Singapore IP Question

[Leighton Academy]

Has anyone tried using the IP instead of the regular workbook? I'm wondering if we can use the IP in conjunction with the textbook instead of using the workbook. We've been using the workbook, IP, and CWP. I'd like to just cut the workbook out altogether. We also supplement with Horizons for review and variety. Anyone think IP along with CWP is enough?

[nmoira]

 

Has anyone tried using the IP instead of the regular workbook? I'm wondering if we can use the IP in conjunction with the textbook instead of using the workbook. We've been using the workbook, IP, and CWP. I'd like to just cut the workbook out altogether. We also supplement with Horizons for review and variety. Anyone think IP along with CWP is enough?

Yes, it's easily doable for an able child. The only "trick" is that you must to finish a topic in the text before working through the corresponding IP section.

[Mallory]

:iagree: That's what we do. The section in the Text, then the section in the IP, no workbook.

[LittleIzumi]

We are only using the IP for 1A (I used the textbook once, to explain how they draw number bonds). Dd knows the material but needs some fact practice before I really want to move her on, so we are going through the IP.

[Leighton Academy]

Thanks for the responses! I was trying to get in the rest of our school orders today and was wondering whether I should get a workbook or not. Sometimes I feel like we're spending sooooo much time on math. Not that they're struggling but just that I'm giving them so much to do. :001_smile:

 

Would like to spend more time on science and history this year but the three R's seem to take up so much time.

[Spy Car]

Some do it, I would not.

 

I like doing the Textbook (as intended) as a teacher-intensive learning time, and using the Workbooks for independent (and semi-independent in early levels) practice of basic skills.

 

The IPs are challenging. Love the IPs, but I personally would not give up the basic practice in the Workbooks and would not turn the Textbooks into "independent" work if at all possible.

 

Bill

Edited July 14, 2011 by Spy Car

[Mallory]

The IPs are challenging. Love the IPs, but I personally would not give up the basic practice in the Workbooks and would not turn the Textbooks into "independent" work if at all possible.

 

 

 

I don't think anyone is saying the text should be indpendant, but why don't you think the IP's should be independant?

[nmoira]

 

The IPs are challenging. Love the IPs, but I personally would not give up the basic practice in the Workbooks and would not turn the Textbooks into "independent" work if at all possible.

It depends on the child. Skipping the workbook for the IP isn't likely a viable option for children of average ability in math because the topic at hand should be mastered before moving on to the IP. However, when mastery can be attained with just the textbook, the workbook is indeed superfluous.

[Momling]

I tried to use the textbook and IP unsuccessfully with my younger daughter in SM 2a. We'd done 1b with the textbook and workbook and found it all just too easy. I figured that maybe if we did the textbook and IP, it'd be okay. However, she'd gotten into the routine of doing the textbook together until the little pencil and then doing the corresponding workbook pages on her own. She's a girl who likes routine. Obviously, the IP didn't follow in any way - in fact, it was considerably ahead, which made me wonder why we were bothering with the textbook. And, I'd have to explain how to do each of the novel problems in the IP, so the independent aspect of the workbook wasn't there. Additionally, she disliked the lack of illustrated SM children's heads.. I finally set it aside and just got the workbook.

[Halcyon]

I am of two minds on this. My older loves math, and is good at it. Last year, we skipped the Workbook and just used the IP and CWP. We had the Text also, but to be honest, we didn't use it all the time-he preferred to just jump in and do the IP.

 

At the end of the year, I felt it would have been a better choice to at least do SOME of the workbook, and not to have skipped it entirely. Why? Well, because doing that "rote" work, while easy for him, is good practice in being careful and important for building stamina. I found that because he hadn't had that much practice, and by practice I mean rote practice, in doing, say, a page of multidigit multiplication, when faced with such a task he would sometimes get careless and more often, would simply not want to do it. Now, I'm not a fan of mindless drilling, but there is something to be said (at least in my son's case) for building his ability to do a series of problems carefully and meticulously, even if they are "easy" for him.

 

For us, the missing component with IP was that it didn't build his stamina. When he gets to more complicated math, such as proofs, that require careful attention for a sustained period of time, I think he will benefit from having spent time in the textbook. So this coming year, he will be doing Text, Workbook, IP and CWP. Maybe not all of the workbook, but certainly a good portion.

[Spy Car]

I don't think anyone is saying the text should be indpendant, but why don't you think the IP's should be independant?

 

I think the IPs can (potentially) be done independently, to some degree anyway as—depending when a child is using them in relation to the core books—they can be awfully challenging relatively speaking to the Textbooks and Workbooks of the same level. And I like them for that addition challenge, after (or concurrent with) doing the core.

 

A child who doesn't find the IP books challenging is probably snoring at the ease of the associated Textbook.

 

But it works for people, it works for them. What can I say? I just can't see not getting the basic level practice in the Workbooks and just relying on the IPs. So we are each colored by our own experiences.

 

Bill

[Mallory]

Okay, I'll admit we started SM rather late, but we hadn't done any formal math before then, so I started a year behind (in 4th grade with 3A, for both books). So I don't know how it really works to be using it with a younger kid.

 

A child who doesn't find the IP books challenging is probably snoring at the ease of the associated Textbook.

 

 

This is usually true for my boys, all the more reason I can't see working through the workbook as well. But like you've found, the textbook gives me a chance to stay connected with thier math, before they move on to the IP and CWP indpendantly (okay they usually can't do the Challenging sections of IP alone ;)).

 

And even though they are good at the levels they are doing, they also aren't ready to compeletly skip to another level either.

[Crimson Wife]

I just can't see not getting the basic level practice in the Workbooks and just relying on the IPs. So we are each colored by our own experiences.

 

It's hard enough just to get my DD to complete the on-level problems in the textbook practices and the first part of the IP's. She loves the word problems in IP and CWP and the "take the challenge" section in IP. But faced with a page of basic equations she balks. They are easy for her but I get complaints that they're boring and "busywork". I can sympathize with her because I remember how I felt growing up with all the too-easy assignments.

 

If she can do the harder problems after just the TB practices and the first section in IP, I don't see the point of wasting her time by forcing her to do the workbook, too. Multum non multa.

[Spy Car]

Okay, I'll admit we started SM rather late, but we hadn't done any formal math before then, so I started a year behind (in 4th grade with 3A, for both books). So I don't know how it really works to be using it with a younger kid.

 

Our situations are a little different. My son just started 3A three days ago (on his 7th birthday). The core books are "easy" for him on some levels, but he needs the procedural practice. While strong in math I don't think he would get the amount of mastery-practice necessary to solidify skills if he skipped the Workbooks. He prefers the IPs (as do I) for being more cognitively interesting, but using both provides a balance between mind-stretching and basic practice.

 

This is usually true for my boys, all the more reason I can't see working through the workbook as well. But like you've found, the textbook gives me a chance to stay connected with thier math, before they move on to the IP and CWP indpendantly (okay they usually can't do the Challenging sections of IP alone ;)).

 

And even though they are good at the levels they are doing, they also aren't ready to compeletly skip to another level either.

 

One nice feature of the à la carte nature of the Singapore program is parents can tailor the program to meet the needs of individual children. I sometimes read complaints about "too many books", and " too many options" but I think it is one of the greatest strengths of using Singapore math.

 

Bill

[nmoira]

If she can do the harder problems after just the TB practices and the first section in IP, I don't see the point of wasting her time by forcing her to do the workbook, too. Multum non multa.

:iagree:

 

I don't think repetition breeds perseverance (though repetition may serve other purposes). Perseverance comes rather through developing the tenacity to keep trying in the face of failure and by learning how not to let frustration beat you. To do this with with a bright child, the child must be allowed privilege of failure. I don't give grades, but when it comes to assigning math problems, I have an 80% rule (i.e. the work is too easy if the child is scoring greater than 80%), and adjust the difficulty of the work accordingly. I occasionally assign problems I don't think they can solve, for no other reason than to remind them that they don't know it all. :tongue_smilie: This is something we work up to, as IMHO allowing young children to become overly frustrated in daily work is as bad as never giving them a challenge; shutting the child down is not the goal.

[Penelope]

For levels 1 and 2 we did the workbook and most (selected portions of) the IP. No CWP for level 1, but we did do level 2.

 

For level 3 we only did some of the workbook, and all of the IP and CWP. We switched to standards that year. The WB seemed easier than before. I don't know whether that is true, or if it is just my perception.

 

I think if you are using standards edition, it is best to at least have the workbook, because there are a couple of topics that won't be addressed in the IP otherwise. Then if you only do the textbook, the student will get no additional practice in those topics.

 

However, I also think it is easier to use IP than both wb and IP with the standards edition, because there seems to be more textbook practice with Standards. There may be students who need the practice of ALL of the textbook, including those full pages of drill interspersed as review, ALL of the wb, ALL of the IP and CWP. But I just can't imagine making my child do all of that, so we pick and choose among them. All of that is really too much if they understand the process and can do most of the problems (except the challenge ones) quickly and easily.

[Spy Car]

It's hard enough just to get my DD to complete the on-level problems in the textbook practices and the first part of the IP's. She loves the word problems in IP and CWP and the "take the challenge" section in IP. But faced with a page of basic equations she balks. They are easy for her but I get complaints that they're boring and "busywork". I can sympathize with her because I remember how I felt growing up with all the too-easy assignments.

 

If she can do the harder problems after just the TB practices and the first section in IP, I don't see the point of wasting her time by forcing her to do the workbook, too. Multum non multa.

 

I am a "pragmatist" and therefore inclined towards "whatever works."

 

That said, you have repeatedly posted your belief that Singapore has "conceptual leaps." I have not seen these "conceptual leaps" thus far, in fact the incremental build of Singapore seems like one of the programs strongest features.

 

Now if we skipped the Workbooks I think we would see "conceptual leaps," which is precisely why we don't skip the Workbook practice. It is (to my mind) fundamental practice for most children so they don't end up with work that is over-their-heads. I think as a general rule skipping the Workbooks (which are not that onerous) is ill-advised.

 

Bill

[Spy Car]

:iagree:

 

I don't think repetition breeds perseverance (though repetition may serve other purposes). Perseverance comes rather through developing the tenacity to keep trying in the face of failure and by learning how not to let frustration beat you. To do this with with a bright child, the child must be allowed privilege of failure. I don't give grades, but when it comes to assigning math problems, I have an 80% rule (i.e. the work is too easy if the child is scoring greater than 80%), and adjust the difficulty of the work accordingly. I occasionally assign problems I don't think they can solve, for no other reason than to remind them that they don't know it all. :tongue_smilie: This is something we work up to, as IMHO allowing young children to become overly frustrated in daily work is as bad as never giving them a challenge; shutting the child down is not the goal.

 

I find it a very odd position (as one who is critical of drill-and-kill methods) to be outflanked on "my left" (for lack of a better word), but I prefer a "Third Way" which includes a fair (but not onerous) amount of basic skill work. And I want very close to 100% correctness on this core work.

 

With the most challenging IP work, or with other challenging supplements needing a parent-partner to learn how to problem solve is fine (and often necessary) but I want basic skills work to be done independently (or semi-independely in the early levels) after working through the Textbook in a teacher-intensive fashion.

 

I totally agree that children need challenges. A steady diet of "basic" work can kill the mind and spirit (I could not agree more). So we throw in a lot of challenging work into the mix. Never-the-less, I think there needs to be time spend working on the basic skills to achieve a high level of competence.

 

So there should be a mix of brain-building work and basic skill work. Both. Not either/or.

 

I doubt we disagree :001_smile:

 

Bill

[Dmmetler]

I have all three, but reserve the right to not do the WB pages if DD is ready for something more challenging. It depends on the section and the activity. Usually the first time a concept is introduced, she needs the practice (and sometimes more than that besides), but the next time it spirals around, the IP is about right. I suspect that if I didn't have the workbook, I'd get very frustrated in trying to come up with that stepwise, bit by bit practice when she needs it. It's worth the cost of the book to have it.

 

And it also means that we have a bunch of "fun math" for DD to use in teaching her stuffed animals and American girl dolls :). DD really likes the cute pictures in the workbook, and will often choose to do a few pages in an SM workbook that we skipped and then spend the next hour happily coloring the pictures.

[nmoira]

I find it a very odd position (as one who is critical of drill-and-kill methods) to be outflanked on "my left" (for lack of a better word), but I prefer a "Third Way" which includes a fair (but not onerous) amount of basic skill work. And I want very close to 100% correctness on this core work.

To be fair, I don't apply the 80% rule to finite areas such as the acquiring of math facts, though, as you know, I'm an "automaticity through use" kinda person. To wit, our house math rule is: "What can be done mentally, will be done mentally." It's probably fair to say that I place a little less importance on the conceptual underpinnings of basic concepts than you: I've been known to say that K-6 math isn't rocket science, but rather a progressive exercise leading to the solid understanding of ratio and proportion, with a smattering of geometry. :tongue_smilie: A child who can do tough ratio and proportion problems is well prepared for advanced maths.

 

So... in a nutshell, basic concepts are tools to be used to solve problems, problems to which I apply the 80% rule.

 

With the most challenging IP work, or with other challenging supplements needing a parent-partner to learn how to problem solve is fine (and often necessary) but I want basic skills work to be done independently (or semi-independely in the early levels) after working through the Textbook in a teacher-intensive fashion.

I'm still a parent/partner with DD the Younger, but DD the Elder has reached a point that she can struggle through very tough problems independently :cheers2:... though she does have her moods, just like the rest of us.

 

I totally agree that children need challenges. A steady diet of "basic" work can kill the mind and spirit (I could not agree more). So we throw in a lot of challenging work into the mix. Never-the-less, I think there needs to be time spend working on the basic skills to achieve a high level of competence.

 

So there should be a mix of brain-building work and basic skill work. Both. Not either/or.

 

I doubt we disagree :001_smile:

Probably not much, and I'm the first to say that it really does depend on the child. DD the Younger is certainly not working at the level her sister was at 7, and we would be using the workbook if she were doing Singapore.

[Crimson Wife]

I am a "pragmatist" and therefore inclined towards "whatever works."

 

That said, you have repeatedly posted your belief that Singapore has "conceptual leaps." I have not seen these "conceptual leaps" thus far, in fact the incremental build of Singapore seems like one of the programs strongest features.

 

Now if we skipped the Workbooks I think we would see "conceptual leaps," which is precisely why we don't skip the Workbook practice. It is (to my mind) fundamental practice for most children so they don't end up with work that is over-their-heads. I think as a general rule skipping the Workbooks (which are not that onerous) is ill-advised.

 

Bill

 

Bill, you just posted that your DS just started 3A. I don't see the conceptual leaps in the lower levels of Singapore that I have. I do see them in certain places in the higher books. It was one chapter in 3A (multi-digit multiplication & long division), one chapter in 3B (fractions), and 2 chapters in 4A (more multiplication & fractions). For those, I felt that it made more sense to download the single-topic Math Mammoth "blue" worktexts than to buy the Singapore workbooks.

 

This issue wasn't so much the number of practice problems but rather that Singapore didn't give very good explanations (even with the HIG to help me) while Maria Miller does.

[Crimson Wife]

I just went & pulled my DD's textbooks for 3A and 3B. Looking at where I see the little arrows directing the workbook exercises, unless the WB included extra explanation (which wasn't the impression I got when I previewed them), there would *STILL* be conceptual leaps IMHO.

 

Here's an example:

 

On Practice 6B on pg. 75 of the 3B U.S. edition textbook, #3e asks the student to compare 3/4 with 2/3 and #3f asks the student to compare 3/5 with 5/8.

 

All the examples in the textbook have students comparing fractions where one denominator is a multiple of the other. There is no explanation in the textbook of finding a common denominator that is different from both of the original denominators. The student is just supposed to intuit the need to do that. The HIG is no help here either.

 

This is what I mean by Singapore making "conceptual leaps".

[lillysmom216]

Bill, you just posted that your DS just started 3A. I don't see the conceptual leaps in the lower levels of Singapore that I have. I do see them in certain places in the higher books. It was one chapter in 3A (multi-digit multiplication & long division), one chapter in 3B (fractions), and 2 chapters in 4A (more multiplication & fractions). For those, I felt that it made more sense to download the single-topic Math Mammoth "blue" worktexts than to buy the Singapore workbooks.

 

This issue wasn't so much the number of practice problems but rather that Singapore didn't give very good explanations (even with the HIG to help me) while Maria Miller does.

 

Crimson, in another Singapore thread you suggested to me MM blue. I just wanted to thank you because it was what we needed to bridge a gap before we start Singapore 3a. Thanks :D

[LittleIzumi]

TBH, I changed my method since I last posted, lol. I realized that if we were only working through the IP (no text, no wkbk), then it was too easy for her. She needs to work through these problems to solidify her procedures and her facts, but conceptually it's very easy. So we're continuing to work through the IP only for 1A, but we are also starting the textbook and workbook for 1B. Math, math everywhere, lol! ETA: And I actually love those natural leaps in application, but that might just be me. :p

Edited July 14, 2011 by LittleIzumi

[Penelope]

Bill, you just posted that your DS just started 3A. I don't see the conceptual leaps in the lower levels of Singapore that I have. I do see them in certain places in the higher books. It was one chapter in 3A (multi-digit multiplication & long division), one chapter in 3B (fractions), and 2 chapters in 4A (more multiplication & fractions). For those, I felt that it made more sense to download the single-topic Math Mammoth "blue" worktexts than to buy the Singapore workbooks.

 

This issue wasn't so much the number of practice problems but rather that Singapore didn't give very good explanations (even with the HIG to help me) while Maria Miller does.

 

ITA. I did not use MM and just worked with my son using other explanations. But we did have a little trouble in 3A.

 

I didn't really notice the fraction issue you noted in your next post, but I pretty much taught that my own way, too (after looking at the textbook and HIG). I'm finding the same thing in 4A, but again, I'm not depending on the textbook.

[Leighton Academy]

I bought the workbooks anyway, just in case. We always do the textbook work together, then I send them on their way with the workbook. They do the IP and CWP on their own (although I do go over the examples with them at the beginning of each CWP section). If they're having difficulties, we work the challenging problems together. I like for them to at least attempt to work the problems on their own so I can see what they're thinking. We do the IP about a week behind the workbook. I LOVE the IPs!! They are my favorite part of Singapore Math.

[nmoira]

I just went & pulled my DD's textbooks for 3A and 3B. Looking at where I see the little arrows directing the workbook exercises, unless the WB included extra explanation (which wasn't the impression I got when I previewed them), there would *STILL* be conceptual leaps IMHO.

 

Here's an example:

 

On Practice 6B on pg. 75 of the 3B U.S. edition textbook, #3e asks the student to compare 3/4 with 2/3 and #3f asks the student to compare 3/5 with 5/8.

 

All the examples in the textbook have students comparing fractions where one denominator is a multiple of the other. There is no explanation in the textbook of finding a common denominator that is different from both of the original denominators. The student is just supposed to intuit the need to do that. The HIG is no help here either.

 

This is what I mean by Singapore making "conceptual leaps".

 

The first example doesn't require a common denominator to answer:

 

3/4 vs 2/3 ----> the 1/4 missing from the first "whole" is smaller than the 1/3 missing from the second "whole", so 3/4 is larger.

 

As to your second example, it's likely either a typo or for advanced students. However, since there are very few brain teasers in the workbooks (I've only used the US editions, so can't speak for the others), I'd assume it was the former. If the student struggles, I'd change the question to 2/5 vs 5/8 or 3/5 vs 7/8 and solve as above or just skip it.

[Coffeemama]

My two cents, for what it's worth...I have two children that have used SM for for the past year and a half, the older 10 uses txbk, wkbk, CWP that is more than enough for her. My son is a bit more mathy, so I also bought IP this year...After a few weeks, we found It was too much to add this in after doing the other books. So now we are using the IP as summer practice/review. The other three components seem too important to switch out for IP, but maybe that works for some...we love it as challenging review.