.

[moki4]

and we are switching for the EXACT same reason!
We had this conversation about 1-2 weeks ago, so if you can find the posts, it may be helpful. Just search "teaching textbooks"
If your children are going on to higher math....they need the vocabulary! Math terminology is very basic. I really don't understand why the authors write the way they do "freeing the X's"....it leaves more questions than answers!
Also, it is slow...so, we feel for you and your child.
We have LIALS intermediate algebra, but will most likely buy the algebra 1 and move quickly through the chapters. We really liked TT in the beginning, but as Dd progressed, she had more questions about "the process", and "what am I doing"??? She could not form a complete thought, and explain herself. That is because "the definition" was never given. KWIM?
:001_smile:

[4wildberrys]

and we are switching for the EXACT same reason!
We had this conversation about 1-2 weeks ago, so if you can find the posts, it may be helpful. Just search "teaching textbooks"
If your children are going on to higher math....they need the vocabulary! Math terminology is very basic. I really don't understand why the authors write the way they do "freeing the X's"....it leaves more questions than answers!
Also, it is slow...so, we feel for you and your child.
We have LIALS intermediate algebra, but will most likely buy the algebra 1 and move quickly through the chapters. We really liked TT in the beginning, but as Dd progressed, she had more questions about "the process", and "what am I doing"??? She could not form a complete thought, and explain herself. That is because "the definition" was never given. KWIM?
:001_smile:

YES--exactly! Thank you for explaining my thoughts better than I could;) Even though she will not, more than likely unless a miracle happens, go on to any higher maths, I also think proper terminology is important. In fact, I read a review somewhere of Saxon math and how it uses "outdated" terminology and no "newer" more visual methods?! Math is math---how does mathematical language and terminology get outdated? :confused: Okay---you have given me the push I needed to try something else with dd for a couple of weeks---a program that uses proper math terminology and methods. Thanks!

[Jane in NC]

In fact, I read a review somewhere of Saxon math and how it uses "outdated" terminology and no "newer" more visual methods?! Math is math---how does mathematical language and terminology get outdated? :confused:

Mathematical terminology and notation do change, albeit slowly. What changes more rapidly are changes in teaching methodologies. So it is Math-Edu Speak that changes from book to book.

I use the old Dolcianis with my son. In the Analysis text, what I call "The Intermediate Value Theorem" is called "The Location Principle". Does it change the meaning or the proof? No--but it is a bit confusing because all of the recent Calculus text books that I have seen use "The Intermediate Value Theorem". But here is the deal: even if I used the older terminology, a student should recognize what the theorem states, why it is useful and how to use it.

Notational issues can drive students crazy. Math people will use apostrophes to represent derivatives while physics people use dots. I always tell students that we were not given stone tablets with mathematical notation. It evolves in the same way that language evolves.

Best,
Jane

[Nan in Mass]

Now he's doing pre-calc in CC. He says the biggest adjustment was getting used to the terminology so he could take notes and follow the lectures (something he's never had to do before in math, either). I don't think this is as much NEM's fault as my fault. I taught it using what terminology I remembered - in other words, not much. Mostly I pointed. I did talk, saying things like: First, eliminate your parethesis. Yup, distribute that. Yup, that's right, now you want to divide both sides by that variable. Ok, now gather up your like terms. Ok now get your unknown by itself on one side of the equation. I did use LCD and GCF (one of which NEM calls something else), and if I saw something I remembered being called differently in the US, I noted it and carefully used the US terminology, but those instances didn't occur very often. So I guess I used a less babyish version of baby talk. He seems to be surviving, though. We do occasionally have to help, but I think that would be true even without the terminology problems. As far as I can tell, his precalc book picked up right where NEM3 left off, so it has only been a matter of getting used to the terminology and classroom math. Math isn't an easy subject for him. So all in all, I think as Jane says, if it is just a matter of terminology, the student will figure it out. He may have to ask more questions, but he should recognize the answers. Not that I want to discourage you from switching from something you are dissatisfied with...
-Nan