I’m trying to understand how these programs fit into the elementary school system. Both are computer based training systems that our young kids started in Kindergarten. They are used as both a learning tool and to assess knowledge, but neither factors into their grades. Our school (Florida, Pinellas Country/Clearwater) pushes both heavily, using a variety of rewards and incentives to ensure each student completes 100% of the assigned programs by the end of the school year. For example, relative progress of completion is tracked against on a ranked list in every classroom, and those at the top receive various rewards for their commitment.
We’ve asked the teachers on their feelings and get mixes responses – some roll their eyes and acknowledge they don’t support it (but have to), others say things like “it can’t hurt.” The substance of the programs is debatable – for example, while they teach novel ways to solve problems from different perspectives, they don’t progress in a manner specific to the learner. Every kid has to do every problem. Boredom has ensued in our house – the kids can do double digit math and even multiplication, but are stuck in endless routines that are focused on counting, and don’t feel stimulated.
My kids are making close to straight “A”s but are marginally performing in these programs. Both hate doing them because of the repetitiveness. We’ve asked if they can advance to more complex material but have been told “no” – the whole class gets the same material at the same rate. “Chapters” within each program cannot be advanced to based on prior completion – they are released on schedules throughout the year.
I can see how they can be effective learning tools for some students, but both programs have become institutionalized in our school … I’m curious if these are common programs among this group, and what your thoughts are on them. I don’t understand the “romance” of them – personally I’d rather dump a jigsaw puzzle in front of the kids and watch them work to eventually put it together (they’re better than I am) that force them to do number problems in a computer program that they already understand.
I work at MIND Research Institute, the creators of ST Math. The ST Math software games use interactive, graphically-rich animations that visually represent mathematical concepts to improve conceptual understanding and problem-solving skills.
One of the features of the program is that each student can progress at their own pace once they have mastered the material (the puzzles are generated based on how the student is engaging with the material, so some will end up completing more puzzles than others). If you could PM or email me with the name of your kids’ school, we can reach out to the school and provide support in their implementation of the program to help them keep all students challenged and engaged in math.
Thank you for sharing your concerns.
Calli Welsch
Communications Specialist
cwelsch @ mindresearch.org
MIND Research Institute
That sounds truly awful, and I’m sorry your kids have to go through it. Repetition at that scale is bad enough, but forcing everyone to go at the same slow place is ridiculous. I hope they’ll make it through the year still realizing that math is more than an endless stream of boring, rote computations.
I think the main concern of the OP was that kids are not able to skip ahead via prior mastery. Is there a system where a student can take a test or something in order to “place” into a higher level? E.g. instead of doing hundreds of single digit addition problems, kid can click to take the single digit addition final exam, pass it, and get that section marked as “complete” and move on.
Overall I think programs that let kids progress are best. However, smart kids don’t want to do it at all figure out that getting things wrong on purpose ends it more quickly. Our school uses one of these programs (iReady) to determine who needs remedial work, which I think is a mistake. Lots of kids had scores that bounced up and down like a super ball.
My computer lab let the students progress at their own pace in these sorts of programs back in 1996. You took a 5 problem test before any lesson, so it wouldn’t teach you what you already knew. It would be ridiculous if something in 2015 couldn’t do this.
Heck, I can’t believe it’s still not for a grade. I assumed we were doing this as a test run for having the computers actually be a part of the main classroom–perhaps as a way to replace homework.
My son’s school (Broward County) used to have Istation and I know he liked it but I don’t remember much about it. We currently use iReady.
This may help you or anyone else having issues. First my son is autistic and is delayed and I being a resourceful mom was able to get ahold of iReady training information and since I bought stmath I was able to go through the training myself.
iReady does a pretty extensive testing at the beginning of the program (school year or twice a year during the school year as my son’s school had them do a retest half way through). Reading and Math they can be placed at different levels but there are 2 flaws. First one is that if a child is in 4th grade they can be placed between 3rd and 5th grade. So a child significantly delayed or gifted in one or more areas could have issues with it being to hard or boredom. Also if you are really good in one aspect of math and really bad at another it essentially places you at 1 level so either one is too hard and another is to easy or maybe you skip steps on the one that is too hard so that you are placed in between. This I’m not sure. What I do know from my research is that it is recommended that a child with significant delays be tested at the grade the are at and not the grade they are in. This is a battle I have had with my son’s school but because I could point it out in their training material I have it in his IEP that testing will be appropriate in this new school year. IStation might have the same thing and possible if you son is advanced setting can be changed to make it more challenging and beneficial.
As for STMath I love it. I can go into every grade level and check and uncheck areas that do and do not need to be covered since my son’s has scattered skills this is a wonderful option. I’ve also found that in areas that I didn’t think he knew but he actually did he would get one or 2 puzzles at each level and it would move on. So it does seem to intuitively adjust. So I’m sue the people at mindresearch would be able to help parents in dealing with making necessary tweaks.
I have a feeling that our schools tend to do the standard and not make adjustments for each child and I’ve also found a lot of teachers aren’t good at the online technology and how to do it. One of the biggest flaws I’ve seen is that training for the programs is done months before they have access to the programs and reality is if they can’t do it right away a lot of what they learn will be forgotten. I will also say they have so much work with so little planning time that taking the time to play with the programs is challenging.
I was a heavy user last year and I liked a lot as second grade teacher. I do not understand pretty well what your complain is but the system worked perfectly well for all my kids. Including my Spec kids. I used both. Istation and ST Math. Istation is excellent and kids performed and improve a lot with this system. Sometimes some teacher do not know pretty well how it works, but it helps a lot in lower grades. English and Spanish. The most important thing is to follow the cycles of istation this is the main point and not all of the teacher understand the concept. Following cycles you can do grouping with kids at the same level and intervene in small group with them.
ST Math as well was a very good tool to work with. There are a new version of ST Math that I do not liked. The new version lack all the wonderful tools had the prior version of ST Math. There only puzzles now, and the teacher does not know were at they at.
The old version showed every thing about your class at a glance. The most important information in one page. And the main information growth information based in the curriculum progress and all this information is gone now with the new version. The new version is a bad copy of the old one, with a lot of more useless data. And the main thigh there is a divorce between what is your teaching objective and the practice students are doing in ST Math. There is “mandatory journey” now but no all the district in the country follow the same ST Math pacing guide. So you are teaching addition and kids are practicing measurement or you are teaching time and they are doing shapes. It does not help for reinforcement which is the most important thing.
Good teachers use ST Math as reinforcement but it is impossible now. In the prior version the teacher could change the objectives order to make it follow you pacing guide.
The new version allow you to change the order of assignments but it does not make any sense because the kid need to complete one stage to go to the other and again we are teaching shapes and they are working on money. So the new system need a lot of improvement. It is no so difficult just to go back to the prior version. I do not use it anymore because I does not help. I am doing now like most of the teachers do. When you have paperwork to do, you put kid to work on ST Math to do the puzzles.
Again so many minutes and so many puzzles does not mean anything to teachers or to students.
In the prior version my lower kids were working in more basic objectives… or the tower this is the way kids used to say… in which tower or cone are you? this was a common question for my kids. And other kids were doing high level stuff. I mean last year I had 8 kids working in third grade stuff. Which is a very goal to help student to be learning objectives and getting ready for next year. So the system was customized for kids to their own level.
Good teacher have to be aware that if the reach the goal and get to challenge level you have to put the kid into the next year objectives otherwise the kid will be wasting his/her time.
Bottom line. ST Math prior version till 2019/2020 was excellent. New version 2020/2021 get away from the new ST Math.
I hope it helps.