s/o singapore - IP instead of WB?

[LMD]

In another singapore maths thread, someone mentioned using the Intensive practice book in lieu of the work book for children whining 'bored'.

 

Have people done this? Is it enough? Do you just do the units like you normally would in the WB then the wb reviews? It is a remarkable idea that is really appealling atm!

 

Just last week DD and I were looking through her 2B work book (we're a few lessons in) and she moaned 'it's too eeeeeeeaaaaaaaassssssssyyyyyyy, I want something HARDER'. Now, attitude aside (which was promptly nipped ;)), she wants to be challenged! She does need still need to do this work, there are concepts we haven't covered yet. I think she could probably work them out if I gave her the problems but it's not solid iykwim, so she still needs to be taught and do some practice...

 

Pondering! :confused:

[nmoira]

DD the Elder did this, along with CWP. The child should finish each topic in the text before starting the corresponding section of the IP. IP has a bit of revision, but assumes topic mastery.

 

You might also wish to take a look at Zaccaro's Primary Grade Challenge Math as a supplement.

[Spy Car]

In another singapore maths thread, someone mentioned using the Intensive practice book in lieu of the work book for children whining 'bored'.

 

Have people done this? Is it enough?

 

The same poster (who I adore :D) also invented the phrase "conceptual leaps" when it comes to Singapore Math. I think it is a bad idea, generally speaking, to skip the Workbook problems. If they are "easy" then fine, do them quickly, show your competence, and you're done.

 

The IP books are great. Maybe my favorite component of Primary Mathematics, but I would not use them to replace the basic practice in the Workbooks.

 

Just my opinion.

 

Bill

[Spy Car]

 

You might also wish to take a look at Zaccaro's Primary Grade Challenge Math as a supplement.

 

:iagree:

 

I'll second this suggestion.

 

Bill

[Embassy]

This is the first year I have had both. I prefer the regular workbooks and so do my kids. The IP workbooks (from what I have seen) have many more problems on each page and don't have some of the fun themes I've seen in the regular workbook. Mastery has been attained without the IP, but I pull word problems from there and it would be good for extra practice if needed. I do think CWP is important and wouldn't skip that. Next year I might forgo the IP workbooks though.

 

If she is bored I might have her do a select number of problems and complete the section in CWP and move forward.

Edited November 2, 2011 by Wehomeschool

[TKDmom]

The same poster (who I adore :D) also invented the phrase "conceptual leaps" when it comes to Singapore Math. I think it is a bad idea, generally speaking, to skip the Workbook problems. If they are "easy" then fine, do them quickly, show your competence, and you're done.

 

The IP books are great. Maybe my favorite component of Primary Mathematics, but I would not use them to replace the basic practice in the Workbooks.

 

Just my opinion.

 

Bill

 

Not to argue with you Bill, ;) but I feel like the first few pages of each lesson in the IP books are on par with the workbooks. Then they increase in difficulty as you progress through the unit. If you have a bright kid, who gets the subject matter easily, and who is bored to death with doing the same kind of problems over and over again, the IP books are great. If that same kid is allergic to pencils, getting through a workbook exercise is hard (physically)--adding IP pages to it would be nearly impossible and leads to hating math.

 

For my mathy pencil-allergic ds, I have to choose either workbook or IP or CWP--he won't do them all. When introducing a totally new concept, I may have him work in the workbook just to make sure he gets it. But for the rest of the week we may just go through a few textbook problems and then I assign work in the IP book. So I guess I wouldn't abandon the workbook altogether, but I am happy to substitute IP when things start feeling redundant.

 

Oh, and as far as "conceptual leaps" go (I don't think I'm the poster you referred to...), I encountered those farther in in the series, with a child who I don't consider mathy and who had never used the IP books. So it wasn't the IP books fault that she felt lost--it was the textbook that wasn't teaching things incrementally enough for her.

[TKDmom]

This is the first year I have had both. I prefer the regular workbooks and so do my kids. The IP workbooks (from what I have seen) have many more problems on each page and don't have some of the fun themes I've seen in the regular workbook. Mastery has been attained without the IP, but I pull word problems from there and it would be good for extra practice if needed. I do think CWP is important and wouldn't skip that. Next year I might forgo the IP workbooks though.

 

If she is bored I might have her do a select number of problems and complete the section in CWP and move forward.

 

:iagree: I think this is a great idea too. My dd adored the cute little themes in the workbook problems, and she would carefully color in the pages and got so excited when she figured out the little word puzzles. My ds just thinks they are stupid busy work meant to torture him. :lol: So much depends on the kid. The IP does have a lot more problems on a page, so when he works out of it, I take that into account. For a really dense page of problems, he may get only half a page. He loves that. It makes him feel like he's getting out of work. :001_rolleyes:

[Penelope]

I have substituted IP for wb often, starting some time during 3A or 3B. As someone else said, usually the first couple of pages of a topic in the IP are similar to the workbook problems, but with a smaller font (the smaller print is part of the reason I haven't used IP as often in 1A/1B) and more problems on the page.

 

I still think the wb is necessary, for us anyway, because if the Standards Edition is used, there are some topics missing from the IP books. And there are times when my child clearly needs the extra practice of doing the wb first. We also do all the reviews in the wb.

[Alice]

Not to argue with you Bill, ;) but I feel like the first few pages of each lesson in the IP books are on par with the workbooks. Then they increase in difficulty as you progress through the unit. If you have a bright kid, who gets the subject matter easily, and who is bored to death with doing the same kind of problems over and over again, the IP books are great. If that same kid is allergic to pencils, getting through a workbook exercise is hard (physically)--adding IP pages to it would be nearly impossible and leads to hating math.

 

For my mathy pencil-allergic ds, I have to choose either workbook or IP or CWP--he won't do them all. When introducing a totally new concept, I may have him work in the workbook just to make sure he gets it. But for the rest of the week we may just go through a few textbook problems and then I assign work in the IP book. So I guess I wouldn't abandon the workbook altogether, but I am happy to substitute IP when things start feeling redundant.

 

 

This has been our experience also. For a completely new concept or one that is harder I will use the WB but for a lot of topics I will just use the IP. My son likes the problem solving and likes math but thinks it is pure torture to have to sit and write.

 

And we are loving Zaccaro Challenge Math, which I heard about here. Thanks to all who recommended it.

[Spy Car]

Not to argue with you Bill, ;) but I feel like the first few pages of each lesson in the IP books are on par with the workbooks. Then they increase in difficulty as you progress through the unit. If you have a bright kid, who gets the subject matter easily, and who is bored to death with doing the same kind of problems over and over again, the IP books are great. If that same kid is allergic to pencils, getting through a workbook exercise is hard (physically)--adding IP pages to it would be nearly impossible and leads to hating math.

 

For my mathy pencil-allergic ds, I have to choose either workbook or IP or CWP--he won't do them all. When introducing a totally new concept, I may have him work in the workbook just to make sure he gets it. But for the rest of the week we may just go through a few textbook problems and then I assign work in the IP book. So I guess I wouldn't abandon the workbook altogether, but I am happy to substitute IP when things start feeling redundant.

 

We all need to find what works for us.

 

As for me there are a couple factors in my reasoning:

 

1) We are using the Standards Edition and the IPs (from the US Edition) don't directly line-up.

 

2) We use the Textbooks in a very "teacher-intensive" fashion, with me doing (most) of the scribe work. So the Workbooks are my son time to "write" and to directly practice the lessons on a basic level of work. For him I feel it is necessary to get in this basic practice (even if there are occasional protests that "it's easy," as "procedural competence" is probably as (or more) challenging that more "advanced" problem solvinog. So the practice is a good thing.

 

3) We are using the series a year ahead.

 

Oh, and as far as "conceptual leaps" go (I don't think I'm the poster you referred to...)

 

No, but of course I adore you too :D

 

I encountered those farther in in the series, with a child who I don't consider mathy and who had never used the IP books. So it wasn't the IP books fault that she felt lost--it was the textbook that wasn't teaching things incrementally enough for her.

 

I'm thinking (being in 3B) that the SE Textbooks and Workbook combined with the IPs and CWPs has been a good combo for my child. YMMV.

 

Bill

[lewelma]

My son ended up doing Grades 3,4 and 5 with the IP only, and did not even use the text book. This approach seems to have worked well -- he is using AoPS with no trouble. I think it really depends on the child, but I am of the opinion that math should be challenging or a lot of kids learn to hate it.

 

Ruth in NZ

[LMD]

Thanks so much for all the replies and links.

 

If you have a bright kid, who gets the subject matter easily, and who is bored to death with doing the same kind of problems over and over again, the IP books are great. If that same kid is allergic to pencils, getting through a workbook exercise is hard (physically)--adding IP pages to it would be nearly impossible and leads to hating math.

 

YES! This exactly! She is young for this work, so the penmanship and stamina can be a problem, though the understanding is definately there. She also was bored literally to tears over too much repetition. I was worried about skipping some wb exercises in 2A but she breezed through the review and her excitement came back when she saw a 'new' topic... which she promptly decided to finish before dinner :001_huh:.

 

I do have an IP book but it's 2 units behind, it's easy for her but she doesn't mind the format at all. I had read lots of people using the IP a level or so below so I hadn't bothered getting the corresponding IP for this level. I think that's about to change, at least to have the option.

[nmoira]

The same poster (who I adore :D) also invented the phrase "conceptual leaps" when it comes to Singapore Math. I think it is a bad idea, generally speaking, to skip the Workbook problems. If they are "easy" then fine, do them quickly, show your competence, and you're done.

Ah, but that's what the textbook problems are for. ;)

 

This isn't something I'd recommend for any but very bright kids, and it will soon become apparent if it's not working. It's not a bad thing for a kid (complaining or otherwise) to meet with failure; if a child isn't ready and needs more work at a basic level, then perhaps there will be less whining about "easy" work.

[Dmmetler]

I pick and choose between the two. Especially in 1 and 2, and some in 3 (not much in 4 so far-but I'm also using a different series than most of you are) the workbook had the kind of cutesy, puzzley activities that my DD loved, and for facts practice and the like, that was a good thing. We'd then use the IP as needed, often skipping the first couple of pages which were basically the same as the workbook and going into the challenge section and the CWP.

 

For 4a, I'm discovering that the topics are, for the most part, higher level applications of those learned in 3a, 2a, and 1a, and my DD simply doesn't need the practice-so, again, we're picking and choosing (including ALL word problems, whether from text, WB, IP or CWP, because that's where gaps in understanding really show up), and doing a bit of each.

 

One thing I do consider important is that my DD demonstrates competence 100% independently before moving on to the hard/fun stuff, and the workbook is great for this purpose, since it doesn't require copying like the practice in the textbook does. One thing I like about SM is that it DOES have workbooks after about 2nd/3rd grade, where a lot of US programs seem to go non-consumable at that point, and I think solving problems is more valuable than math copywork.

Edited November 2, 2011 by dmmetler

[cottonmama]

For the times when the child does need the extra practice, why not just print off free worksheets from online? Are the Singapore exercises different somehow?

[Spy Car]

Ah, but that's what the textbook problems are for. ;)

 

Not for the way we use the Textbook anyway. We use the Textbook for "teaching" time, not for independent "practice." The books serve different ends. It is one thing to do problems with a lot of discussion and an adult partner/teacher/parent/scribe and another to do them on ones own.

 

I find my child benefits from doing both.

 

And doing the IPs. I love the *thinking* challenge in the IPs. I wish every math problem could be "fun," I'm all about that my nature. But sometimes one just needs to sit and do some long-division or multi-digit multiplication problems so the procedural competency isn't sacrificed on the altar of a good-time :tongue_smilie:

 

And it's not like Primary Mathematics has thousands of problems on every topic. One of the things I like about it is the well gauged amount of practice work. But we each need to find our own balance.

 

This isn't something I'd recommend for any but very bright kids, and it will soon become apparent if it's not working. It's not a bad thing for a kid (complaining or otherwise) to meet with failure; if a child isn't ready and needs more work at a basic level, then perhaps there will be less whining about "easy" work.

 

Believe me, I keep plenty of "challenging" work at hand and enjoy spicing-up our math program with brain-stretching work. I enjoy it, as does my child.

 

But I have found that some of the so-called "easy work" (mostly relating to procedure) is as necessary for him to practice, perhaps because it is sort of "boring," as are the fun departures into more "interesting" and more challenging work, where he tends to soar.

 

I'm just looking for a way to do both.

 

Bill

[Spy Car]

I do have an IP book but it's 2 units behind, it's easy for her but she doesn't mind the format at all. I had read lots of people using the IP a level or so below so I hadn't bothered getting the corresponding IP for this level. I think that's about to change, at least to have the option.

 

For what it's worth, we do the IPs either "on level" or as a trail-sweep to the same level as the Textbooks/Workbooks.

 

Bill

[Alte Veste Academy]

Not for the way we use the Textbook anyway. We use the Textbook for "teaching" time, not for independent "practice." The books serve different ends. It is one thing to do problems with a lot of discussion and an adult partner/teacher/parent/scribe and another to do them on ones own.

 

I find my child benefits from doing both.

 

And doing the IPs. I love the *thinking* challenge in the IPs. I wish every math problem could be "fun," I'm all about that my nature. But sometimes one just needs to sit and do some long-division or multi-digit multiplication problems so the procedural competency isn't sacrificed on the altar of a good-time :tongue_smilie:

 

And it's not like Primary Mathematics has thousands of problems on every topic. One of the things I like about it is the well gauged amount of practice work. But we each need to find our own balance.

 

Believe me, I keep plenty of "challenging" work at hand and enjoy spicing-up our math program with brain-stretching work. I enjoy it, as does my child.

 

But I have found that some of the so-called "easy work" (mostly relating to procedure) is as necessary for him to practice, perhaps because it is sort of "boring," as are the fun departures into more "interesting" and more challenging work, where he tends to soar.

 

I'm just looking for a way to do both.

 

Bill

 

Well, as you said before, we all have to find what works for us. I always find it interesting on the boards when people have back and forth over these things. "This works for me." "Yeah, well, this works for me." "Uh-huh that's great but this works for me." :lol: It's all OK.

 

All children have different needs and different speeds. When I read that you use the textbook to teach, my first thought was to chuckle at what has been my major learning curve in how to teach DS8, because I feel like I haven't taught DS any math at all. Ever. I don't know how to explain it but he reads it and he knows it. Most of the time, he already knew it or it's so patently obvious and logical to him that anything beyond a first exposure prompts rolling of the eyes. It's like he's always known it. He was a kid who was surprised to see multiplication in a math book because he figured it was something he invented himself. I mean, why would anyone need that explained to them? :lol: Virtually everything up to this point has been obvious to him and comes intuitively.

 

DS doesn't need every math problem to be fun. In this house, "procedural competency isn't sacrificed on the altar of a good-time." I look at it as refusing to sacrifice my son's math experience--his innate competency and drive--to my own OCD need to see fully completed workbook pages. For some, the easy work is necessary to build competence and for some, it's the thing that turns love into dread and competence into carelessness due to boredom.

 

We do the TB, IP, CWP and (for my own peace of mind) I often have DS complete the WB review sections for each unit. That's what works for me. :D

[nmoira]

Disclaimer: I've never used Standards, only the US Edition.

 

Not for the way we use the Textbook anyway. We use the Textbook for "teaching" time, not for independent "practice." The books serve different ends. It is one thing to do problems with a lot of discussion and an adult partner/teacher/parent/scribe and another to do them on ones own.

This is, I think, the way most people use it. However, kids that glom on to new concepts often don't need that level of initial scaffolding. We have to meet the needs of the kids we have.

 

I find my child benefits from doing both

Then you should continue to do the workbook problems. ;)

 

And doing the IPs. I love the *thinking* challenge in the IPs. I wish every math problem could be "fun," I'm all about that my nature. But sometimes one just needs to sit and do some long-division or multi-digit multiplication problems so the procedural competency isn't sacrificed on the altar of a good-time :tongue_smilie:

I'm not sure I get your point. If a child is not permitted to use a calculator, there is practice doing calculations, no? Our house rule is "What can be done mentally must be done mentally," but there is still plenty of opportunity for practice with pen-and-paper algorithms.

 

And it's not like Primary Mathematics has thousands of problems on every topic. One of the things I like about it is the well gauged amount of practice work. But we each need to find our own balance.

My point exactly. :D

 

Believe me, I keep plenty of "challenging" work at hand and enjoy spicing-up our math program with brain-stretching work. I enjoy it, as does my child.

 

But I have found that some of the so-called "easy work" (mostly relating to procedure) is as necessary for him to practice, perhaps because it is sort of "boring," as are the fun departures into more "interesting" and more challenging work, where he tends to soar.

 

I'm just looking for a way to do both.

 

Depends on the child. Hammering home concepts and procedures with a kid who already gets it is likely to lead to resentment. I'm a big proponent of reinforcement through use post-mastery.

[Spy Car]

Well, as you said before, we all have to find what works for us. I always find it interesting on the boards when people have back and forth over these things. "This works for me." "Yeah, well, this works for me." "Uh-huh that's great but this works for me." :lol: It's all OK.

 

All children have different needs and different speeds. When I read that you use the textbook to teach, my first thought was to chuckle at what has been my major learning curve in how to teach DS8, because I feel like I haven't taught DS any math at all. Ever. I don't know how to explain it but he reads it and he knows it. Most of the time, he already knew it or it's so patently obvious and logical to him that anything beyond a first exposure prompts rolling of the eyes. It's like he's always known it. He was a kid who was surprised to see multiplication in a math book because he figured it was something he invented himself. I mean, why would anyone need that explained to them? :lol: Virtually everything up to this point has been obvious to him and comes intuitively.

 

DS doesn't need every math problem to be fun. In this house, "procedural competency isn't sacrificed on the altar of a good-time." I look at it as refusing to sacrifice my son's math experience--his innate competency and drive--to my own OCD need to see fully completed workbook pages. For some, the easy work is necessary to build competence and for some, it's the thing that turns love into dread and competence into carelessness due to boredom.

 

We do the TB, IP, CWP and (for my own peace of mind) I often have DS complete the WB review sections for each unit. That's what works for me. :D

 

Without the back-and-forth how else would we suck up SWBs band-width? :tongue_smilie:

 

Bill

[Alte Veste Academy]

"What can be done mentally must be done mentally," but there is still plenty of opportunity for practice with pen-and-paper algorithms.

 

I'm a big proponent of reinforcement through use post-mastery.

 

That's what is working here too. Instead of doing bunches of WB problems for foundational concepts, those same problems are folded into the work of more involved concepts later on. Then they're almost invisible to DS, not the busy work that they would be for him if done for their own sake.

[Alte Veste Academy]

Without the back-and-forth how else would we suck up SWBs band-width? :tongue_smilie:

 

Bill

 

:lol: True. And, of course, there is the benefit to all the other posters and lurkers who hear and relate to the experience of different posters.

 

It's all good. :D

[Spy Car]

:lol: True. And, of course, there is the benefit to all the other posters and lurkers who hear and relate to the experience of different posters.

 

It's all good. :D

 

I am finding it "odd"—since I am firmly in the camp of the "anti algorithm-only" partisans on this board—to be the one defending the need for "seat-work", but there you have it :D

 

"Conceptual" understanding is vital, but sometimes working out a long-division problem or a multi-digit multiplication problem on paper is a necessary skill to cultivate as well.

 

I think it would be the very exceptional child who could bypass the Workbooks in favor of the IPs and not find they faced "conceptual leaps" or inadequate procedural practice, or both.

 

Just sayin'

 

Bill

[chepyl]

We just finished 2a, US Edition. I tried to mix the IP with the text and wkbk, bit it was too much back amd forth and too much repetition of concepts all at once. Even the challenging problems were boring. He does however still need to drill some facts and soliddify some concepts. We moved throught the text and wkbk and finished in 3 months. We will spend the next month on IP and CPW before moving on to 2b. We get the challenges, the fun problems, and a good solid understanding.

 

So far, this works for us.

[Spy Car]

I'm a big proponent of reinforcement through use post-mastery.

 

Hey, me too!

 

I'm just finding certain steps necessary to get to "mastery" before we can get to "post-mastery." :D

 

Bill

[Roadrunner]

In our experience it very much depends on the topic. I did feel that my kiddo needed the drill on the three digit addition, but we completely skipped the multiplication chapters in the workbook and the textbook and went IP only way.

[Lovin Learnin]

I have to agree with Bill here. Last year when dd was working through the US edition we did the TB (together) and then the WB. When the chapter was complete we then did the corresponding chapter in IP. We also added a few CWPs each day.

 

I absolutely found that dd needed the practice of the WB before she could then "play around" with the harder concepts in IP. It helped solidify the procedure so that she could later manipulate them in the IP book. This worked great for us, and since we were not doing both WB and IP on the same day, it didn't make for a longer work time. We easily got through 3 semesters worth last school year.

[nmoira]

I am finding it "odd"—since I am firmly in the camp of the "anti algorithm-only" partisans on this board—to be the one defending the need for "seat-work", but there you have it :D

I don't see that's there's much disagreement. Nobody is saying that most kids wouldn't benefit from completing at least some of the workbook before tackling the IP problems.

 

"Conceptual" understanding is vital, but sometimes working out a long-division problem or a multi-digit multiplication problem on paper is a necessary skill to cultivate as well.

 

I think it would be the very exceptional child who could bypass the Workbooks in favor of the IPs and not find they faced "conceptual leaps" or inadequate procedural practice, or both.

Yes. But they do exist, and in seemingly disproportionate numbers on these boards (for a number of reasons often speculated upon in other threads). The OP's daughter may or may not benefit from this approach, but IMHO it's at least worth trying given her cries of "too easy!"

[Spy Car]

I don't see that's there's much disagreement. Nobody is saying that most kids wouldn't benefit from completing at least some of the workbook before tackling the IP problems.

 

Not exacty true, as there have been a number of recent threads that have proposed ditching the Workbooks entirely in favor of the IPs alone and as a general rule I think it's a bad idea.

 

Yes. But they do exist, and in seemingly disproportionate numbers on these boards (for a number of reasons often speculated upon in other threads). The OP's daughter may or may not benefit from this approach, but IMHO it's at least worth trying given her cries of "too easy!"

 

I know the IP books are my solution for the "this is too easy" blues :D

 

Bill

[nmoira]

Not exacty true, as there have been a number of recent threads that have proposed ditching the Workbooks entirely in favor of the IPs alone and as a general rule I think it's a bad idea.

Ah, I've obviously missed those, and I agree with you.

 

:001_smile:

[JennyD]

I use both, but increasingly just the IP. As others have said, there are generally a few pages of fairly straightforward review at the beginning of each topic anyway.

[boscopup]

"Conceptual" understanding is vital, but sometimes working out a long-division problem or a multi-digit multiplication problem on paper is a necessary skill to cultivate as well.

 

Completely agree here, though different concepts will take different amounts of "drill". For example, we really didn't have to work very hard on addition/subtraction with regrouping to make the algorithm stick in his head. He just picked it up very quickly. I actually used the IP as our 3-digit addition/subtraction practice, not doing all of what was in there, and it was more than enough for him. I use MM as my spine, but we skipped the chapter on 3-digit addition/subtraction. So in that case, using just the IP would have likely been fine, since well... we essentially did that. :D

 

Then we got to multi-digit multiplication (2-digit by 2-digit and 3-digit by 2-digit), and we did every.single.problem in MM, and I was wanting to practice it in the IPs too, but I don't have grade 4, and I suspect that's where it is. Grade 3 has long division, but we haven't gotten there yet. I'll definitely use IPs for our extra practice. Those multiplication and long division standard algorithms do take a lot of practice, at least for my son, but the addition/subtraction really didn't take much practice at all (plus multiplication and division use them, so there is more practice there).

[Alte Veste Academy]

"Conceptual" understanding is vital, but sometimes working out a long-division problem or a multi-digit multiplication problem on paper is a necessary skill to cultivate as well.

 

I agree that they are necessary skills. We are not skipping mastery of skills. Since you brought up cultivation :D, it might be appropriate to mention that radishes can be harvested about three weeks after the seeds are planted. Tomatoes need much more time to vine and ripen. We are all cultivating different varieties. If I left my radishes in the ground as long as my tomatoes, they would wither and rot.

 

I think it would be the very exceptional child who could bypass the Workbooks in favor of the IPs and not find they faced "conceptual leaps" or inadequate procedural practice, or both.

Bill

 

Well, I have been in denial about it for too long, to the detriment of DS. Until you have an expeience like this for yourself, it is easy to imagine that your own way is the right way. But there you have it. Still, it is a reasonable thing to discuss, especially when the OP specifically requested info about it from those of us who use SM in this manner.

[LMD]

wow, loving this conversation - thanks everyone!

 

Rest easy, I'm not planning on completely ditching the wb's. :D I also think there would be some topics where the full wb/ip drill will be necessary. Meeting where she's at and all that. We're still at the beginning of our HS journey and I'm sort of flying blind here! Reading about those who have gone before me with similar issues is soooooooo helpful!

 

I guess, because DD is still young, I don't want to have a long school day for her (yet! ;)) and I'm looking for ways to get the deeper challenge she craves while still adequately covering the topics so there's not gaps. Reading that some people use the IP instead of the WB for this very issue has been somewhat of a revelation! I talked to DH about it last night and he said "Well, go order it now! Challenge my girl!" So, it's on the way.

 

Trying to find a balance between 'she's only 6, no need to push' and her whining 'not more of _, it's too easy'... :svengo:

[Spy Car]

wow, loving this conversation - thanks everyone!

 

Rest easy, I'm not planning on completely ditching the wb's. :D I also think there would be some topics where the full wb/ip drill will be necessary. Meeting where she's at and all that. We're still at the beginning of our HS journey and I'm sort of flying blind here! Reading about those who have gone before me with similar issues is soooooooo helpful!

 

I guess, because DD is still young, I don't want to have a long school day for her (yet! ;)) and I'm looking for ways to get the deeper challenge she craves while still adequately covering the topics so there's not gaps. Reading that some people use the IP instead of the WB for this very issue has been somewhat of a revelation! I talked to DH about it last night and he said "Well, go order it now! Challenge my girl!" So, it's on the way.

 

Trying to find a balance between 'she's only 6, no need to push' and her whining 'not more of _, it's too easy'... :svengo:

 

The bottom-line is the IPs are worth having and using.

 

Bill

Edited November 2, 2011 by Spy Car

[Penelope]

It might be interesting to compare the numbers of problems in the wb vs. the IP for different levels. Not that I'm going to do this. :D I'm sure there have been successful Singapore Math students who only ever used the textbooks and workbooks, and maybe the CWP.

 

Are there that many more problems in the wb? If not, I don't see a problem with going with IP for a quick student. There have been times where it seemed like the IP actually had more practice than the wb.

[LMD]

It might be interesting to compare the numbers of problems in the wb vs. the IP for different levels. Not that I'm going to do this. :D I'm sure there have been successful Singapore Math students who only ever used the textbooks and workbooks, and maybe the CWP.

 

Are there that many more problems in the wb? If not, I don't see a problem with going with IP for a quick student. There have been times where it seemed like the IP actually had more practice than the wb.

 

When it arrives I'll have a look. I'll try to remember to post about it. :tongue_smilie:

[eewaggie99]

It sounds like everyone has come to the conclusion that every child is different so do what works. I will advocate for some drill when it comes to multi-step algorithms. My ds immediately understood long division conceptually, but kept skipping steps at pencil-to-paper time. As the problems became more difflicult, he grew more frustrated because he kept making mistakes. We spent extra time doing "booorrrriiiiinnnnngggg" long division problems so he could practicie each step successfully before moving on to the fun stuff.

[LMD]

UPDATE:

 

The IP has arrived, and I spent just a little time last night comparing the amount & difficulty of q's from the IP to the WB.

 

So, for anyone interested, this is the 1st topic in 2B, double digit addition - mental math techniques.

 

WB - has 13 Questions, 1 Exercise. 3 of those questions are simple missing part questions like 83 = 80 + 3.

4 of the questions are 2 step adding tens then ones like 60+23 = 60+20+3

The last 6 questions are plain, the most difficult being 86+13.

 

IP - has 20 Questions. 5 of those are 2 step as described above - and of these 5, 2 are tens+tens, the other 3 are hundreds + tens.

The last 15 questions are plain, about half are hundreds + tens, the most difficult is 517+24.

 

so, there you go! :)

[Halcyon]

Last year, we completely subbed the WB for the IP (that was Year 3). When he took the end of year test, he had forgotten a few things, primarily things that he had "gotten" quickly, but didn't cement because there was no repetition. So this year, he is doing a lot of the WB, along with the IP and CWP. What we've found works best is assigning the WB as homework (he does 20 minutes or so a night) and the IP as the day work, when I am available to help (I expect him to do his homework without help). This seems to work well, as it allows review of the day's concepts and gives him confidence.

 

We also test weekly on prior concepts.

[Alte Veste Academy]

Just last week DD and I were looking through her 2B work book (we're a few lessons in) and she moaned 'it's too eeeeeeeaaaaaaaassssssssyyyyyyy, I want something HARDER'.

 

She also was bored literally to tears over too much repetition. I was worried about skipping some wb exercises in 2A but she breezed through the review and her excitement came back when she saw a 'new' topic... which she promptly decided to finish before dinner :001_huh:.

 

UPDATE:

 

The IP has arrived, and I spent just a little time last night comparing the amount & difficulty of q's from the IP to the WB.

 

So, for anyone interested, this is the 1st topic in 2B, double digit addition - mental math techniques.

 

WB - has 13 Questions, 1 Exercise. 3 of those questions are simple missing part questions like 83 = 80 + 3.

4 of the questions are 2 step adding tens then ones like 60+23 = 60+20+3

The last 6 questions are plain, the most difficult being 86+13.

 

IP - has 20 Questions. 5 of those are 2 step as described above - and of these 5, 2 are tens+tens, the other 3 are hundreds + tens.

The last 15 questions are plain, about half are hundreds + tens, the most difficult is 517+24.

 

so, there you go! :)

 

Not to start WWIII again:tongue_smilie: but do be aware that multiple long and/or complex problems are not always going to cure the problem of "too easy" if you have a child who immediately gets the problems as concepts. As I lamented in another thread, once DS got a concept, it didn't matter that we were now adding a different number or more numbers. He could add, subtract, multiply and divide into the billions as easily as he could double digits (although it would obviously take longer :D). If you get it, you get it. Once each type of problem was filed away into his mental operational and place value file drawers, that was that. :lol: I just wanted to warn you of the possibility...just in case...for sanity's sake, in case it happens to you.

[Halcyon]

Not to start WWIII again:tongue_smilie: but do be aware that multiple long and/or complex problems are not always going to cure the problem of "too easy" if you have a child who immediately gets the problems as concepts. As I lamented in another thread, once DS got a concept, it didn't matter that we were now adding a different number or more numbers. He could add, subtract, multiply and divide into the billions as easily as he could double digits (although it would obviously take longer :D). If you get it, you get it. Once each type of problem was filed away into his mental operational and place value file drawers, that was that. :lol: I just wanted to warn you of the possibility...just in case...for sanity's sake, in case it happens to you.

 

 

 

I agree. Once we covered two digit multiplication, he could do 3, 4, 5, 6, whatever digit. Once we covered reducing fractions, he could do difficult ones as well as easy. Etc. Etc. I do think, however, that understanding conceptually how to do something does not mean that one does not need to go over the procedure (even if that means a once weekly test, especially for curricula that don't necessarily incorporate previously learned material into new questions).

[Alte Veste Academy]

I agree. Once we covered two digit multiplication, he could do 3, 4, 5, 6, whatever digit. Once we covered reducing fractions, he could do difficult ones as well as easy. Etc. Etc. I do think, however, that understanding conceptually how to do something does not mean that one does not need to go over the procedure (even if that means a once weekly test, especially for curricula that don't necessarily incorporate previously learned material into new questions).

 

Yes, we still go over the procedure. Just a little warning in case the "it's too easy" remains after reinforcements are brought in. :D

[enviromommy]

I agree. Once we covered two digit multiplication, he could do 3, 4, 5, 6, whatever digit. Once we covered reducing fractions, he could do difficult ones as well as easy. Etc. Etc. I do think, however, that understanding conceptually how to do something does not mean that one does not need to go over the procedure (even if that means a once weekly test, especially for curricula that don't necessarily incorporate previously learned material into new questions).

 

:iagree:

This is our issue. DS understands concepts quickly when presented, and thought the WB was boring. So we started doing just the IP. This works fine during the topic, but I started noticing he was forgetting how to do things (fractions, in particular) after not seeing them for a while. This year, we've gone back to using both the WB and IP, but running IP a topic behind (we'll finish say, Topic 2 in the WB and then do Topic 1 in the IP.) Meanwhile, I'm saving the reviews and practices from the WB to do a couple of Topics later so he gets review. I think for a child who learns math concepts easily, doing the whole WB and IP can be boring, but that doesn't mean they won't need review later.

[LMD]

Thankyou for all the tips, I am definately mulling them over. We're still feeling our way through all of this!

[HappyGrace]

:iagree:

I started noticing he was forgetting how to do things (fractions, in particular) after not seeing them for a while.

 

This is one of the beefs I have with SM. It's working well for ds8 and we love it, but like you and Halcyon mentioned, I have to constantly remember to throw in "old" topics for review or they are forgotten.

 

I am just not a huge fan of "mastery" math, so I wish there could be a bit more spiral review in SM, besides just the existing reviews. Ds is math adept, but seeing the topics brought back more often would help cement them, I think.

 

We use the IPs about a half level behind, and that helps some. But I'd like to do the IPs more like Halcyon said-as "day work", more concurrent with the topic rather than behind the topic.

[Trez]

I used the Standards version and my ds13 is halfway through DM1. We only used the Text, WB and the tests. We didn't have any issues at all and I believe that he has retained most of the concepts taught.

 

I have ds10 who is almost through 4A (moving quickly as mostly review from previous PS) using the same three components. I have been reading this thread with interest and wondering if I should invest in the IP or CWP. I was reluctant to pick up the IP as it was not written to correlate with the Standards Edition. For the 5 level books, I picked up the Extra Practice book which does go with the Standards Edition. Has anyone used this?