Hi,
I’m a private tutor, unlike many of you who are parents. I have used Cuisinaire (sp?) rods in tutoring but I was looking at the Math U See materials. They look interesting and a bit similar.
Anyone used both? I don’t think of Cuisinaire as a total system. Just a great manipulative that has a wide age span appeal. There are some leveled activity cards and that sort of thing. (BTW, they taught me about division. I also have a learning disability in math and in an educational methods class we used the rods. I was working with them and all of a sudden said— outloud I think :-) —
“Oh that’s what you do when you divide! So I’ve always had a bit of fondness
for them.)
I was looking at the Math U See materials and it looks a bit more organized. Should I want to be more organized. ;-)
—des
Re: Math U See comments??
Thanks for your comments. I have to agree about some of the wierd new math concepts. But the rods themselves are very effective in explaining/demonstrating some not so wierd concepts like multiplication and division and fractions. I don’t expect I’m getting many calls for math tutoring, but the kids
struggling with math are generally struggling on a fairly basic level (if not I
would have to refer them elsewhere anyway— given that I have a learning disability in math. I love to teach it though). In fact, I went in took the cards
that are with the rods and remediated myself to a point that I think I understand fractions pretty well.
As for getting more organized? It probably isn’t necessary for math anyway, as I said if it is “serious” math, I would refer it to someone else anyway. And since I posted, I think I’m putting my cash into the reading component as that’s where most of the tutoring bread and butter is coming from.
—des
Re: Math U See comments??
Hi, Des,
Ironically, I have also been looking at math materials, and I am heavily leaning toward Math-U-See. I had heard of it before because a lot of homeschoolers use it. But back in March, I went to our state IDA conference and there was a session on MUS. I found it to be very interesting. They use manipulatives that are along the lines of cuisenaire rods. I think you would love it. They use the manipulatives to introduce each new concept. Then, one the child understands, they have written practice of the problems. You probably would like to order the free demonstration video. I found the instructor (and creator of the program) to be very pleasant and easy to understand.
If you want to ask more questions, you can go to “groups” on yahoo.com and type in Math-U-See. I have just been on there this week asking about it’s use with special needs kids. You might enjoy reading through all those posts.
Janis
Re: Math U See comments??
Des,
Ironically, I think you and I have already talked about this since you called our office, and I believe you informed me of this board, but I am going to respond here just in case.
I am a Math-U-See Rep and have some insight on the differences between Cuisinaire Rods and the Math-U-See Blocks.
1. The MUS blocks are delineated so that you can see how many units are in a specific block. Cuisinaires are not.
2. The basic set of MUS blocks comes with hundreds blocks, the Cuisinaire basic set does not. I cannot honestly say that I have seen a Cuisinaire hundred block, because most programs I have seen have incorporated some form of base ten block (units, tens, hundreds and thousand cube) to teach place value concepts. But, I have been told there is a Cuisaire hundreds block.
3. The bottom of the blocks are hollow. This allows the blocks to be used to show the concept of less than 0, being in the hole (negative numbers) subtraction. Cuisinaires… don’t.
4. MUS blocks are based on a half-inch, cuisinaires a cm. So, the MUS blocks are bigger and easier to handle.
5. Both MUS and Cuisaire rods are color coordinated to allow the student and teacher to quickly associate a color to the number for ease of building problems quickly as the program progresses.
6 An additional comment about 1,000 cubes. It is great to have a 1,000 cube to show students 10 to the third power is 10 cubed. BUT, when doing math in a 2-dimensional plane, the 1,000 block should be one long rectangle of ten hundreds on top of themselves. A 1,000 cube cannot be used in any type of problem other than place value (addition/subtraction).
It also goes along with the patterns of mulitplication that are already clearly established in units, tens and hundreds.
I hope that helps. If you would like to get a free demo video you can call you local area representative at 888-854-6284.
Dan
Re: Math U See comments??
I will say that I watched the demo video and it was quite good. I’m sure I’d learn some things I never knew! But sadly, my district has bought into Saxon for the special ed. program and they won’t buy me the MUS. But if the Saxon doesn’t work for my kids, then I’ll just buy the MUS myself!
Janis
Re: Math U See comments??
>Ironically, I think you and I have already talked about this since you >called our office, and I believe you informed me of this board, but I am >going to respond here just in case.
That’s interesting, it was awhile ago and I have since decided to find a job at least part time. (If I can that is.)
I am a Math-U-See Rep and have some insight on the differences between Cuisinaire Rods and the Math-U-See Blocks.
>basic set does not. I cannot honestly say that I have seen a Cuisinaire hundred block, because most programs I have seen have incorporated some form of base ten block (units, tens, hundreds and thousand cube) to teach place value concepts. But, I have been told there is a Cuisaire >hundreds block.
Your point is well taken. I can’t see anyway to use the cuisinaire blocks to teach the base ten concept. You’d need another manipulative.
>3. The bottom of the blocks are hollow. This allows the blocks to be used to show the concept of less than 0, being in the hole (negative numbers) subtraction. Cuisinaires… don’t.
If I got to that point, I’d refer out. I don’t see myself teaching negative nos at all. I have a math disability myself, so if I get to a certain point I’d be as lost as the kids.
>4. MUS blocks are based on a half-inch, cuisinaires a cm. So, the MUS blocks are bigger and easier to handle.
Another good point, esp for kids with poor fine motor skills. The white (1 cm) cuiseniare block is tiny!!
>6 An additional comment about 1,000 cubes. It is great to have a 1,000 >cube to show students 10 to the third power is 10 cubed. BUT, when d
Again if I got that complex I’d have to tell them to find someone else.
I don’t expect to get a lot of math calls, but the kids often do have trouble with things like multiplication and fractions.
I also got the manual of On Cloud Nine with many very good ideas.
BTW, I don’t consider cuisenaire rods a “system” as MUS is. It is a manipulative to teach various concepts, and some it doesn’t do so well with— for example place value. And some it does better with— fractions, the associative law.
>Dan
Dan, I’m not getting anything else at this time. (And if I do it will be things like toy money, popsickles sticks, etc. ) I think it looks like quite a good program and not a badly priced one either. And if I were in the market for one, I think this is the one I might pick.
I think that in conjunction with On Cloud Nine, would be a really good complete program.
—des
Re: Math U See comments??
Des,
Some additional comments…
>3. The bottom of the blocks are hollow. This allows the blocks to be used to show the concept of less than 0, being in the hole (negative numbers) subtraction. Cuisinaires… don’t.
If I got to that point, I’d refer out. I don’t see myself teaching negative nos at all. I have a math disability myself, so if I get to a certain point I’d be as lost as the kids.
[color=blue]Teaching negative numbers IS teaching subtraction. Since subtraction is the inverse of addition we are still combining. So, if I have 10 - 7 = what I really have is (+10) + (-7) = 3. So, If you took at positive 10 and combined (added) it with a negative 7 you would have 3.
Another thing to consider is that MUS has videos (I know you are not in the market currently, but keep it in mind for the future.) and they are designed to teach you how to teach your students.[/color]
BTW, I don’t consider cuisenaire rods a “system” as MUS is. It is a manipulative to teach various concepts, and some it doesn’t do so well with— for example place value. And some it does better with— fractions, the associative law.
—des[/quote]
[color=blue]If you ever get to compare the MUS method for teaching Fractions, I think you would see a tremendous difference.[/color]
Thanks for your reply!
Dan
Re: Math U See comments??
me:
>If I got to that point, I’d refer out. I don’t see myself teaching negative nos at all. I have a math disability myself, so if I get to a certain point I’d be as lost as the kids.
dan:
[color=blue]Teaching negative numbers IS teaching subtraction. Since subtraction is the inverse of addition we are still combining. So, if I have \
Me:
As I said, if I got that far I’d still refer out. I can do negative nos. on my check book. I’ve had some practice :-), but there are other things that kids doing negative nos would need and I couldn’t do it.
Dan:
Another thing to consider is that MUS has videos (I know you are not in the market currently, but keep it in mind for the future.)
Des:
In the future maybe, but if I taught something, I would actually need to understand it, as opposed to understanding the approach to teaching it.
There’s a difference. I’d consider myself competent up to intro to fractions, maybe basic adding and subtracting, common demominators that sort of thing. I think my math scores were computation was about 4th grade and comprehension was about 10th—depending on the concept, I think.
Of course there is remediating myself to some extent. I don’t know how much time I want to take up on that.
Des:
Re: cuisinaire rods:
>with— for example place value. And some it does better with— fractions, the associative law.
Dan:
[color=blue]If you ever get to compare the MUS method for teaching Fractions, I think you would see a tremendous difference.[/color]
Des:
As I said, I don’t consider that really a comparison as such, cusinaire rods are a manipulative but not a system. The manipulative is applicable to things like the associative law and fractions, say. It is not so applicable to
say understanding carrying and borrowing and other aspects of base 10. It isn’t a weakness so much as I don’t think it was ever meant to do certain things. As to what is “better” well I think it would be an advantage to have a fully developed system vs a variety of materials. (Might be advantages the other way as well.) Especially given my own lack of skills. Of course it may be a moot point at the moment, since I dont’ think I’m in the market anymore. Still I think it is a point— that there are manipulatives out there that are good for some things. You wouldn’t take a clock, say, and say this is a bad manipulative for teaching money! And I think that’s the way the cuisenaire blocks were developed, there were specific ideas in mind. Of course some were nutty at the time— they got all involved in set theory for grade school kids and so on. But I dont’ think that at the time, people sat down and said “let’s create a set of manipulatives that would work across the math curricula from age 5- 16, it just wasn’t done. In fact, the use of manipulatives was a bit new. When I was in school, after a little counting of objects we went right to abstract. It might be why so many people my age hate math. And I might not have dyscalculia but dyseducatia. Or whatever.
Dan[/quote]
—des
Re: Math U See comments??
Well, I always thought that cuisenaire rods were a pretty nice manipulative in search of a program.
I got rather worried about them when I saw them being used to apply an insane New Math curriculum back in the 1960’s. The rods weren’t the problem, but the author who wanted beginning Grade 1 kids to use a second degree of symbolic thought was.
I’m going to take your question seriously — should you get more organized? Maybe, and maybe not.
I have always found that I teach much worse when I am overprepared. I try to pour too much knowledge into the students’ heads too quickly. My more effective method drives principals nuts (one of the twenty-six reasons I’m not teaching in schools any more) but I find I get much, much better results if I work interactively — ask what the questions are, answer them at an appropriate level, go ahead with progress through our chosen text at whatever pace is comfortable, stop and discuss issues as they come up. I do work through a chosen text to be sure to cover all the bases and to get lots of practice in, and we do get a lot of work done. But the organization is not lockstepped and pigeonholed.
Re: Math U See comments??
Thanks for your comments. I have to agree about some of the wierd new math concepts. But the rods themselves are very effective in explaining/demonstrating some not so wierd concepts like multiplication and division and fractions. I don’t expect I’m getting many calls for math tutoring, but the kids
struggling with math are generally struggling on a fairly basic level (if not I
would have to refer them elsewhere anyway— given that I have a learning disability in math. I love to teach it though). In fact, I went in took the cards
that are with the rods and remediated myself to a point that I think I understand fractions pretty well.
As for getting more organized? It probably isn’t necessary for math anyway, as I said if it is “serious” math, I would refer it to someone else anyway. And since I posted, I think I’m putting my cash into the reading component as that’s where most of the tutoring bread and butter is coming from.
—des
Re: Math U See comments??
Hi, Des,
Ironically, I have also been looking at math materials, and I am heavily leaning toward Math-U-See. I had heard of it before because a lot of homeschoolers use it. But back in March, I went to our state IDA conference and there was a session on MUS. I found it to be very interesting. They use manipulatives that are along the lines of cuisenaire rods. I think you would love it. They use the manipulatives to introduce each new concept. Then, one the child understands, they have written practice of the problems. You probably would like to order the free demonstration video. I found the instructor (and creator of the program) to be very pleasant and easy to understand.
If you want to ask more questions, you can go to “groups” on yahoo.com and type in Math-U-See. I have just been on there this week asking about it’s use with special needs kids. You might enjoy reading through all those posts.
Janis
Re: Math U See comments??
Des,
Ironically, I think you and I have already talked about this since you called our office, and I believe you informed me of this board, but I am going to respond here just in case.
I am a Math-U-See Rep and have some insight on the differences between Cuisinaire Rods and the Math-U-See Blocks.
1. The MUS blocks are delineated so that you can see how many units are in a specific block. Cuisinaires are not.
2. The basic set of MUS blocks comes with hundreds blocks, the Cuisinaire basic set does not. I cannot honestly say that I have seen a Cuisinaire hundred block, because most programs I have seen have incorporated some form of base ten block (units, tens, hundreds and thousand cube) to teach place value concepts. But, I have been told there is a Cuisaire hundreds block.
3. The bottom of the blocks are hollow. This allows the blocks to be used to show the concept of less than 0, being in the hole (negative numbers) subtraction. Cuisinaires… don’t.
4. MUS blocks are based on a half-inch, cuisinaires a cm. So, the MUS blocks are bigger and easier to handle.
5. Both MUS and Cuisaire rods are color coordinated to allow the student and teacher to quickly associate a color to the number for ease of building problems quickly as the program progresses.
6 An additional comment about 1,000 cubes. It is great to have a 1,000 cube to show students 10 to the third power is 10 cubed. BUT, when doing math in a 2-dimensional plane, the 1,000 block should be one long rectangle of ten hundreds on top of themselves. A 1,000 cube cannot be used in any type of problem other than place value (addition/subtraction).
It also goes along with the patterns of mulitplication that are already clearly established in units, tens and hundreds.
I hope that helps. If you would like to get a free demo video you can call you local area representative at 888-854-6284.
Dan
Re: Math U See comments??
I will say that I watched the demo video and it was quite good. I’m sure I’d learn some things I never knew! But sadly, my district has bought into Saxon for the special ed. program and they won’t buy me the MUS. But if the Saxon doesn’t work for my kids, then I’ll just buy the MUS myself!
Janis
Re: Math U See comments??
>Ironically, I think you and I have already talked about this since you >called our office, and I believe you informed me of this board, but I am >going to respond here just in case.
That’s interesting, it was awhile ago and I have since decided to find a job at least part time. (If I can that is.)
I am a Math-U-See Rep and have some insight on the differences between Cuisinaire Rods and the Math-U-See Blocks.
>basic set does not. I cannot honestly say that I have seen a Cuisinaire hundred block, because most programs I have seen have incorporated some form of base ten block (units, tens, hundreds and thousand cube) to teach place value concepts. But, I have been told there is a Cuisaire >hundreds block.
Your point is well taken. I can’t see anyway to use the cuisinaire blocks to teach the base ten concept. You’d need another manipulative.
>3. The bottom of the blocks are hollow. This allows the blocks to be used to show the concept of less than 0, being in the hole (negative numbers) subtraction. Cuisinaires… don’t.
If I got to that point, I’d refer out. I don’t see myself teaching negative nos at all. I have a math disability myself, so if I get to a certain point I’d be as lost as the kids.
>4. MUS blocks are based on a half-inch, cuisinaires a cm. So, the MUS blocks are bigger and easier to handle.
Another good point, esp for kids with poor fine motor skills. The white (1 cm) cuiseniare block is tiny!!
>6 An additional comment about 1,000 cubes. It is great to have a 1,000 >cube to show students 10 to the third power is 10 cubed. BUT, when d
Again if I got that complex I’d have to tell them to find someone else.
I don’t expect to get a lot of math calls, but the kids often do have trouble with things like multiplication and fractions.
I also got the manual of On Cloud Nine with many very good ideas.
BTW, I don’t consider cuisenaire rods a “system” as MUS is. It is a manipulative to teach various concepts, and some it doesn’t do so well with— for example place value. And some it does better with— fractions, the associative law.
>Dan
Dan, I’m not getting anything else at this time. (And if I do it will be things like toy money, popsickles sticks, etc. ) I think it looks like quite a good program and not a badly priced one either. And if I were in the market for one, I think this is the one I might pick.
I think that in conjunction with On Cloud Nine, would be a really good complete program.
—des
Re: Math U See comments??
Des,
Some additional comments…
>3. The bottom of the blocks are hollow. This allows the blocks to be used to show the concept of less than 0, being in the hole (negative numbers) subtraction. Cuisinaires… don’t.
If I got to that point, I’d refer out. I don’t see myself teaching negative nos at all. I have a math disability myself, so if I get to a certain point I’d be as lost as the kids.
[color=blue]Teaching negative numbers IS teaching subtraction. Since subtraction is the inverse of addition we are still combining. So, if I have 10 - 7 = what I really have is (+10) + (-7) = 3. So, If you took at positive 10 and combined (added) it with a negative 7 you would have 3.
Another thing to consider is that MUS has videos (I know you are not in the market currently, but keep it in mind for the future.) and they are designed to teach you how to teach your students.[/color]
BTW, I don’t consider cuisenaire rods a “system” as MUS is. It is a manipulative to teach various concepts, and some it doesn’t do so well with— for example place value. And some it does better with— fractions, the associative law.
—des[/quote]
[color=blue]If you ever get to compare the MUS method for teaching Fractions, I think you would see a tremendous difference.[/color]
Thanks for your reply!
Dan
Re: Math U See comments??
me:
>If I got to that point, I’d refer out. I don’t see myself teaching negative nos at all. I have a math disability myself, so if I get to a certain point I’d be as lost as the kids.
dan:
[color=blue]Teaching negative numbers IS teaching subtraction. Since subtraction is the inverse of addition we are still combining. So, if I have \
Me:
As I said, if I got that far I’d still refer out. I can do negative nos. on my check book. I’ve had some practice :-), but there are other things that kids doing negative nos would need and I couldn’t do it.
Dan:
Another thing to consider is that MUS has videos (I know you are not in the market currently, but keep it in mind for the future.)
Des:
In the future maybe, but if I taught something, I would actually need to understand it, as opposed to understanding the approach to teaching it.
There’s a difference. I’d consider myself competent up to intro to fractions, maybe basic adding and subtracting, common demominators that sort of thing. I think my math scores were computation was about 4th grade and comprehension was about 10th—depending on the concept, I think.
Of course there is remediating myself to some extent. I don’t know how much time I want to take up on that.
Des:
Re: cuisinaire rods:
>with— for example place value. And some it does better with— fractions, the associative law.
Dan:
[color=blue]If you ever get to compare the MUS method for teaching Fractions, I think you would see a tremendous difference.[/color]
Des:
As I said, I don’t consider that really a comparison as such, cusinaire rods are a manipulative but not a system. The manipulative is applicable to things like the associative law and fractions, say. It is not so applicable to
say understanding carrying and borrowing and other aspects of base 10. It isn’t a weakness so much as I don’t think it was ever meant to do certain things. As to what is “better” well I think it would be an advantage to have a fully developed system vs a variety of materials. (Might be advantages the other way as well.) Especially given my own lack of skills. Of course it may be a moot point at the moment, since I dont’ think I’m in the market anymore. Still I think it is a point— that there are manipulatives out there that are good for some things. You wouldn’t take a clock, say, and say this is a bad manipulative for teaching money! And I think that’s the way the cuisenaire blocks were developed, there were specific ideas in mind. Of course some were nutty at the time— they got all involved in set theory for grade school kids and so on. But I dont’ think that at the time, people sat down and said “let’s create a set of manipulatives that would work across the math curricula from age 5- 16, it just wasn’t done. In fact, the use of manipulatives was a bit new. When I was in school, after a little counting of objects we went right to abstract. It might be why so many people my age hate math. And I might not have dyscalculia but dyseducatia. Or whatever.
Dan[/quote]
—des
Well, I always thought that cuisenaire rods were a pretty nice manipulative in search of a program.
I got rather worried about them when I saw them being used to apply an insane New Math curriculum back in the 1960’s. The rods weren’t the problem, but the author who wanted beginning Grade 1 kids to use a second degree of symbolic thought was.
I’m going to take your question seriously — should you get more organized? Maybe, and maybe not.
I have always found that I teach much worse when I am overprepared. I try to pour too much knowledge into the students’ heads too quickly. My more effective method drives principals nuts (one of the twenty-six reasons I’m not teaching in schools any more) but I find I get much, much better results if I work interactively — ask what the questions are, answer them at an appropriate level, go ahead with progress through our chosen text at whatever pace is comfortable, stop and discuss issues as they come up. I do work through a chosen text to be sure to cover all the bases and to get lots of practice in, and we do get a lot of work done. But the organization is not lockstepped and pigeonholed.