Jump to content

Menu

Recommended Posts

Sorry to go back on-topic :D, but thanks Wapati for linking to these files. I'm enjoying them!

 

Bill

I am, too! As another poster mentioned earlier, I'm going to save the files in case these are removed at some point, but I'm going to go ahead and print the junior high books.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am, too! As another poster mentioned earlier, I'm going to save the files in case these are removed at some point, but I'm going to go ahead and print the junior high books.

 

Strangely I had difficulty downloading these to my Mac (Safari kept crashing) but they downloaded fine to the iPad.

 

I must back-up.

 

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't had a chance to look yet - but Gail might know ;) - I think she said she's in the process of making a comparison. I'll let you know if I figure it out.

 

As for the microwave, I'd be a tad afraid of starting it on fire, LOL, but I suppose a minute might be ok.

 

I started the comparison. I'm almost done outlining the 1973 book. I have skimmed through the 1985 one. So far the set theory is the biggest difference. I could see wanting to use the 1985 book because it is more user-friendly, but the set theory in the 1973 isn't just the first chapter. It's actually woven into many of the lessons. I'm leaning toward using 1973 and supplementing with 1985, but no decisions are final until I'm done the full comparison. It won't be tomorrow since we have our biggest swim meet of the season, but maybe over the weekend. Maybe I'll start a new thread about it.

 

Now, back to your regularly scheduled program...

 

I downloaded all the Algebra and Geometry texts right away and didn't have trouble on my PC. I didn't look at the elementary stuff yet, but I did bookmark it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I started the comparison. I'm almost done outlining the 1973 book. I have skimmed through the 1985 one. So far the set theory is the biggest difference. I could see wanting to use the 1985 book because it is more user-friendly, but the set theory in the 1973 isn't just the first chapter. It's actually woven into many of the lessons. I'm leaning toward using 1973 and supplementing with 1985, but no decisions are final until I'm done the full comparison. It won't be tomorrow since we have our biggest swim meet of the season, but maybe over the weekend. Maybe I'll start a new thread about it.

 

Now, back to your regularly scheduled program...

 

I downloaded all the Algebra and Geometry texts right away and didn't have trouble on my PC. I didn't look at the elementary stuff yet, but I did bookmark it.

 

I'll look forward to your Dolciani reviews.

 

But what is this about Algebra and Geometry text downloads, and elementay stuff? Is there stuff beyond the Jr High materials?

 

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All the SMSG texts (including elementary) are available here, at the Living Library of Modern Mathematics.

(This may not be relevant on this sub-forum, but I liked some of the elementary texts in the Minnemast project.)

 

HTH someone.

 

Here Bill - this link was on page 3. You may have missed it with all our OT chatter. :D

 

There might have been one more too. I'll look again...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Note that they are quite long. As much as I'd like to, I don't think I'll be printing entire books. If I were to use any of it, I'd probably print individual chapters.

 

The TMs are interesting too.

 

 

 

Good point. For everyone else, if you go to the link and click on Parent Directory, there are other various books. http://static.cemseprojects.org/smsg/ The "Matrix Algebra" is for 12th gr., I believe. Functions looks interesting.

 

ETA: I finally clicked on the alg/geom link at the parent directory - indeed, there are whole books, two for each subject, plus it looks like the algebra might have a second edition, and TMs. Frank Allen was a participant in the algebra book, at least. This predates his 1964 text.

 

Here's the other link from page 1.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could see wanting to use the 1985 book because it is more user-friendly, but the set theory in the 1973 isn't just the first chapter. It's actually woven into many of the lessons.

 

I really appreciate your pointing this out - I'll have to take a close look. I too look forward to any further comments you may have.

 

Strangely I had difficulty downloading these to my Mac (Safari kept crashing) but they downloaded fine to the iPad.

 

I had difficulty downloading the 5th and 6th grade ones. For the most part, however, it simply took some time. Suddenly it was finally there. I saved those files on my laptop because I didn't want to have to wait to download again another time. The Jr High files, at the other link, were a bit quicker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hard; about 1 minute. They were hardly even warm. You can google for instructions, which is what DH did.:D

Thanks!

 

 

I started the comparison. I'm almost done outlining the 1973 book. I have skimmed through the 1985 one. So far the set theory is the biggest difference. I could see wanting to use the 1985 book because it is more user-friendly, but the set theory in the 1973 isn't just the first chapter. It's actually woven into many of the lessons. I'm leaning toward using 1973 and supplementing with 1985, but no decisions are final until I'm done the full comparison. It won't be tomorrow since we have our biggest swim meet of the season, but maybe over the weekend. Maybe I'll start a new thread about it.

I look forward to reading your review!

 

 

I had difficulty downloading the 5th and 6th grade ones. For the most part, however, it simply took some time. Suddenly it was finally there. I saved those files on my laptop because I didn't want to have to wait to download again another time. The Jr High files, at the other link, were a bit quicker.

The link posted on page 3 has higher quality pages, so the files are larger and take longer to download. (eta: At least that was the case for Junior High Vol. 1, Part 1.)

Edited by JudyJudyJudy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

I found that the link for Unit 57 of "Mathematics for the Elementary School" (for year 3 part 2) is wrong at http://ceure.buffalostate.edu/~newmath/SMSG/SMSGTEXTS.html. It links to Unit 54.

 

I located this unit (in a fairly bad quality scan) at ERIC, here.

 

I also observed in at least one book (year 3??) that the book, after it finishes, repeats, backwards. So don't blindly print off the entire 400+ page file. Check it.

 

ETA: I realize this thread is old, but I thought it was most appropriate to post here anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All the SMSG texts (including elementary) are available here, at the Living Library of Modern Mathematics.

(This may not be relevant on this sub-forum, but I liked some of the elementary texts in the Minnemast project.)

 

HTH someone.

 

Can anyone enlighten me on what the unit numbers refer to? For example, Units 56 and 57 seem to be third grade students' texts while 58 and 59 are third grade teachers' manuals. But I'm not sure why grade four then is units 25-28.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Holy cow! These look awesome. I especially like the story problem about cannibals and missionaries. ;)

 

Thanks for posting.

 

Tara

 

I agree (about the books, not about the cannibals and missionaries, though our thanksgiving turkey does probably outweigh a child). I'm poking through the 3rd grade texts and they are really something else.

 

In particular, I'm impressed with the teacher manual. It seems to give the overt instruction on the math concepts and what to emphasize that I've often thought was missing in teacher manuals. Rather than just giving solutions, there is cueing on what to point out and why it is true. And much more than the make-it-relevant type comments that I see in modern TM's.

 

I'm also amused to see some things that I think of as "Singapore Math" like number families. Interesting to note that they were at one time in US math books too. (Or at least were proposed for inclusion.)

 

We're almost done with our current math text for my 4th grader. I may be making a jump to one of these.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I found this discussion of SMSG interesting. http://www.math.rochester.edu/people/faculty/rarm/smsg.html

 

I keep getting emails from big homeschool conference organizers. How I long for a day's session on the nitty gritty of teaching math. Vain hope probably, but the mention of teacher training institutes for math instruction sounds wonderful.

Edited by Sebastian (a lady)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree (about the books, not about the cannibals and missionaries, though our thanksgiving turkey does probably outweigh a child). I'm poking through the 3rd grade texts and they are really something else.

 

In particular, I'm impressed with the teacher manual. It seems to give the overt instruction on the math concepts and what to emphasize that I've often thought was missing in teacher manuals. Rather than just giving solutions, there is cueing on what to point out and why it is true. And much more than the make-it-relevant type comments that I see in modern TM's.

 

I'm also amused to see some things that I think of as "Singapore Math" like number families. Interesting to note that they were at one time in US math books too. (Or at least were proposed for inclusion.)

 

We're almost done with our current math text for my 4th grader. I may be making a jump to one of these.

:iagree:

 

This is one of the things that is drawing me to this program for my youngest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All the SMSG texts (including elementary) are available here, at the Living Library of Modern Mathematics.

(This may not be relevant on this sub-forum, but I liked some of the elementary texts in the Minnemast project.)

 

HTH someone.

 

I just wanted to say that we've been using the SMSG 3rd grade book for the last week and it's been a blast. The perfect break from Saxon while Artichoke (ds #3) nails down multiplication facts.

 

This has me totally rethinking where we're headed in math. (Not sure if I should say thanks or "thanks a lot".:tongue_smilie:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...