Does anyone do word problems for practice without the Singapore-style bars?

[melissel]

Everyone seems to recommend the CWP books for word problem practice. I have the levels I need (3 and 4), but I'm feeling a lot of weird guilt for not using the bar method--almost to where I want to buy a different product for word problem practice!

 

We're using RightStart for our math and it's working well for us, so I don't really feel the need to teach the bar method just for word problem practice. Does anyone use the CWP books for practice and just skip the bar work? Or does anyone use another resource for word problem practice sans the bars? Or am I really the ONLY HSing parent who doesn't teach the Singapore method? :lol:

 

If you're not using the bars, do you still feel like your student is doing well with word problems?

 

TIA!

[melissel]

Anyone have any thoughts? :bigear: :tongue_smilie:

[boscopup]

I don't see a problem with not using the bars for the basic problems. There will be some that you may not be able to do very easily without the bars unless your kids know how to do algebra.

 

Honestly, I don't see what the big deal is about learning the bars. They're pretty simple in book 3, and they're fully explained in the examples. You don't have to use Singapore TB to learn the bars, nor do you need to do anything outside of CWP-time to understand them. I used books 2 and 3 with MM before MM ever taught the bars, and it was easy to use them.

 

You're not confusing them with C-rods are you? The bars used in the Singapore word problems are not a manipulative. They are just a method of illustrating problems. You can use any method you want, but there are some problems that really aren't easy to understand until you draw bars to model them.

[acurtis75]

We use th challenging word problems book and the iPad app as a supplement but almost never use the bars. Dd doesn't care for them and says she doesn't need them to solve the problems so I don't force her.

 

eta: I just wanted to clarify that it's not about the bars being hard to understand for her. She just says she doesn't need them. That may change when we get to more difficult problems. We're have cwp third grade.

[melissel]

I don't see a problem with not using the bars for the basic problems. There will be some that you may not be able to do very easily without the bars unless your kids know how to do algebra.

 

Honestly, I don't see what the big deal is about learning the bars. They're pretty simple in book 3, and they're fully explained in the examples. You don't have to use Singapore TB to learn the bars, nor do you need to do anything outside of CWP-time to understand them. I used books 2 and 3 with MM before MM ever taught the bars, and it was easy to use them.

 

You're not confusing them with C-rods are you? The bars used in the Singapore word problems are not a manipulative. They are just a method of illustrating problems. You can use any method you want, but there are some problems that really aren't easy to understand until you draw bars to model them.

 

I don't know, that's the thing. I never learned the bars in school, and I had no trouble with word problems. DH had no problems with them either. I pulled CWP 3 out yesterday to decide what I was going to do. The bars just confused what was a pretty simple thing in my mind! Then I showed DD9 (probably not in the clearest way, of course) what we were doing, why the bars were helpful (theoretically!), and how they worked. She got it, and nodded, and solved the sample problem (I covered the answer). Then I let her loose on two of the problems and she said, "Can I just do it without the bars? They don't make sense to me. I don't think I need them." And she whizzed through and got correct answers.

 

Sooo...now I'm not sure what to do :lol: I don't want to be a slave to the method if I don't need to, especially since we're using RightStart with success anyway. But I'm anal enough to wonder if there's something we'll be missing out on if I don't teach it. This is probably why my 4th grader's day is 6 hours long :rolleyes:

[boscopup]

If the problem is simple enough to not need it, don't bother. When it gets to the ones where there are two different amounts of two objects in one situation and two different amounts of two objects in another situation, the bars are incredibly helpful. Those are the ones that would seem easy to you IF you use algebra, but to a 3rd or 4th grader with no algebra knowledge, it's very easy with the bars.

[melissel]

If the problem is simple enough to not need it, don't bother. When it gets to the ones where there are two different amounts of two objects in one situation and two different amounts of two objects in another situation, the bars are incredibly helpful. Those are the ones that would seem easy to you IF you use algebra, but to a 3rd or 4th grader with no algebra knowledge, it's very easy with the bars.

 

OK, got it, thank you. It might even be possible that she could use some basic algebra knowledge at that point, since DH started teaching her how to use variables last year just for fun :lol: Actually, maybe I can bring that into what we do now. I remember thinking yesterday that it would be so much easier if I could just call Robert and Dan X and Y. In retrospect, I could have, since she would recognize what I was doing. Hmmm, something to think about for later!

 

Thanks for your insight, boscopup.

[karensk]

My kids didn't see the point of setting up the bar diagrams in the early levels, either (esp. in CWP-2 and CWP-3). But I told them they'd need to know the method for more difficult problems later. So I didn't make them do a ton of the bar diagrams at the early levels, maybe just several per topic, to show they could do them.

 

The word problems get more complex in the higher levels of CWP, where you'd probably need to introduce variables and the setting up of equations if you didn't want to use the bar method.

 

Here are a few from CWP-5:

 

Anne has three times as many beads as Mary. If Anne gives 55 beads to Mary, she will have half as many beads as Mary. How many beads do they have altogether?

 

Lisa and Ann had 130 hair clips altogether. After Lisa gave away 3/8 of her hair clips, she had the same number of hair clips as Ann. How many more hair clips did Lisa have than Ann at first?

 

Andrew had 200 postcards. 40% of them were U.S. postcards and the rest were overseas postcards. He bought another 100 postcards and the percentage of U.S. postcards decreased to 30%. How many overseas postcards did he buy?

 

I wouldn't have known how to teach these without using variables and equations. But perhaps there's another way?

 

HTH!

[melissel]

My kids didn't see the point of setting up the bar diagrams in the early levels, either (esp. in CWP-2 and CWP-3). But I told them they'd need to know the method for more difficult problems later. So I didn't make them do a ton of the bar diagrams at the early levels, maybe just several per topic, to show they could do them.

 

The word problems get more complex in the higher levels of CWP, where you'd probably need to introduce variables and the setting up of equations if you didn't want to use the bar method.

 

Here are a few from CWP-5:

 

Anne has three times as many beads as Mary. If Anne gives 55 beads to Mary, she will have half as many beads as Mary. How many beads do they have altogether?

 

Lisa and Ann had 130 hair clips altogether. After Lisa gave away 3/8 of her hair clips, she had the same number of hair clips as Ann. How many more hair clips did Lisa have than Ann at first?

 

Andrew had 200 postcards. 40% of them were U.S. postcards and the rest were overseas postcards. He bought another 100 postcards and the percentage of U.S. postcards decreased to 30%. How many overseas postcards did he buy?

 

I wouldn't have known how to teach these without using variables and equations. But perhaps there's another way?

 

HTH!

 

This is a very good point. I guess I imagine that I wouldn't be introducing these kinds of word problems until we had already learned the tools to deal with them in our original math program, whatever that might be at the time. So our original math program would have some method of teaching these kinds of problems--mostly likely variables and equations. For the problems you've listed above, I would sit down with a pencil and paper and work through them methodically the way I would have in school, listing out my work in an organized manner as I went. Am I thinking about this the wrong way somehow?

 

Thank you for helping me puzzle this out and for taking the time to list the above examples. I only have CWP 3 and 4 right now. I am willing to teach the bar method if I really have to, but I'd really rather not take on something else at the moment!

Edited December 5, 2011 by melissel

[karensk]

Sure! There's more than one way to work those kinds of problems. Singapore math uses the bar diagrams as a concrete representation (less abstract) of what the students will eventually do with variables, which is introduced in the PM-6 levels. Also, the diagrams enable students to solve more complex problems in a fairly simple way -- they can easily see what the unknown is and then solve for the unknown. From what I've seen, this is a way for students to work on more complex problems at an earlier stage, compared to most math programs, since they don't have to wait to be taught algebraic stuff first.

 

HTH!

[wapiti]

This is a very good point. I guess I imagine that I wouldn't be introducing these kinds of word problems until we had already learned the tools to deal with them in our original math program, whatever that might be at the time. So our original math program would have some method of teaching these kinds of problems--mostly likely variables and equations. For the problems you've listed above, I would sit down with a pencil and paper and work through them methodically the way I would have in school, listing out my work in an organized manner as I went. Am I thinking about this the wrong way somehow?

 

Thank you for helping me puzzle this out and for taking the time to list the above examples. I only have CWP 3 and 4 right now. I am willing to teach the bar method if I really have to, but I'd really rather not take on something else at the moment!

 

The bar method is a way of visualizing the problem, which may assist in conceptual understanding of what's going on in the word problem, and how to solve it, in ways that teaching the algebraic procedures for solving equations does not do. It's a single picture of the concept that underlies such equations.

 

It's really not a big deal to learn how to teach (I used MM 4 and 5; I have not used CWP). It felt a little weird the first few times, but after a short time I found myself drawing bars instead of any other sort of diagram of the problem, lol.

 

I don't think it matters much if you wait to get into it, but I think it's nice to do by the time you get to grade 5 material, as a nice foundation for prealgebra and algebra learning later.

Edited December 5, 2011 by wapiti

[melissel]

Sure! There's more than one way to work those kinds of problems. Singapore math uses the bar diagrams as a concrete representation (less abstract) of what the students will eventually do with variables, which is introduced in the PM-6 levels. Also, the diagrams enable students to solve more complex problems in a fairly simple way -- they can easily see what the unknown is and then solve for the unknown. From what I've seen, this is a way for students to work on more complex problems at an earlier stage, compared to most math programs, since they don't have to wait to be taught algebraic stuff first.

 

HTH!

 

Ah, I see what you're saying. That's very interesting. I'll have to give it more thought. I realized that when we'll be getting to that level of work, we'll be out of RightStart anyway, so this all ties in together.

 

Also, I tried to solve the problems you listed above and realized I could not :ohmy: :blushing: So I can see where much of my post-holiday research time is going to be spent!

[Beth in SW WA]

Why are you doing Singapore? CWPs are meant to teach alg concepts concretely to young kids. Do the bars to get the full benefit of the program. Not sure my dd8 could have done cwp 5 without a solid footing on bars in levels 2 - 4. She is learning alg now so we have started doing bars & equations for some problems.

 

Sounds like you need to decide why you are doing SM in the first place.

[Annic]

My take, having had my children go all the way through the Singapore Math and into calculus: Use bars if you need them, don't if you don't. They are just a tool. They get overrated at lower grade levels. They are easy enough to learn with the harder problems when they are more useful, so long as you learn a few basics with easier problems to see how they could be helpful. Later, in CWP 5 and 6, there will be problems that if you solve them with algebra you would use 2 equations in 2 unknowns. The bars do help you visualize that, but eventually they will get cumbersome and algebra becomes easier than the bars. They are a good and fun tool for problem solving, but the main goal for CWP should be to think through the problems, understand them well, not just plug in a bar model by some rote type of procedure. Maybe you can start with a bar and then no longer need it for the rest of the problem. Some problems really are easier without the bars. And by the later levels of CWP, some word problems are designed around the bar model; they are certainly not very real-life. Also, some word problems can have a totally different approach using algebra vs bar models, so bar models do not always lead to an approach that you would use algebraically. Except we who are used to algebra try to stick an algebraic type of method and turn it into bars, but a student who has not already learned algebra would solve it a completely different way with bars.

[Beth in SW WA]

My take, having had my children go all the way through the Singapore Math and into calculus: Use bars if you need them, don't if you don't. They are just a tool. They get overrated at lower grade levels. They are easy enough to learn with the harder problems when they are more useful, so long as you learn a few basics with easier problems to see how they could be helpful. Later, in CWP 5 and 6, there will be problems that if you solve them with algebra you would use 2 equations in 2 unknowns. The bars do help you visualize that, but eventually they will get cumbersome and algebra becomes easier than the bars. They are a good and fun tool for problem solving, but the main goal for CWP should be to think through the problems, understand them well, not just plug in a bar model by some rote type of procedure. Maybe you can start with a bar and then no longer need it for the rest of the problem. Some problems really are easier without the bars. And by the later levels of CWP, some word problems are designed around the bar model; they are certainly not very real-life. Also, some word problems can have a totally different approach using algebra vs bar models, so bar models do not always lead to an approach that you would use algebraically. Except we who are used to algebra try to stick an algebraic type of method and turn it into bars, but a student who has not already learned algebra would solve it a completely different way with bars.

:iagree::iagree::iagree:

 

Yes, use the bar if it's useful and gets you to your end goal -- which is conceptual understanding. My dds can solve many without the bars, of course. Some problems are quite basic and a simple equation will suffice.

 

But...the fractions problems in cwp 4 & 5 and the complex problems in cwp 6 (for example) are best illustrated with a bar to introduce the concept. If you can ditch the bars and run with it...great. If not, use the bars to 'see' what is really happening in the problem. Dd8 is doing cwp/ip 6 in her online class. She loves working the problems out with the bars -- as she's only 8 and isn't thinking algebraically yet. Saturday night we did some alg word problems with bars, HoE cubes/pawns (with small enough numbers) AND in the traditional alg method. She is transitioning beautifully to alg thinking and I attribute it to 2 years of SM bar models -- and a genuine interest in math.

 

I'll use the same formula for dd7 and hope for similar results.

[Spy Car]

Anyone have any thoughts? :bigear: :tongue_smilie:

 

Yea. I think it is a good idea to get a child very used to using the bar-method when the math is simple enough that they might not "need" to draw the diagrams so that when the word problems turn wicked-hard they are already well used to the approach, rather than experiencing the shock of really tough problems and the sudden need to master the bar-diagrams under duress.

 

Bill

[justLisa]

I think it's a good idea to be able to use them with a simple problem. Often DS works things out in his head. I do not make him illustrate every single problem if it's not necessary, but I do have him work out maybe one problem to the fullest extent, showing the necessary work for whatever that lesson may be. The bar diagram is introduced with simpler problems so that when they are very difficult, the diagram itself does not become the problem.

 

It kind of reminds me of the lecture I just listened to again from Susan Wise Bauer on how to teach writing. The mechanics have to be taught separately, because none of these seemingly small skills come natural. It is very difficult to put two difficult tasks together. But if you learn them separately or in a simple fashion you can then learn to put them together because one part becomes second nature. I think this holds true with math.