does anyone choose Singapore over MM?

[Corraleno]

For anyone thinking of using MM, this is a really easy way to organize it:

 

I print out the TOC (e.g. 4A) and put it in the front of a 2" binder. I print out & hole punch 20-30 lessons at a time, and put them behind a plastic tab divider in the binder. Each day, I take out one lesson from behind the divider, and when it's completed I put it in front of the divider and write the date, plus any comments, on the TOC next to the lesson title. That way I always know exactly where we are, how many lessons are left, which lessons were easier or more difficult, etc. After you finish one semester, just add a second divider, put the new TOC in front and continue. Easy peasy!

 

Jackie

[daffodil]

Corraleno, thank you for the helpful comparison. Is this the US or Standards Edition of Singapore?

[HappyGrace]

Thanks, Corraleno-I like that simple way of organizing and will use that!

[Corraleno]

Corraleno, thank you for the helpful comparison. Is this the US or Standards Edition of Singapore?

 

I have the US edition.

 

Jackie

[siloam]

While it may be true that Singapore introduces some concepts more quickly in first grade, that is because MM includes more practice of math facts. I believe that was a conscious choice on Maria's part, to start more slowly and make sure kids are well grounded in the basics before moving on (a choice I agree with). If you compare the later levels, you will see that kids using MM have certainly "caught up" to Singapore, and in some cases she introduces concepts in MM before they are introduced in Singapore. I will give two examples:

 

EXAMPLE 1: Algebraic Equations

Singapore introduces algebraic equations in 6b, using 1 variable. MM introduces algebraic equations using pictures in 4A, including equations with two variables. Here is one of the problems in 4A (she uses shapes for the variables, I'll just use x & y):

 

3x + y = 9 + x

x + 8 = 2y

find x & y*

 

That seems pretty rigorous to me for the beginning of 4th grade!

 

 

 

I have two thoughts on the topic, but want to start by saying I haven't seen or used MM.

 

What attracted me to Singapore math was the problem solving focus, the critical thinking. It is rigorous but it is so because it makes you think and apply what you have learned. I hear good things about MM, but not that it has the same focus.

 

I agree that the above would make MM rigorous, but not in a way I would like. IMO the above problem is developmentally inappropriate for most 4th graders. It is dealing with abstract thinking, something that develops in most kids in 5th grade and later. Though with a program like Hands on Equations that would make the idea concrete, it could be easily understood and done by most younger children.

 

Singapore, on the other hand, had algebra type problems starting in 3rd grade, but uses bar graphs to solve them without any abstract characters, keeping the concepts very concrete. That is developmentally appropriate. To my knowledge Singapore doesn't introduce abstract characters till the upper level maths. I have personally worked all the books through 5A, and I haven't met any yet.

 

Heather

[KayT]

Just thought I'd mention that if you purchase MM from the homeschool buyers coop you get 20% off!

 

http://www.homeschoolbuyersco-op.org/math/

 

I imagine some of you may be purchasing MM after this nice thread!:D

 

HTH,

 

Penny

 

I just wanted to say "Thank You" Penny for posting this. I've been looking at this for a supplement for quite sometime and kept putting off buying it. I bought the whole bundle and you saved me a lot of money today!!!:001_smile:

[MeganW]

One more question, and then I promise I'll let this thread die! :)

 

Does anyone know of a chart that syncs up MM with RS or Miquon or MUS for those who want to supplement? (Something like this one that synchs up Singapore & Miquon http://www.singmath.com/SM_Miquon.htm )

[Corraleno]

I agree that the above would make MM rigorous, but not in a way I would like. IMO the above problem is developmentally inappropriate for most 4th graders. It is dealing with abstract thinking, something that develops in most kids in 5th grade and later. Though with a program like Hands on Equations that would make the idea concrete, it could be easily understood and done by most younger children.

 

Just to be clear, the problems from MM use colored shapes (on an "scale" like Hands on Equations does):

MM introduces algebraic equations using pictures in 4A, including equations with two variables. Here is one of the problems in 4A (she uses shapes for the variables, I'll just use x & y)

I tried to type the problems substituting smilies for the shapes, but it wouldn't let me put that many smilies in a single post and it just looked like a confusing mess.

 

My point was that MM explains and illustrates things so clearly, that even young kids can "get" higher-level concepts. I think a math curriculum that has kids solving for 2 unknowns in 4th grade is pretty rigorous. My very nonmathy son thought they were really fun, puzzle-type problems and enjoyed figuring them out. I think MM does an excellent job of teaching mathematical thinking and problem solving, even in kids who don't naturally think that way. In fact, I think that's its greatest strength ~ providing a rigorous, conceptual math curriculum for kids (and parents!) who are not inherently mathy.

 

Jackie

[Staceyshoe]

:hurray: A HUGE "thank you" to everyone who has taken time to respond to all these questions (esp Corraleno). It's been incredibly helpful for me! MUS isn't working for either me or ds, and I was planning to switch to Singapore. Now I'm seriously considering doing SM and MM simultaneously. I like the idea of ds "getting" the mental math, but I think he may need extra practice or alternative explanations at time. It seems like these two programs would fit together beautifully. Any thoughts on this? I'm almost ready to purchase the MM package because it's such a great discount, but maybe I should just get one year and see how it goes?

[Corraleno]

:hurray: A HUGE "thank you" to everyone who has taken time to respond to all these questions (esp Corraleno). It's been incredibly helpful for me! MUS isn't working for either me or ds, and I was planning to switch to Singapore. Now I'm seriously considering doing SM and MM simultaneously. I like the idea of ds "getting" the mental math, but I think he may need extra practice or alternative explanations at time. It seems like these two programs would fit together beautifully. Any thoughts on this? I'm almost ready to purchase the MM package because it's such a great discount, but maybe I should just get one year and see how it goes?

 

Personally, I think a full program of Singapore + a full program of MM would be pretty redundant, and too much work. Both emphasize mental math and conceptual understanding, and they teach concepts in very similar ways, so you wouldn't really be getting different approaches or alternative explanations. And the scope & sequence are slightly different, so you would need to line up the lessons if you were going to use them as "twin spines."

 

You might consider using MM as a spine and adding additional problems from the Singapore CWP and/or Intensive Practice books. That way you would get the clear, step-by-step explanations and ease of use of MM, combined with the extra challenge of the Singapore supplements.

 

Or you could use Singapore as a spine and use some Blue series worksheets for extra practice in areas where your child needs more practice or review, or a more step-by-step explanation. It depends in part on whether your child gets math easily, and how comfortable you are teaching math concepts the "Asian math" way (either reading & using the HIGs or teaching without them).

 

It also depends on whether you'd rather use MM as a base and add on more challenge when they can handle it, or use Singapore as a base and then add in extra practice/review/explanation if they're not getting it, KWIM?

 

What grade is your child in and which MM package were you looking at?

 

Jackie

[Spy Car]

I just wanted to say how much I enjoyed reading this thread as well.

 

Bill

[Staceyshoe]

Very helpful again. I can see how it would be redundant. I guess that means I'll need to make a decision about which program to go with, eh?;)

 

What grade is your child in and which MM package were you looking at?

 

 

I'm considering ds in first grade. He places in MM 2A or Singapore 1B on the online placement tests. It's a challenge to find what fits him because he's in very different places developmentally and intellectually. He's extremely bright and his learning was 100% self-guided until about 4 weeks ago. This has presented some huge challenges for me as far as placing him in math. He already has a basic grasp of negative #, fractions, and multiplication, but I don't feel like he knows his basic addition/subtraction facts as well as he should. He doesn't know how to carry for adding/subtracting multiple digits, though I suspect he could learn it within a lesson or two. He tells time proficiently but doesn't know much about measurement. He's all over the place, and doesn't have much patience for going over material that he already knows. Long answer, I know. It's a simple question, but difficult for me to answer succinctly.

[chiguirre]

Given your circumstances Staceyshoe, I'd look at Miquon. He can pick what he'd like to work on each day. Each skill area is denoted by a letter and the worksheets for each letter are sequential. But, if you get bored with a particular letter, you can choose a different area the next day. It's very good for kids who like to explore and self-teach. I would get the Annotations book (and the other instructor books too, if you like) and all six workbooks since your son is already exploring multiplication.

 

You might find the parent instructions confusing at first, but the learning curve isn't that long once you get used to the different way Miquon presents material.

 

Sorry to add yet another option, but I think this might be a good one for you.

[Corraleno]

I'm considering ds in first grade. He places in MM 2A or Singapore 1B on the online placement tests. It's a challenge to find what fits him because he's in very different places developmentally and intellectually. He's extremely bright and his learning was 100% self-guided until about 4 weeks ago. This has presented some huge challenges for me as far as placing him in math. He already has a basic grasp of negative #, fractions, and multiplication, but I don't feel like he knows his basic addition/subtraction facts as well as he should. He doesn't know how to carry for adding/subtracting multiple digits, though I suspect he could learn it within a lesson or two. He tells time proficiently but doesn't know much about measurement. He's all over the place, and doesn't have much patience for going over material that he already knows. Long answer, I know. It's a simple question, but difficult for me to answer succinctly.

 

Here's what I would do: I'd buy the MM Blue Series package for grades 1-3. That's 18 topical books (770 pages) for $32 if you use the HSBC code for 20% off. Just print out the pages he needs, for the topics he needs. For example, you can skip the Clock book (or only do the most advanced pages), but do all of Measurement. Do the addition/subtraction pages that focus on math facts and number bonds and carrying, but mix in pages from the multiplication/division/fractions books to keep him challenged while he continues to cement math facts. Mix & match and use the Blue Books in whatever order works best for you ~ basically creating a customized "textbook" for your son that would allow him move as quickly as he wanted through new material, while getting just enough practice and review to cement concepts without boring him. By the time you've worked through all 18 books, he will have finished 3rd grade level math.

 

At that point, if he's at a more even "level" across the board, you could switch him to a grade-leveled curriculum like Singapore or the MM Light Blue Series, or continue to mix and match the rest of the Blue Series books, if that system was working well for you (which would take you up to about 6th grade level).

 

Jackie

[Kuovonne]

This is from the Math Mammoth web site. The "I" is the author of MM. The bolding is mine.

 

I have tremendous appreciation to Singapore math. The main complaint people seem to have with it is that it does not have enough practice, and then of course for some people it's too "different". I'm trying to make mine a little more traditional as far as the sequence of topics goes. I do like their approach to word problems with the little diagrams and have included similar diagrams in my books as well, though probably on an easier level.

 

Has anyone found that the word problems in MM are easier than Singapore?

[HappyGrace]

Has anyone found that the word problems in MM are easier than Singapore?

:lurk5: I'd be interested to know this too, although I think I read in some of the forwards to the program also that she said the word problems are not as challenging, and fewer than Singapore.

 

LOVE this thread-you don't know how helpful it has been to me!

 

Corraleno-I like your idea a LOT about adding IP and CWP to MM to bump it up for kids who need that (like probably my son). Thanks again for all your input so far!

[Corraleno]

Has anyone found that the word problems in MM are easier than Singapore?

 

I have found the word problems in MM to be equivalent in difficulty to the word problems in the regular Singapore texts and workbooks. They are not as difficult as the ones in the Singapore Challenging Word Problems books. The CWP books can be used to supplement both the regular SM books and the MM books. Maria Miller herself suggests using the Singapore CWP books if a parent wants extra challenging word problems.

 

Jackie

[hmschooling]

I have found the word problems in MM to be equivalent in difficulty to the word problems in the regular Singapore texts and workbooks. They are not as difficult as the ones in the Singapore Challenging Word Problems books. The CWP books can be used to supplement both the regular SM books and the MM books. Maria Miller herself suggests using the Singapore CWP books if a parent wants extra challenging word problems.

 

Jackie

:iagree:

[HappyGrace]

Thank you! I think the CWP are wonderful, but almost overkill anyway. (At least they would be for my dd.)

[siloam]

Just to be clear, the problems from MM use colored shapes (on an "scale" like Hands on Equations does):

 

I tried to type the problems substituting smilies for the shapes, but it wouldn't let me put that many smilies in a single post and it just looked like a confusing mess.

 

My point was that MM explains and illustrates things so clearly, that even young kids can "get" higher-level concepts. I think a math curriculum that has kids solving for 2 unknowns in 4th grade is pretty rigorous. My very nonmathy son thought they were really fun, puzzle-type problems and enjoyed figuring them out. I think MM does an excellent job of teaching mathematical thinking and problem solving, even in kids who don't naturally think that way. In fact, I think that's its greatest strength ~ providing a rigorous, conceptual math curriculum for kids (and parents!) who are not inherently mathy.

 

Jackie

Jackie,

 

I am following you. The Singapore Intensive Practices books will have some of those in their Challenging sections. My kids really don't like them.

 

It is one of those things that probably clicks with some kids and is a lot of fun, but not mine (as usual). Sigh...

 

Heather

[JadeOrchidSong]

I have enjoyed reading all the posts in this thread. Thank you very much. I am debating either getting the whole MM package or just some topics such as multiplication.

J

[KAR120C]

Similarly, because of the way schools are structured in Singapore (follows calendar year instead of Agrarian year), students would reach 1B at a similar age to when US students are starting 2nd grade, which explains why a child who tests on a 2nd grade level on other placement tests will probably be somewhere in 1A/1B on Singapore.

 

 

Yup. From what i gather local kids in Singapore will be 7 years olds for Primary 1 which starts in January (Elementary 6 years at the end of which they take a National Exam) so placements will differ. After the National Exams/PSLE (Primary School Leaving Certificate) the kids choose schools according to their aggregate points. Higher points better schools. Some topics MM introduce earlier are usually thought in taught in their secondary school (usually 4 years).

 

Balancing my oldest boy math curriculum has been the hardest for me since I've not decided whether or not to let my boy to take the PSLE.

This is widely quoted but inaccurate. If you go to the Ministry of Education website (or their FAQ which goes on about exemptions), the kids are really the exact same age as US kids starting first grade -- already six but not yet seven.

 

ETA - didn't realize this was an old thread... sorry!

[Lovedtodeath]

Oh well... the last thing I need to do is push my kids beyond their abilities when they are young. More rigor is not always a good thing.

[JadeOrchidSong]

I have decided to stick with SM. I already own SM 1 to 4, and don't want to spend more money. It does work for my ds. I have to remember that there is no PERFECT program out there. You have to make it work for you. SM is good and does the job well enough, and I am the one that doesn't need TM (the teaching in the SM textbook is enough for me) and math is intuitive to me and I can figure out multiple step problems without hand holding.

J

[nancyb]

I don't know who resurrected this thread but THANK YOU! Thank you also to those who took the time to give such thorough answers.

[johnandtinagilbert]

Great thread! I've learned so much. I own and have used U.S. editions from EBK--6B with great success, but have been peeking at MM to see what the sparkling was all about.

I haven't seen MM so I can't compare the two. But, for me, SM has been one of our best curriculum choices ever, and since it is definitely not broken, and has a long track record of success in our family (and plenty of others), I wouldn't even consider an alternative unless I had a child for whom SM didn't work (and that won't happen since our family is complete.)

:iagree: by peeking at samples, since the teaching method is pretty much the same (conceptual bar teaching)

 

FWIW, having taught 3 dc with SM, I can't think of anything easier to teach. I "only" use the Text & WkBk (with occasionally taking a break between levels to do IP for a few weeks. . .) and it is insanely easy to teach. Absolute minimal mom-time. Very, very, easy.

 

(This assumes you are starting from the beginning with 1A. . . all bets are off if you are converting to SM later in the game. . .)

 

I really think many folks are making SM too complicated by adding in all these extra books all the time, HIG, CWP, EP, IP, it's bonkers! ;)

 

Now, I have no quibbles with adding in whatever extras one needs if the BASICS AREN'T DOING THE JOB. . . but I hate to think of people avoiding SM b/c it seems so dang complex (and expensive.)

 

Honestly, folks, all you really need is the text, the wkbk, and a tiny bit (5 min?) of focused mom time on the text each day. . .

 

I realize this is OT. . . but just had to throw in my 2c. . .

 

(3rd dc doing SM now. . .)

:iagree: I was so glad to see this. I never used any supplementation, save drilling via online or cards and of my first 3 students (2 are mathy) they have always tested far above grade level. Having said that, I do use the CWP now, only I use them a "level" behind b/c I'm not interested in frustrating anyone, just giving them lots of application in math. The CWP can't be beat. Never used Intensive Practice. Rarely used HIG. I'm not super mathy, say able through Alg. 2 with little problem, but it's not like I'm all that mathy, more L.A. on my brain!

 

I have two thoughts on the topic, but want to start by saying I haven't seen or used MM.

 

What attracted me to Singapore math was the problem solving focus, the critical thinking. It is rigorous but it is so because it makes you think and apply what you have learned. I hear good things about MM, but not that it has the same focus.

 

I agree that the above would make MM rigorous, but not in a way I would like. IMO the above problem is developmentally inappropriate for most 4th graders. It is dealing with abstract thinking, something that develops in most kids in 5th grade and later. Though with a program like Hands on Equations that would make the idea concrete, it could be easily understood and done by most younger children.

 

Singapore, on the other hand, had algebra type problems starting in 3rd grade, but uses bar graphs to solve them without any abstract characters, keeping the concepts very concrete. That is developmentally appropriate. To my knowledge Singapore doesn't introduce abstract characters till the upper level maths. I have personally worked all the books through 5A, and I haven't met any yet.

 

Heather

I remember each time I look at those problems, I'd think, "Man, if only they knew Algebra already, it's so easy to solve that way!" :iagree: (as usual) with you, Heather. I have enjoyed the scope and sequence of Singapore.

 

Personally, I think a full program of Singapore + a full program of MM would be pretty redundant, and too much work. Both emphasize mental math and conceptual understanding, and they teach concepts in very similar ways, so you wouldn't really be getting different approaches or alternative explanations. And the scope & sequence are slightly different, so you would need to line up the lessons if you were going to use them as "twin spines."

 

Jackie

:iagree:which is why I didn't buy MM ("Whew!" exclaims my budget...I don't need to buy one more thing!)

 

0

 

Thank you! I think the CWP are wonderful, but almost overkill anyway. (At least they would be for my dd.)

I'd suggest using one grade level below whatever Workbooks you're using. We do Textbook/Workbook 4 days a week and 7 problems from the CWP one day a week and finish on time with no problem. It also gives a real introduction to the difficult kinds of word problems that one will encounter on SATs, etc. I love the CWP.

[mystika1]

hI,

I just wanted to add to the resurrected thread.:D At the time of this thread I was using MM with my daughter and liked it. I was tired of switching around and decided that this time no matter what we were gonna stick with something. I had never tried SM because I felt like it would be too complicated. Everyone said how MM was just like it so I felt no need to bother. Well, after using MM for a while my daughter again started crying for math time. It was aweful. I felt terrible and almost decided that dd would be better of in PS because I just couldn't seem to get it right! She would look at the material and say how confused she was. I felt like a lousy teacher. Really....after trying tons of math curriculum and bombing every time.:tongue_smilie:

 

I went to our local Homeschool Cottage(a curriculum store nearby) to ask for help. My daughter was with me. Everything that the clerk recomended to us we had already bombed with....sigh:001_huh:. She also reassured me that she had a child just like that and she stuck with MUS. I looked through the math section to see if they had anything I hadn't tried. I picked up SM and looked through it. My daughter came by me because she was intrigued with the colorful cover. When she looked inside she lit up and said "Wow, what is this?" I told her it was math and she immediatly wanted to do the workbook! I bought it and have not regretted it. She still gets excited to see the cute images and does her math without tears. So far we have been using it for two month with no problems. :hurray:

 

I can agree that MM is similar to SM because of the Asian style of the teaching but....... presentation is waaayyy different. My daughter really loves to see me pull out SM. If I would pull out MM right now she would drop. I am not downing MM because I do believe it is also a solid math curriculum. I think if the graphics were different it would have made a difference. You will never find a curriculum that caters to everyone.(that is why we have so much to choose from) I know the plain graphics work awesomely for some but not my kid. Maybe if I wait a year or two she will outgrow the need for the cute graphics but for now SM has literally saved us.

 

I paid so much attention to learning style that I ended up spending hundreds of dollars on math. I think from now on I will present samples to my daughter before I leap into a purchase.

 

My 2 cents,:D

 

Penny

[Corraleno]

One thing to keep in mind with Singapore is that a lot of the "conceptual teaching" is not in the textbooks, it's in the TM or HIG. Singapore was designed to be used in a classroom setting by teachers who were already fully trained in teaching math "the Singapore way" (and I would guess that most of them would have been doing math that way since they were kids themselves, if they were raised and educated there). Often the textbook will just tell the child to perform a certain operation, without explaining the conceptual basis for it, because it's assumed that the teacher knows how to teach that and is presenting the conceptual explanations in class.

 

I would urge everyone, no matter what math program they're using, to read Liping Ma's Knowing and Teaching Elementary Mathematics, to truly understand the difference between the way math is generally taught here in the US and how it's taught in Asia. It's easy to look at the textbook and think "Oh, I know how to teach carrying and borrowing, or reducing fractions (or whatever), I don't need the HIG." But unless the parent is already very familiar with teaching math the "Asian way," then teaching a child using only the textbook risks leaving out a lot of what makes Singapore Math Singapore Math. It becomes more like Mom Math, with some challenging workbook problems. ;)

 

Jackie

[crazyforlatin]

One thing to keep in mind with Singapore is that a lot of the "conceptual teaching" is not in the textbooks, it's in the TM or HIG. Singapore was designed to be used in a classroom setting by teachers who were already fully trained in teaching math "the Singapore way" (and I would guess that most of them would have been doing math that way since they were kids themselves, if they were raised and educated there). Often the textbook will just tell the child to perform a certain operation, without explaining the conceptual basis for it, because it's assumed that the teacher knows how to teach that and is presenting the conceptual explanations in class.

 

I would urge everyone, no matter what math program they're using, to read Liping Ma's Knowing and Teaching Elementary Mathematics, to truly understand the difference between the way math is generally taught here in the US and how it's taught in Asia. It's easy to look at the textbook and think "Oh, I know how to teach carrying and borrowing, or reducing fractions (or whatever), I don't need the HIG." But unless the parent is already very familiar with teaching math the "Asian way," then teaching a child using only the textbook risks leaving out a lot of what makes Singapore Math Singapore Math. It becomes more like Mom Math, with some challenging workbook problems. ;)

 

Jackie

 

That's a reason why I switched from Singapore to MM. I didn't buy the HIG or the TM and wasn't teaching DD properly because there were jumps in Singapore that weren't incrementally taught in the textbook. This was before I joined the forum so I only bought the textbooks and workbooks and didn't realize more was needed with Singapore until only recently after using MM.

 

Jackie, when you use MM, do you feel a need to look at your Singapore HIG, if you happen to have it at the same level as the MM level you are teaching? Besides Ma's book, have you felt a need to read anything else to help you with MM?

[Corraleno]

Jackie, when you use MM, do you feel a need to look at your Singapore HIG, if you happen to have it at the same level as the MM level you are teaching?

I compared the explanations in MM and the HIG for several different topics and felt that the explanations in MM were much clearer and more explicit, and sometimes deeper as well. I typed up one example of this here. I didn't feel the HIGs added anything MM didn't already have, so they're currently in a box waiting for me to get around to selling them.

 

Besides Ma's book, have you felt a need to read anything else to help you with MM?

I read most of Hung-Hsi Wu's online articles, but I didn't find them nearly as useful or enlightening as the Liping Ma book, and I disagree with him on some topics — e.g., he is adamant that fractions should only be taught as points on a number line, not as "parts of a whole," and I disagree with that. I do agree that it's important to include the number line when teaching fractions in elementary school, which Math Mammoth does very well. In fact I think one of the greatest strengths of MM is the way fractions and decimals are taught in so many different ways, and those ways are so well integrated — a fraction is also a division problem, a decimal number is a fraction, fractions represent parts of a whole as well as a position on a number line, etc. For example, it's much easier for a student to understand why they're "moving the decimal" in a long division problem if they understand that any division problem can also be expressed as a fraction, and that moving the decimal is therefore the same as creating equivalent fractions. MM explains that concept very clearly, in a very step-by-step way.

 

Jackie

[truebluexf]

I went to our local Homeschool Cottage(a curriculum store nearby) to ask for help. My daughter was with me. Everything that the clerk recomended to us we had already bombed with....sigh:001_huh:. She also reassured me that she had a child just like that and she stuck with MUS. I looked through the math section to see if they had anything I hadn't tried. I picked up SM and looked through it. My daughter came by me because she was intrigued with the colorful cover. When she looked inside she lit up and said "Wow, what is this?" I told her it was math and she immediatly wanted to do the workbook! I bought it and have not regretted it. She still gets excited to see the cute images and does her math without tears. So far we have been using it for two month with no problems. :hurray:

 

I can agree that MM is similar to SM because of the Asian style of the teaching but....... presentation is waaayyy different. My daughter really loves to see me pull out SM. If I would pull out MM right now she would drop. I am not downing MM because I do believe it is also a solid math curriculum. I think if the graphics were different it would have made a difference. You will never find a curriculum that caters to everyone.(that is why we have so much to choose from) I know the plain graphics work awesomely for some but not my kid. Maybe if I wait a year or two she will outgrow the need for the cute graphics but for now SM has literally saved us.

 

I paid so much attention to learning style that I ended up spending hundreds of dollars on math. I think from now on I will present samples to my daughter before I leap into a purchase.

 

My 2 cents,:D

 

Penny

 

Argh see now I wonder if I should just be doing Singapore. We did RS, but I feel the need to move on from that at this point to something a little more independent, so I chose MM. DS is doing some review and relearning subtraction since the RS way didn't mesh well with us last year. It's been a fight and today is only the 3rd day of school. :( He says it's confusing, and on some levels I can see why. Why doesn't MM group items into 5's like RS? I thought that was a big part of the Asian way. I see DS having to count the little unit boxes and whatnot instead of being able to look at it and "see." And they are very tiny, it's a little dizzying.

 

I wonder if the pages of SM would be more appealing, even though the teaching method is less appealing to me! When teaching SM, though, is it take a few minutes and teach and then the child practices, or is it more time intensive like RS, where the whole thing is back and forth between us?

[Lorriekay]

MM never made it to my short list mainly because I hadn't even heard that much about it.

I chose Singapore math. It was my first choice and I stuck to it. Other ones I considered were Math U See and Right Start.

 

I have the entire Right Start Manipulative kit that I use with it (I was blessed to get this from my daughter who used it when she was homeschooling my grandson)

 

I do use the Standards Edition of Singapore (along with the Right Start manipulatives) because we are in CA, the standards edition are aligned with CA standards. Not that it matters, but I chose it anyways.

 

We love it!

 

My DS seems to love it as well. I have the Home Instructor guide which tells how to use the manipulatives. I haven't used this much, but I have used it.

I broke it out especially to underscore multiplication. 3 groups of 4 is the same as 4 groups of three etc. The instructor guide will tell you "have the child make so many equal groups out of the 40 linking cubes", for example.

 

Mostly though, he does the worksheets then the tests. I will assign all the worksheet pages in a unit (some per day) and then give the the tests (some per day)

 

easy!

 

My DS is in second grade. Meanwhile we do daily flashcards for addition up through 12's. He knows them all and now we are moving to subtraction flash cards.

 

Boring I know! LOL

 

He likes it and gets to go to "treasure box" for flashcard work :) :lol:

[crazyforlatin]

I compared the explanations in MM and the HIG for several different topics and felt that the explanations in MM were much clearer and more explicit, and sometimes deeper as well. I typed up one example of this here. I didn't feel the HIGs added anything MM didn't already have, so they're currently in a box waiting for me to get around to selling them.

 

 

I read most of Hung-Hsi Wu's online articles, but I didn't find them nearly as useful or enlightening as the Liping Ma book, and I disagree with him on some topics — e.g., he is adamant that fractions should only be taught as points on a number line, not as "parts of a whole," and I disagree with that. I do agree that it's important to include the number line when teaching fractions in elementary school, which Math Mammoth does very well. In fact I think one of the greatest strengths of MM is the way fractions and decimals are taught in so many different ways, and those ways are so well integrated — a fraction is also a division problem, a decimal number is a fraction, fractions represent parts of a whole as well as a position on a number line, etc. For example, it's much easier for a student to understand why they're "moving the decimal" in a long division problem if they understand that any division problem can also be expressed as a fraction, and that moving the decimal is therefore the same as creating equivalent fractions. MM explains that concept very clearly, in a very step-by-step way.

 

Jackie

 

Jackie, thank you very much for such a detailed, thoughtful response. You've been extremely helpful with all my questions.

[mystika1]

Argh see now I wonder if I should just be doing Singapore. We did RS, but I feel the need to move on from that at this point to something a little more independent, so I chose MM. DS is doing some review and relearning subtraction since the RS way didn't mesh well with us last year. It's been a fight and today is only the 3rd day of school. :( He says it's confusing, and on some levels I can see why. Why doesn't MM group items into 5's like RS? I thought that was a big part of the Asian way. I see DS having to count the little unit boxes and whatnot instead of being able to look at it and "see." And they are very tiny, it's a little dizzying.

 

I wonder if the pages of SM would be more appealing, even though the teaching method is less appealing to me! When teaching SM, though, is it take a few minutes and teach and then the child practices, or is it more time intensive like RS, where the whole thing is back and forth between us?

 

I would suggest finding a copy of the level you would purchase to see if you get better response. I knew right away that this was the best choice because of her reaction.:001_smile: It may not work for you as great as it did for me but it is certainly worth a try.

 

HTH,

 

Penny

[kalanamak]

But, for me, SM has been one of our best curriculum choices ever, and since it is definitely not broken

 

:iagree: I did think I wanted another approach to long division and got the long division book from MM (and downloaded MEP for it). I just know kiddo is going to need some practice, and I don't want every page to look just like the last one, KWIM?

[mystika1]

I wonder if the pages of SM would be more appealing, even though the teaching method is less appealing to me! When teaching SM, though, is it take a few minutes and teach and then the child practices, or is it more time intensive like RS, where the whole thing is back and forth between us?

 

I go over the lesson with her and she does the workbook pages on her own. Sometimes she needs extra help from me but math doesn't take nearly as long as it used to when she was crying over it.

 

HTH,

 

Penny

[Stellalarella]

Can anyone speak to the costs of SM vs. MM? Printing full color MM pages can add up.

[jewel7123]

Is there really enough explanation and instruction in Math Mammoth? I read several review of this curriculum on another board and there were complaints that the instructions were lacking and there wasn't much in the way of teacher support. I am a "non-mathy" person but I still want to give my children a wonderful foundation in math. I'm currently using Singapore now, and I'm considering continuing on with the Standards edition WITH the HIG. I've looked at Math Mammoth, but I haven't purchased yet because of what I've read about the explanation/instructions lacking, and personally it just isn't that visually appealing to me.

[ElizabethB]

I've looked at MM and am sticking with Singapore. Like a few others have said, it's intuitive to me. And, it's working. When we switched to Singapore, my daughter wasn't getting math. After the switch, she went up 25% points on her ITBS math scores the first year and 24% more the next...and, my mom was amazed at how well my daughter can now think mathematically (she saw her before the switch.) Mom now wants the kids' old textbooks!

[Corraleno]

Is there really enough explanation and instruction in Math Mammoth? I read several review of this curriculum on another board and there were complaints that the instructions were lacking and there wasn't much in the way of teacher support. I am a "non-mathy" person but I still want to give my children a wonderful foundation in math. I'm currently using Singapore now, and I'm considering continuing on with the Standards edition WITH the HIG. I've looked at Math Mammoth, but I haven't purchased yet because of what I've read about the explanation/instructions lacking, and personally it just isn't that visually appealing to me.

 

I think it's easy to assume that since Singapore has 3 books (HIG, text, WB) and MM only has 1, there must not be enough stuff in MM, but I've found the opposite to be true. IMO there are more conceptual explanations (just more explicit and more direct) and there are more practice problems, more facts practice, and more review. It's just very efficient, because it was designed from scratch specifically for homeschoolers rather than for classroom teachers.

 

The Singapore HIGs are a lot "wordier" because they are trying to explain to the parent how to teach the concept to the child, so it will say "Explain to the child the concept of blah blah blah. Then show them on the board that blah blah equals blah blah. Use pennies or small colored circles to demonstrate the equivalance of yadda yadda and blah blah...." There are lots of instructions on how to explain and demonstrate concepts, use manipulatives, etc. There are two steps in Singapore (teach the teacher, then teach the child) and only one in Math Mammoth.

 

If a parent looks at MM and thinks "I can't teach this, where's the manual?" they're missing the point of MM — the parent doesn't have to teach it, Maria does! MM cuts out the middleman (and hence the TM) and explains the concepts directly to the child. Much of the explanations lie in the illustrations, so in a sense she's also the one who's "drawing the problems on the board," and many lessons include printed versions of tens blocks or fraction overlays, so that's built in, too. Then she often walks students through the problems step by step, starting with partially worked problems the student completes, then providing problems for the student to work on their own. The parent is there to assist and answer questions, and as long as the parent reads the same explanations as the child, they shouldn't have any trouble understanding the concept. And if for some reason the parent does have trouble, they can just email Maria — she's extremely responsive and helpful. IMO, having the author of the curriculum personally answer any questions is much better "teacher support" than a 200 page manual. ;)

 

Jackie

[mystika1]

Is there really enough explanation and instruction in Math Mammoth? I read several review of this curriculum on another board and there were complaints that the instructions were lacking and there wasn't much in the way of teacher support. I am a "non-mathy" person but I still want to give my children a wonderful foundation in math. I'm currently using Singapore now, and I'm considering continuing on with the Standards edition WITH the HIG. I've looked at Math Mammoth, but I haven't purchased yet because of what I've read about the explanation/instructions lacking, and personally it just isn't that visually appealing to me.

Hi,

If you have looked at the samples....well....that is it. What you see is how the entire curriculum is worded. The wording is short and sweet with a problem or two demonstrated. My daughter needs more. When we used it as intended she would get frustrated with the directions while looking at the pictures trying to figure out how to duplicate it for the rest of the page.( and ended up in tears) For my daughter to really "get it" she needs time with mommy demonstrating the concept with lots of extras to help her understand. I personally like a TM or a curriculum with lots of explanations and extras for each problem/concept. MM was written for the child that wants to work independently. I find the children who like to work independently like short direct instructions with no "fluff.":001_smile: My 7 year old daughter doesn't learn well independently(at least to that extreme) and needs more of me "teaching" before she can complete a worksheet. You can adapt the MM and "teach" more from it than intended rather easily, but I need more of a TM(with all of the fluff:D) to accomplish that. My daughter also likes the graphical illustrations used in SM better. Like I said in a previous thread, maybe when my dd is older she can try MM again with better understanding but for now SM is written the way she needs.

 

Again, I am not downing MM because lots of children will thrive on it. It all depends on the needs of the child and how they learn best. It is an excellent alternative of SM if the child likes to work independently. The price is so great that trying it will not kill your bank account.

 

HTH,

 

Penny

Edited August 26, 2010 by mystika1

[kalanamak]

One thing to keep in mind with Singapore is that a lot of the "conceptual teaching" is not in the textbooks, it's in the TM or HIG. Singapore was designed to be used in a classroom setting by teachers who were already fully trained in teaching math "the Singapore way" (and I would guess that most of them would have been doing math that way since they were kids themselves, if they were raised and educated there). Often the textbook will just tell the child to perform a certain operation, without explaining the conceptual basis for it, because it's assumed that the teacher knows how to teach that and is presenting the conceptual explanations in class.

 

I would urge everyone, no matter what math program they're using, to read Liping Ma's Knowing and Teaching Elementary Mathematics, to truly understand the difference between the way math is generally taught here in the US and how it's taught in Asia. It's easy to look at the textbook and think "Oh, I know how to teach carrying and borrowing, or reducing fractions (or whatever), I don't need the HIG." But unless the parent is already very familiar with teaching math the "Asian way," then teaching a child using only the textbook risks leaving out a lot of what makes Singapore Math Singapore Math. It becomes more like Mom Math, with some challenging workbook problems. ;)

 

Jackie

 

I thought Ma's book pointed out how the young Chinese teachers DIDN'T know "the way", and that they learned it with practice and interaction with other math teachers.

 

I am foregoing the HIG. I read them through 2A and never used the hints and games, etc. at all. I found them to be a distraction from what I needed to do, which was to really learn the stuff, play with it, roll on my back in it and whinny, and this is what I love about the minimalist SM. It gives me a scope and sequence, and some samples, and leaves the rest up to me. I don't want explanations to read or parrot. I want to feel it in my bones, so that I can speak spontaneously about the problem of the day and we can discover the juicy details together, on our own. SM is the high point of my day (and the nickel finally drops for kiddo, it is the high point of his, too, school-wise).

Edited August 27, 2010 by kalanamak
drat that spelling

[6packofun]

I agree. I've considered some individual topics from MM to supplement Singapore, but never replace it. I like the tried and true results we've received from that program!!

[Lovedtodeath]

Argh see now I wonder if I should just be doing Singapore. We did RS, but I feel the need to move on from that at this point to something a little more independent, so I chose MM. DS is doing some review and relearning subtraction since the RS way didn't mesh well with us last year. It's been a fight and today is only the 3rd day of school. :( He says it's confusing, and on some levels I can see why. Why doesn't MM group items into 5's like RS? I thought that was a big part of the Asian way. I see DS having to count the little unit boxes and whatnot instead of being able to look at it and "see." And they are very tiny, it's a little dizzying.

 

I wonder if the pages of SM would be more appealing, even though the teaching method is less appealing to me! When teaching SM, though, is it take a few minutes and teach and then the child practices, or is it more time intensive like RS, where the whole thing is back and forth between us?

I added the RS abacus to MM. Easy Peasy. Fixed.

 

Is there really enough explanation and instruction in Math Mammoth? I read several review of this curriculum on another board and there were complaints that the instructions were lacking and there wasn't much in the way of teacher support. I am a "non-mathy" person but I still want to give my children a wonderful foundation in math. I'm currently using Singapore now, and I'm considering continuing on with the Standards edition WITH the HIG. I've looked at Math Mammoth, but I haven't purchased yet because of what I've read about the explanation/instructions lacking, and personally it just isn't that visually appealing to me.

I will be as clear as mud: YES. If I add more explanation than what is in the MM book already I cause problems. NO. I found that adding an abacus really helped, but it is really just demonstrating, hands-on, what the books are already saying.

[Beth in SW WA]

FWIW, dd6 does RS B, Singapore 1A/B & MM blue addition/subraction. We can have our cake and eat it too. :)

[Lovedtodeath]

 

FWIW, dd6 does RS B, Singapore 1A/B & MM blue addition/subraction. We can have our cake and eat it too. :)

We like to get our cake over quickly so that we have more time for ice cream. :tongue_smilie:

[mystika1]

Hi,

I just went to another forum where someone was discussing this same issue. I never had any issues understanding the directions in the MM books that I own but my daughter did. And she is the target audience. However, at 7 years old I don't expect her to teach herself math and I am there to help and explain. Not everyone would find the MM explanations enough.(as shown in the copied thread below.)

 

Here is the thread. She also found errors in the samples that she wrote about earlier in the same thread but obviously I can't paste the entire thread here. :001_smile:

 

Good on the errors thing....on the sample pages online, there were several errors....Ok, so I was looking at what I think was called addition and subtraction 1A and 2A. It showed like 5 ten blocks and 4 one blocks for example and then it showed 3 ten blocks 6 one blocks and it was explaining something about moving a 10block over and then taking away 2 ten blocks and 8 one blocks or something like that...it was very confusing. It took me a few minutes to figure out what it was talking about because there weren't any explanations on the page of what they were doing. Also, it was teaching the subtraction of ...for example....5

62-8= or something like that and you were suppose to subtract the 2 and come up with 60 then subtract the other 3, which made the 5???/ It was confusing. I figured out what it was talking about but it didn't explain it on the page and I'm telling you now that would have frustrated my DD trying to figure out what in the world they were doing..

 

Does it have TM or something that explains what they are doing that maybe just didn't show on the samples?

Now I believe she was referring to regrouping and was very confused. Without seeing what she was actually looking at I can't be sure.

Another person replied:

I know it's supposed to be self explanatory, but I have not found that to be true, esp. with my 3rd grader. If I simply told him, "do p. 65-66" I know he'd never get done. Again, my daughter might be different with this since she'll have used this for two years by then and she'll "get" the method behind the madness. I do plan on continuing to use this program.

 

 

Now I believe she was referring to regrouping and was very confused. Without seeing what she was actually looking at I can't be sure.

I encourage anyone interested in any curriculum to print out samples first to make sure that it is a good fit. :001_smile:

 

HTH,

 

Penny

Edited August 28, 2010 by mystika1

[Corraleno]

Sorry, I had a really hard time following that :lol:

 

When the mom said there was no explanation on the page, I wonder if she was using the second or third page of a lesson on a different day from the first page? In the lower levels, you only really need to do 1 page/day to finish in a year, and sometimes there's only instruction on the first page of the lesson, then the child continues to follow those instructions on the rest of the pages of practice problems for that lesson. If someone did page 1 of a lesson on a Friday, and then picked up page 2 on the following Monday or Tuesday, I could see them thinking "Hey, there's no instruction in this lesson!"

 

I also think that the Asian way of "making tens" can be confusing to parents who never learned math that way. After a few lessons, it should make more sense to both parent and child.

 

Jackie

[Beth in SW WA]

We like to get our cake over quickly so that we have more time for ice cream. :tongue_smilie:

 

That, too. :)

[Lovedtodeath]

Also, it was teaching the subtraction of ...for example....5

62-8= or something like that and you were suppose to subtract the 2 and come up with 60 then subtract the other 3, which made the 5???/ It was confusing.

We skipped that lesson. :lol: I figured she is making 10s like a pro with addition, and applying it to subtraction, she just didn't like the way they were trying to explain it.