Get your kid on www.dreambox.com and they'll quickly start to see that it's useful to be able to break down and build up numbers using what you know about sets of two, three, five, ten, and so on.

For example, let's say you have 5+5. Well, you know what your hands look like, you know you have ten fingers, so rather than count out 1, 2, 3, 4.. 10, you can "know" it because you've counted and seen it a zillion times.

Next you have this problem: 5+4. Well, to start, a young child is going to count. Soon they'll grow tired of that and after seeing how easy 5+5 is, they can say, oh, 5+4 is one less! That's 9.

And then 6+5 is also easy, because it's one more.

Then move up to dealing with 10s and 20s. 10+5 is obviously 15, so 9+5 must be.. right, one less.

You can try to "put" these math facts in your child's head, but that will be frustrating. It's good for kids to see the patterns, test them out, quasi-"discover" them in supported instructional activities.

Trust me. www.dreambox.com

Enjoy!

I'm from CA originally and had never heard of the DOT Method until my oldest was introduced to it in 1st grade 12 years ago. She has struggled in Math for the entirety of her school career. Her sister and I (having not learned by that method) excel in Math. I removed her from the school and tried traditional math after but the damage was done. DOT method is a horrible way to learn math and it is not natural in anyway. Learning with objects allows us to manipulate and understand and strengthens our connection with the math. Fingers and toes are a better way to add and subtract. Natural math is a much better way to go.

Anonymous wrote:I learned the dot (touch) method in '98..but I'd say my teacher at the time was rather old fashioned. I noticed I was slower than my peers throughout school, but there are certain instances where I've found it to be an advantage. I was able to make it through calculus despite being taught this way, so it isn't necessarily a dead end way of learning.

I was a poster on this thread when it first started; I posted that I had been taught to count dots on numerals to add (i.e. Touch Math!)

I hadn't read the 9 posts from the "Dot Math" defender... but I just did. I'd like to point out that the type of instruction called "Dot Math" seems to be very different from what people are calling it.

http://modeling.asu.edu/CIMM/CIMM-sampleLesson.htm

Dot Math looks fine -- it seems very similar actually to the Singapore Math Part-Whole model. Do not fear to lear and use Dot Math,

Touch Math where you touch dots on the the number 7 and count them, then touch dots on the number eight and add on -- is the problem.

I learned the dot (touch) method in '98..but I'd say my teacher at the time was rather old fashioned. I noticed I was slower than my peers throughout school, but there are certain instances where I've found it to be an advantage. I was able to make it through calculus despite being taught this way, so it isn't necessarily a dead end way of learning.

Anonymous wrote:For chrissake, sock puppet - STFU.

Are you trying to sell a DotMath curriculum or something? You're feeble attempts at trying to look like 4 different people (or maybe 5 - I don't know, I learned DotMath) are silly, at best.

I am fed up with people who have poor math skills that claim they are more qualified than I am on this topic. I am fed up with people telling me dot math does damage to
a child's ability to do math when they have been teaching touch math and not dot math. I am not 4 different people nor do I try to be. I will counter every claim against dot math when these people teach touch math and not dot math. It is clear to me that you do not understand this topic at all or you would not be asking if DotMath is a
curriculum. It is not a curriculum- it is a resource material to help explain the concepts in the curriculum that is used. If you had been to the site and read the cover of the
The Fun Book you would see Resource Material on it.

One of the very best math programs is Cognitive Instruction in Mathematical Modeling or CIMM. type ENTER THE DOTS into the Google search box to find a
great system that works. ENTER THE DOTS by Rob MacDuff, phd - explains groups of dots and how to associate the groups to numbers.
Now you will claim that I am here to sell the CIMM curriculum. I found them on the internet just like any one else can. I agree with their concepts because they will not do any harm to a child's math skills. By now you should understand this is not about selling a program it is about being sure that you are not doing harm to a child's ability to do math.

Anonymous wrote:You learned New Math--not just your school but the whole country was doing it, but only for a very short period in the 70s.

Love this article on it:

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1529/what-exactly-was-the-new-math

That said, as a former first grade teacher, I actually am a proponent of whole math for preschoolers and early elementary students (less so for older students, but by then your child will be in school and the district will choose the teaching philosophy). The basic concept of whole math is to put math into the context of real-world situations--word problems, puzzles, real-world applications, etc. So "math" for a preschooler could be puzzles ("we have three cookies but there are only two of us! What do you think would be a fair way to divide them?") or cooking (measuring is a great way for young children to begin to grasp number theory--try to pick recipes with ingredients your child can easily measure without disasters if it spills).

I'm guessing most parents today were taught traditional math (one of two approaches to paper-based math--line up the numbers based on place value, carry the ones, etc.) with a few, like you, learning dot math and number bases. The former is still taught in some areas; the latter not at all.

As a former first grade teacher you should know the difference between Touch math and dot math. She was taught touch math not dot math so it is the touch math that is still used today. Dot math is the program to help people recover from the damage done by the touch math and the dots on top of the numeral.

Anonymous wrote:When I was in elementary school, I learned basic math that each number had a dot on it and that's how you add and subtract - by counting up or taking away the dots. Many years later, I still do it that way. I thought that's how everyone was taught but learned later it was some type of new math my school district tried for a while. Anyone else familiar with it?

The reason I'm asking is that my preschooler is showing interest in basic math and I'd like to gently encourage that. But if dot math is a bad way to teach math, I don't want to get that in her head. How else were people taught adding and subtracting numbers? Pure memorization?

Thanks!

Dot Math is NOT what you were taught. You were taught touch math. Dot Math is not bad! Dot Math is the very best system in the world. Touch math is the system that you are talking about that does damage to the ability to do math. When people first use touch math they are impressed with what they think is fast and accurate results. When I try to explain to them the dots on top of the numeral has been done in 1966 and it failed they get upset at me and defend touch math. Later when they see the damage and harm done to their child's ability to do math they blame my dot math system instead of touch math. For some reason people defend touch math but when they find out the harm done from their own experience they want to blame dot math. Dot Math and Touch math are NOT the same thing. They are completely different. Please do not mix these system up or mix them together. The Fun Book from the DotMath for kids system can be printed from the web site for free. You will need some math ability to compare these two systems. for example : you will need to understand groups and elements for venn diagrams. You will find more information about groups of dots from the CIMM program. You can find information on CIMM by typing Enter the dots into the Google search box. I hope this help you put the blame on touch math where it belongs and not on dot math. Anything is better than touch math but the best thing I have found is the CIMM system made by a person with a PHD who understand groups and dots and how to teach that to children.

For chrissake, sock puppet - STFU.

Are you trying to sell a DotMath curriculum or something? You're feeble attempts at trying to look like 4 different people (or maybe 5 - I don't know, I learned DotMath) are silly, at best.

Anonymous wrote:Teacher here. We only use TouchMath with our some of our special education students who need multi-sensory techniques for addition and subtraction. Here is the website for more info and products: http://www.touchmath.com/ For general ed students, we use number lines, tally marks and other strategies. In second grade, they start getting timed fact quizzes so they do need to start memorizing addition and subtracting facts.

I am sorry to here that you use Touch math at all. A person can get damage done to their math ability after just one lesson with touch math. I have seen this myself. An adult (she was LD) was shown dots on top of the numeral. Once the dots on top had been shown she was not able to break the bond of the dots on top of the numeral.

To avoid this problem do NOT put dots on top of the numeral. The Dot Math for kids has dice dots around the numeral so they do not get welded onto the number symbol. This is learning by association and with a dot matrix that can be seen as a group.

Anonymous wrote:Op here -- Ok, sounds like pure memorization is the way to go.

Yes, "Touch Math" sounds identical to "Dot Math" -- would've been 1982/83 for me too! I was terrible in math (still am) and I still rely on the damn dots. I never thought to blame dot math, just thought it was me. I will officially stay away from teaching them to my kids!

I am sorry that you still rely on "the damn dots" from the touch math but "Dot Math" is opposite to the Touch math concept and not identical to it. Dot Math is used to help people recover from touch math so do not blame dot math- blame touch math. If you want to know how repair the damage done by the touch math then go to the DotMath for kids web site and you can get help to recover from the dots on top of the numeral.

Anonymous wrote:OMG! Yes! It was called "Touch Math" right? Anyway, my mother claims that I could add and subtract just fine before I was introduced to this method in 2nd grade. After that, I became very dependent on touching out the dots with my pencil. It ultimately slowed down my arithmetic skills, which frustrated me and affected my motivation in math. I won't blame all of my math problems on touch math but I certainly don't think it did anything to strengthen my natural inclination to just add and subtract in my head.

I learned it back in 1982, by the way. I really hope they aren't reintroducing it in schools now!

No!! it is NOT called touch math. Dot math is NOT called touch math. Dot Math is a completely different system. You need to understand this so you can get the help you need to recover from the damage done to you math skills by the touch math. The DotMath for kids web site has fee charts to help you break the bond of dots on the numeral and learn how to see every number as a calculator.

Anonymous wrote:When I was in elementary school, I learned basic math that each number had a dot on it and that's how you add and subtract - by counting up or taking away the dots. Many years later, I still do it that way. I thought that's how everyone was taught but learned later it was some type of new math my school district tried for a while. Anyone else familiar with it?

The reason I'm asking is that my preschooler is showing interest in basic math and I'd like to gently encourage that. But if dot math is a bad way to teach math, I don't want to get that in her head. How else were people taught adding and subtracting numbers? Pure memorization?

Thanks!

Dot Math is NOT a bad way to teach math !!!! It is the very best way to teach math. Many people think Touch math and Dot Math are the same thing but they are not the same thing. They are completely different. Dot Math can help you recover from the damage done by touch math. The people here are all talking about touch math and how it hurt them and their ability to do math. If you need help to recover from this damage you need to go to the Dot Math web site and learn how to break the dots away from the number symbol. It will explain how every number is a calculator so you can learn the fact family combinations for each number. This will help you speed up your math calculations and understand numbers.

Op here -- Ok, sounds like pure memorization is the way to go.

Yes, "Touch Math" sounds identical to "Dot Math" -- would've been 1982/83 for me too! I was terrible in math (still am) and I still rely on the damn dots. I never thought to blame dot math, just thought it was me. I will officially stay away from teaching them to my kids!

I am so sorry that your ability to do math was damaged by the Tmath. I hear this all the time because it is used by so many uneducated teaches who also have had their ability to do math destroyed by the TMath.

DotMath for kids is true dot math and is NOT identical to touchmath. There is a very big difference. TM was only intended to be used for slow disabled students who were
not expected to advace beyond addition and subtraction. The Dotmath for kids helps people recover from the damage done to their ability to do math from the TM. TMath adds circles and dots on top of the number symbol. You can't add dots to cirlcle (bad math). This is bad on many levels. DO NOT put dots on top of the number symbol EVER.

In Dotmath for kids you start with the dice dots and draw the number symbol around the dots(not touching the dots) This is association -so the dots do not get welled onto
the number symbol. A major problem with TMath is that you can never see the number symbol with out the dots and cirles welled on. Tmath is in violation of most school policy because they are teching Non-standard number symbols. When they add dots and circles to the number symbol it chages the symbols into a new nonstandard symbol -the student then must translate back into a standard symbol.

The DotMath for kids system show how to transition from dice dots to number symbols then how to see every number as a calculator. This speeds up a student to the point that many can win in a race against a calculator. The fractions sheets help explain circles in a way that foreshadows grade 12 math (unit cirlce). TMath has no transition and no foreshadow of grade 12 math.

These are only a few of the differences between DotMath for kids and the Tmath. They are not identical- they are opposites. The Tmath can destroy the ability to do math and the Dotmath for kids help people recover from the Tmath.

Please study the information on the DotMath for kids web site before you say these systems are identical when they are opposites. Your statement may mislead people who are looking for help to recover from the Tmath.

OBP

Anonymous wrote:I don't get it. If you don't count something (dots, apples, whatever), how would you know that 3 + 2 = 5 (when you are first learning it)? Do you just memorize the way you memorize multiplication tables?

Kind of. You memorize certain facts like 2+2, 3+3, 4+4 ..... and then you use those to help you with the other facts.

If 2+2 = 4, then 2+3 will have to be one more than 4, because 3 is one more than two.

2+2 is called a "double" fact and 2+3 is called a "double plus 1" fact.

You are supposed to be able to add +1 and +2 in your head, automatically. That's just "counting on"

Anonymous wrote:Op here -- Ok, sounds like pure memorization is the way to go.

Yes, "Touch Math" sounds identical to "Dot Math" -- would've been 1982/83 for me too! I was terrible in math (still am) and I still rely on the damn dots. I never thought to blame dot math, just thought it was me. I will officially stay away from teaching them to my kids!

OMG me too! I would have been in 1st grade in 1983 and I remember those dots!

I was great in math but could never do mental math accurately.

I think the way to teach addition/subtraction is to start with "what makes 10". You want kids to totally internalize the number pairs that make 10. 1 and 9, 2 and 8 and so on. They should have these rock solid -- totally automatic. There are lots of ways to drill the associations down -- using 10 frames, using dominoes, using manipulatives and counting, using an abacus, etc.

Once they have those facts down, you do doubles. 2+2 3+3 and so on. Of course each time they learn a number fact, you practice it many ways: 2+ ___ = 4 2+2 = _____

After they have all the 10 facts and the doubles facts you teach +1 fcts and +2 facts... called "counting on". Usually pretty easy.

Then you teach double plus 1 facts. If you know 6+6 = 12, then 6+7=13.

That gets you most of the facts to 20 and then you just use the 9s trick for the 9 facts and then you are almost done.

Except for the tough ones: 7+5, 8+4, 6+8, 7+4