Will I regret not having the singapore textbook?

[BugsMama]

We've been using Standards Edition 3A. It's time to order 3B. I've found we only use the HIG and the workbook even though we have the textbook. Do I need it for 3B?

[boscopup]

I haven't used grade 3, so maybe it's not an issue there, but in grades 4 and up. the HIG has you explaining specific textbook problems, and it's not always obvious what the original problem actually IS. If they'd put the problems in the HIG, I'd use just the HIG. Since the HIG doesn't list the problems, I need the textbook. Maybe grade 3 isn't like that, but 4 and 5 certainly are.

 

Also, the textbook problems are more difficult than the workbook problems, and there are individual practice sections in the textbook at the end of each unit that are good to do (again, they're harder than the workbook). In grade 4 in the fractions section, there are problems in the textbook and workbook involving adding mixed fractions where one denominator is a multiple of the other, like 1/2+2/4. The *practice* section at the end of the chapter throws in problems like 1/2+2/3, which the HIG explained, but the child never practiced in the regular textbook problems or the workbook problems.

 

I always teach from the HIG as my child looks at the textbook, and we go over the problems in the textbook as part of our teaching time. Do you just make up problems? I'm curious how you're actually doing it right now. I do think if you're skipping the textbook, you're missing a big part of the program. The workbook is super easy. Are you doing IP or CWP along with it to give it some challenge?

[BugsMama]

I've been teaching from the HIG with a whiteboard, and have never felt the need to see the textbook, it just sits on the bookshelf. All problems are right there, all the samples, all of it. Are you using Standards, or US?

We also use CWP and BA, I feel like we get plenty of challenge.

I have standards 4 on my shelf, I'll look that over and see if it changes a lot. Interesting.

[BugsMama]

(We did, for the first 20 lessons or so have the textbook out, but there seemed to be no added benefit to it, so I did at ONE time use it. But not for the last 2/3 of the book. The HIG explained the problems much better than the textbook did.)

[Crimson Wife]

In grade 4 in the fractions section, there are problems in the textbook and workbook involving adding mixed fractions where one denominator is a multiple of the other, like 1/2+2/4. The *practice* section at the end of the chapter throws in problems like 1/2+2/3, which the HIG explained, but the child never practiced in the regular textbook problems or the workbook problems.

 

 

 

As an aside THANK YOU for finding one of the examples of the "conceptual leaps" that bug me about Singapore and that I've been accused of making up. Singapore will occasionally toss in a problem that the student hasn't been taught how to do but is just supposed to be able to make the leap from what he/she has been taught.

[SevenDaisies]

We are using 3 this year and many, if not most, of the examples in the HIG are from the textbook. Textbook is important to us, but it sounds like you are getting by without.

[Dana]

I always teach from the HIG as my child looks at the textbook, and we go over the problems in the textbook as part of our teaching time. Do you just make up problems? I'm curious how you're actually doing it right now. I do think if you're skipping the textbook, you're missing a big part of the program. The workbook is super easy. Are you doing IP or CWP along with it to give it some challenge?

 

We use the HiG as a guide, but I STRONGLY agree with the above. I don't think the workbook gives nearly enough practice & the practice in there is really easy. If you were eliminating a component, I'd toss the workbook way before the textbook.

[elizabeth rose]

I agree with the other posters, who said the Workbook is much easier than the textbook problems. I think they intended the workbook to be a review, done after school, where teacher help was not present, so therefore it is easier. IMO, it does not teach you or give you enough practice of the real concepts. It's too simplified usually. I would almost be more inclined to skip the workbook and just use the textbook.

[BugsMama]

Interesting, LOL, I feel like I must not be looking at the same books to you. In 3A, the work in both books look almost identical to me. I'll order them both for 3B and see what happens. Thanks for the help. :)

[alisoncooks]

Interesting, LOL, I feel like I must not be looking at the same books to you. In 3A, the work in both books look almost identical to me. I'll order them both for 3B and see what happens. Thanks for the help. :)

 

 

Well, I've only done 1A/1B but I feel exactly the same way about the textbook. We never use them.

(I teach from the HIG and then we do the workbook together...)

I was considering getting 2A/B without the textbooks...

[claire up north]

I went through 6a and b and never used a textbook. Well, ok, about once every two years I would TRY it... I finally stopped buying them around year 5.

[Momling]

I can't imagine not having the textbook, but then again, I never had the HIG... Maybe having both is unnecessary?

[alisoncooks]

I can't imagine not having the textbook, but then again, I never had the HIG... Maybe having both is unnecessary?

LOL, maybe so because I can't imagine teaching without the HIG! :D :D

[Five More Minutes]

Well, I've only done 1A/1B but I feel exactly the same way about the textbook. We never use them.

(I teach from the HIG and then we do the workbook together...)

I was considering getting 2A/B without the textbooks...

 

 

I was tempted to do 2A/2B without the textbooks, too, as in 1A/1B we've relied on them comparatively little for our lessons. But I've found that, starting in level 2, the textbooks ramp up in terms of challenge and quantity of problems. Going forward, if I have to drop anything, it will be the workbook. (I think ... :) ).

[boscopup]

 

 

As an aside THANK YOU for finding one of the examples of the "conceptual leaps" that bug me about Singapore and that I've been accused of making up. Singapore will occasionally toss in a problem that the student hasn't been taught how to do but is just supposed to be able to make the leap from what he/she has been taught.

 

:lol:

 

Technically, it IS taught, so the student isn't expected to make a leap, but those not using the HIG will have possibly floundering students. :D

[acsnmama]

This makes me consider not worrying about the Workbook. I know in the other thread someone said it wouldn't be smart to ditch the workbook, except with a "bright" child. However, after looking through the Standards Edition Textbook, it looks like there is quite a bit of practice in the textbook, and that the workbook wouldn't be needed, which in turn, would allow more time to dive into the Intensive practice books, and the CWP. Maybe even possibly getting an "extra practice" workbook to use as needed, rather than the actual workbook itself...

 

I noticed one of the reviews in the textbook for 2b is like 5 pages long, and is crammed with questions, unlike the workbook, which has only a few per page, etc.

 

Still, I worry about not using the workbook, in fear that I would be doing my child a disservice, and missing something??

[Five More Minutes]

This makes me consider not worrying about the Workbook. I know in the other thread someone said it wouldn't be smart to ditch the workbook, except with a "bright" child. However, after looking through the Standards Edition Textbook, it looks like there is quite a bit of practice in the textbook, and that the workbook wouldn't be needed, which in turn, would allow more time to dive into the Intensive practice books, and the CWP. Maybe even possibly getting an "extra practice" workbook to use as needed, rather than the actual workbook itself...

 

I noticed one of the reviews in the textbook for 2b is like 5 pages long, and is crammed with questions, unlike the workbook, which has only a few per page, etc.

 

Still, I worry about not using the workbook, in fear that I would be doing my child a disservice, and missing something??

 

 

I've found that in 2A/2B, the reviews in the textbook are much longer, too.

 

I think that when I've read advice about dropping the workbook, it has been for "bright" students who are using Intensive Practice and CWP on-level to reinforce topics. So I'd agree with you -- dropping the workbook would free up time for IP / CWP.

 

However, I wouldn't go for the Extra Practice over the workbook, myself. I used the EP for my youngest who was using Singapore a bit ahead, and sometimes has needed extra time on topics. The Extra Practice books are easier than the workbooks, imo, and include teaching pages. The workbook is a better value for a student who is on level.

[Spy Car]

I would not skip either the Textbook or the Workbook. Nor the HIG (unless you really understand the Singapore Model).

 

They each have their purpose. The pedagogical purpose of the Textbook is for parent/teacher involved learning/teaching of new concepts. The HIGs are designed to help parent-teachers round out the programs and lessons and to make up for the fact that math teachers in Singapore are highly trained in the Singapore Math Model, while most Americans (and other non-Singaporians) are likely not.

 

The Workbooks are designed for independent practice.

 

I completely disagree with the charge of "conceptual leaps" in Primary Mathematics. Used as directed (which unfortunately Crimson Wife regularly advises people not to do) there are no "leaps." Leave out core elements of the program and you are not using the program as it was designed to be used. To skip essential elements, and then to complain about "conceptual leaps" is mind bogglng to me.

 

Use as designed.

 

Bill

[lollie010]

I would not skip either the Textbook or the Workbook. Nor the HIG (unless you really understand the Singapore Model).

 

They each have their purpose. The pedagogical purpose of the Textbook is for parent/teacher involved learning/teaching of new concepts. The HIGs are designed to help parent-teachers round out the programs and lessons and to make up for the fact that math teachers in Singapore are highly trained in the Singapore Math Model, while most Americans (and other non-Singaporians) are

 

 

 

Exactly what I was about to type. Fortunately, Bill got to it before me. In years past when I used pieces of SM, I liked it a lot. But, when I finally began to use as it is meant to be used the kiddos and I are absolutely giddy over it. It all works together so well, for us.

[Crimson Wife]

:lol:

 

Technically, it IS taught, so the student isn't expected to make a leap, but those not using the HIG will have possibly floundering students. :D

 

The concept isn't formally taught until one of the later grade books. SM just randomly throws several problems requiring the concept into one of the practices in the earlier level expecting the child to magically intuit how to do it. This is why I take my kids through MM "blue" first so that they aren't freaked out by these kind of leaps.

[Spy Car]

 

 

The concept isn't formally taught until one of the later grade books. SM just randomly throws several problems requiring the concept into one of the practices in the earlier level expecting the child to magically intuit how to do it. This is why I take my kids through MM "blue" first so that they aren't freaked out by these kind of leaps.

 

Well there you go again.

 

Bill

[Crimson Wife]

 

I completely disagree with the charge of "conceptual leaps" in Primary Mathematics. Used as directed (which unfortunately Crimson Wife regularly advises people not to do) there are no "leaps." Leave out core elements of the program and you are not using the program as it was designed to be used. To skip essential elements, and then to complain about "conceptual leaps" is mind bogglng to me.

 

Use as designed.

 

Bill

 

Show me a place where the workbook has additional teaching, and I'll gladly change my mind. I have not looked through every single workbook but the ones I have seen do not include ANY extra teaching. The leaps are like the one mentioned where the 3B textbook teaches adding fractions with like denominators and then all of a sudden the practice randomly leaps to adding fractions with unlike denominators without ever teaching the child how to do them (that doesn't come until the 4A textbook). If the 3B workbook includes teaching of that concept, I'd gladly get it for my kids.

[Spy Car]

 

 

Show me a place where the workbook has additional teaching, and I'll gladly change my mind. I have not looked through every single workbook but the ones I have seen do not include ANY extra teaching. The leaps are like the one mentioned where the 3B textbook teaches adding fractions with like denominators and then all of a sudden the practice randomly leaps to adding fractions with unlike denominators without ever teaching the child how to do them (that doesn't come until the 4A textbook). If the 3B workbook includes teaching of that concept, I'd gladly get it for my kids.

 

 

The Workbook is not designed for "teaching." It is designed as the time for a student to do independent practice (or maybe semi-independent in the earliest years) and a time for them to show mastery.

 

The fraction information is in the HIG.

 

Each part has a purpose. That is why it is a good idea not to skip parts.

 

Bill

[OSUBuckeye]

I'm confused, Spycar. Crimson Wife didn't make any suggestions or pronouncements on this thread, just said a simple "Amen!" to what Boscopup said about logical leaps that can occasionally appear from the multiple simultaneous components of Singapore. And in the post Crimson Wife quoted, Boscopup clearly outlined how each piece of Singapore works together (or, in this case, doesn't work ideally for the concept of adding unlike fractions). Boscopup said the HIG has the information that appears out-of-nowhere on the practice problems if the teacher isn't carefully demonstrating problems from the HIG. If Crimson Wife wants to add some Math Mammoth Blue in anticipation of these small design flaws rather than wait for a conceptual hiccup to occur, well a little math enrichment never hurt anyone.

 

A "disagree" statement would have been fine, but this thread was getting too attack-y, and I can't figure out what the justifiable cause for attack was.

 

 

I haven't used grade 3, so maybe it's not an issue there, but in grades 4 and up. the HIG has you explaining specific textbook problems, and it's not always obvious what the original problem actually IS. If they'd put the problems in the HIG, I'd use just the HIG. Since the HIG doesn't list the problems, I need the textbook. Maybe grade 3 isn't like that, but 4 and 5 certainly are.

 

Also, the textbook problems are more difficult than the workbook problems, and there are individual practice sections in the textbook at the end of each unit that are good to do (again, they're harder than the workbook). In grade 4 in the fractions section, there are problems in the textbook and workbook involving adding mixed fractions where one denominator is a multiple of the other, like 1/2+2/4. The *practice* section at the end of the chapter throws in problems like 1/2+2/3, which the HIG explained, but the child never practiced in the regular textbook problems or the workbook problems.

 

I always teach from the HIG as my child looks at the textbook, and we go over the problems in the textbook as part of our teaching time. Do you just make up problems? I'm curious how you're actually doing it right now. I do think if you're skipping the textbook, you're missing a big part of the program. The workbook is super easy. Are you doing IP or CWP along with it to give it some challenge?

[Crimson Wife]

I'm confused, Spycar. Crimson Wife didn't make any suggestions or pronouncements on this thread, just said a simple "Amen!" to what Boscopup said about logical leaps that can occasionally appear from the multiple simultaneous components of Singapore. And in the post Crimson Wife quoted, Boscopup clearly outlined how each piece of Singapore works together (or, in this case, doesn't work ideally for the concept of adding unlike fractions). Boscopup said the HIG has the information that appears out-of-nowhere on the practice problems if the teacher isn't carefully demonstrating problems from the HIG. If Crimson Wife wants to add some Math Mammoth Blue in anticipation of these small design flaws rather than wait for a conceptual hiccup to occur, well a little math enrichment never hurt anyone.

 

A "disagree" statement would have been fine, but this thread was getting too attack-y, and I can't figure out what the justifiable cause for attack was.

 

It is a long running debate as to whether or not Singapore makes conceptual leaps. I say yes; Bill says no and that if I used the workbook I wouldn't see them either. I fail to see how using the workbook would solve the issue of conceptual leaps as it does not contain any additional teaching.

[Spy Car]

 

 

It is a long running debate as to whether or not Singapore makes conceptual leaps. I say yes; Bill says no and that if I used the workbook I wouldn't see them either. I fail to see how using the workbook would solve the issue of conceptual leaps as it does not contain any additional teaching.

 

Not having additional "teaching" does not mean there is no additional "learning" that happens when students use the Workbooks independently (or semi-independently when young). The problems in the Workbooks are graded (some would say "easy") in a way that students get incrementally more difficult problems to solve on their own.

 

This portion of the program is a MAJOR component. It has the skill mastery necessary for most kids before they do harder problems in the Intensive Practice books. For most kids, they need to walk before they run.

 

Bill

[Spy Car]

In the Standards Edtion 3B Chapter 10, Section 2 after having been giving clear and extensive instruction in how to find "equivalent fractions," and after a child has learned that 3/4 is the same as 6/8, they then are then asked which is greater 3/4 or 5/8?

 

They have already learned to find the "equivalent fraction" (the whole point of the section) of 3/4, and now they are asked to use this skill in a problem solving situation. These sorts of questions are exactly why I enjoy using Primary Mathematics with my son. These are not "leaps," they are "thinking."

 

Thinking is good.

 

Bill

 

 

[nmoira]

BugsMama, even if the HIG/workbook combo has been working for you, I'd start to transition to HIG/text/workbook for some of the reasons already stated, but also because it's good for the child to be expected to read and understand a text unaided, as they move towards a more independent learning style.

 

It is a long running debate as to whether or not Singapore makes conceptual leaps. I say yes; Bill says no and that if I used the workbook I wouldn't see them either. I fail to see how using the workbook would solve the issue of conceptual leaps as it does not contain any additional teaching.

 

To be fair, wouldn't it be "leap," singular? I'm not familiar with another example than the one mentioned here (from the US edition?). And IIRC, it's not something that comes up again at all until it's formally taught the next year?

 

I haven't used Singapore since US 4A with my eldest, but now having been through LoF (Fractions through Beginning Algebra) and some AofPS with her, and almost three years of MEP with her younger sister, I see questions for which the technique has not been explicitly taught on a regular basis (almost daily with AoPS). It's exhilarating, and I think a valuable experience to be reminded that you don't know everything... and again later that you still don't know everything... and you may or may not be able to think your way through it, but try anyway. :D In contrast, the Singapore core program methodically lays out everything for the student (with one exception?) before asking them to solve problems on their own; the kids don't really get a chance to work outside the proverbial box except in the IP books.

[Crimson Wife]

Not having additional "teaching" does not mean there is no additional "learning" that happens when students use the Workbooks independently (or semi-independently when young). The problems in the Workbooks are graded (some would say "easy") in a way that students get incrementally more difficult problems to solve on their own.

 

Additional practice in French translation is not likely to help a student who has difficulty figuring out a Latin translation after being taught French. The solution is simple: explicitly teach a student Latin if you want him/her to be able to translate it. Don't just out of the blue throw in a Latin translation exercise in the middle of a page of French ones and expect the student to figure it out for himself/herself. Yes, some bright kids can make that leap, but others need the explicit teaching first.

[Crimson Wife]

To be fair, wouldn't it be "leap," singular? I'm not familiar with another example than the one mentioned here (from the US edition?). And IIRC, it's not something that comes up again at all until it's formally taught the next year?

 

There are others in 3A-5A, it's just been a bit since DD was in those books, and DS is working his way through the measurement topics in 3B while memorizing his times tables before I go back to the multiplication and long division chapters in 3A.

 

AOPS would be a terrible "fit" for my DD because she wants to be explicitly taught things rather than having to intuit them herself. She doesn't consider it "exhilarating" but rather stressful as she is a very linear step-by-step thinker.

[Spy Car]

 

 

Additional practice in French translation is not likely to help a student who has difficulty figuring out a Latin translation after being taught French. The solution is simple: explicitly teach a student Latin if you want him/her to be able to translate it. Don't just out of the blue throw in a Latin translation exercise in the middle of a page of French ones and expect the student to figure it out for himself/herself. Yes, some bright kids can make that leap, but others need the explicit teaching first.

 

You are criticizing one of the most methodical math programs available because of one problem in an old edition.

 

By doing lessons that are designed to bring mastery in the Workbook a student is methodically engaged in a practice that allows them to succeed. Jump over the Workbooks (as you suggest) in favor of the IPs alone and perhaps one might have problems.

 

But the Workbook are designed to give explicit practice in basic skills.

 

If anything I crave finding materials like Beast Academy that require more thinking, in large part because the core Primary Mathematics materials are so methodical.

 

Your analogy is flawed. It would be like using a Latin program that has a Teaching book and Practice and skipping the "Practice" and then claiming (ad infinitum) that there isn't enough practice in the program. You are skipping over a vital part of the program. And suggesting others do the same (when it doesn't seem to be working for you) and blaming Primary Mathematics for what strikes me as a problem of your own making.

 

Bill

[Spy Car]

 

 

There are others in 3A-5A, it's just been a bit since DD was in those books, and DS is working his way through the measurement topics in 3B while memorizing his times tables before I go back to the multiplication and long division chapters in 3A.

 

AOPS would be a terrible "fit" for my DD because she wants to be explicitly taught things rather than having to intuit them herself. She doesn't consider it "exhilarating" but rather stressful as she is a very linear step-by-step thinker.

 

 

If she is a very linear step-by-step thinker why skip the book that is designed to give a child very linear step-by-step practice? Instead you are jumping to the Intensive Practice books that do expect the ability to make "leaps" of logic.

 

I truly do not comprehend this.

 

Bill

 

 

 

 

[boscopup]

I'd like to clarify something about my fraction example...

 

1) This is the Standards Edition 4A.

2) The concept IS taught. The HIG teaches it. The only children missing it are the ones with parents not using the HIG.

3) I wouldn't exactly call it a leap. Again, it was taught. The entire progression is there, if you are using the materials as they are designed.

4) I gave that illustration as something that is in the Practice section of the Textbook but not in the Workbook. If you are skipping the textbook, you have just skipped that type of problem.

 

So my point of the whole example was to show how the HIG, Textbook, and Workbook work together. The teaching is mostly in the HIG, the harder practice problems are in the textbook, and the easy, independent, confidence-building problems are in the workbook. I believe all 3 of those items are useful and part of the full program.

 

Also, note that I have not used Singapore 3 yet, so I do not know what was taught there for fractions. We started in 4A. I don't even own grade 3 yet (I have 1, 2, 4, and 5).

 

I have not seen any actual leaps as of yet, but I haven't done all levels yet (I believe CW has complained about long division in 3A... I'll get there within the next year with DS2).

[Crimson Wife]

 

Your analogy is flawed. It would be like using a Latin program that has a Teaching book and Practice and skipping the "Practice" and then claiming (ad infinitum) that there isn't enough practice in the program. You are skipping over a vital part of the program. And suggesting others do the same (when it doesn't seem to be working for you) and blaming Primary Mathematics for what strikes me as a problem of your own making.

 

Bill

 

 

I have never claimed that SM lacks sufficient practice. What I do claim is that it isn't incremental enough in its TEACHING in certain places. My ideal program would be one that is as incremental as Math Mammoth but contained the more challenging problems of Singapore IP and CWP. Since that does not exist, I use MM to supplement where I find Singapore's teaching lacking. Maria Miller breaks down concepts into itty-bitty baby steps and then walks the student through them step-by-step-by-step. Singapore in several places jumps over the in between steps and goes from point A to point E in one big leap. Using the workbook would do nothing to fix that issue.

[Crimson Wife]

If she is a very linear step-by-step thinker why skip the book that is designed to give a child very linear step-by-step practice? Instead you are jumping to the Intensive Practice books that do expect the ability to make "leaps" of logic.

 

I truly do not comprehend this.

 

Bill

 

 

The practice isn't the problem. She catches on very quickly once she has been explicitly taught the concept. She just needs all the in-between steps formally explained to her where Singapore jumps over them and assumes she can follow along.

 

Imagine a cookbook that has an ingredient list and then a picture of the final product without all the in-between step-by-step instructions. Some intuitive cooks might be able to figure out how to make the product by themselves, but most people would go, "What do I need to do?"

[Spy Car]

I have never claimed that SM lacks sufficient practice. What I do claim is that it isn't incremental enough in its TEACHING in certain places.

 

Part of the incremental LEARNING that takes place in Primary Mathematics happens when a student works through the incrementally graded in terms of difficulty problem sets.

 

Not all teaching has to be didactic. Primary Mathematics has both didactic teaching in the Textbook, more didactic teaching ideas in the HIGs, AND has lessons that students are EXPECTED TO COMPLETE as an essential part of the program.

 

It is one thing to complain if you use the program as directed, and while another to criticize its degree of incrementalism when you skip one of the core books, and a very incremental one at that.

 

Singapore in several places jumps over the in between steps and goes from point A to point E in one big leap. Using the workbook would do nothing to fix that issue.

 

 

I have not witnessed any such leaps and find the program methodical.

 

Bill

[Spy Car]

 

 

The practice isn't the problem. She catches on very quickly once she has been explicitly taught the concept. She just needs all the in-between steps formally explained to her where Singapore jumps over them and assumes she can follow along.

 

Imagine a cookbook that has an ingredient list and then a picture of the final product without all the in-between step-by-step instructions. Some intuitive cooks might be able to figure out how to make the product by themselves, but most people would go, "What do I need to do?"

 

I have witnessed no such lack of clear methods or instructions and find the program methodical in it presentation of concepts. Comparing Primary Mathematics, which is a very strong math program, to a cookbook that lacks instructions is a very unfair description in my estimation.

 

It is very fair to prefer one teaching approach to another depending on a child's needs. If MM works better for your child you are wise to use it. But to characterize Primary Mathematics a full of conceptual leaps or lacking in method or instruction strikes me as very unfair. I certainly do not agree based on our experience.

 

Bill

[nmoira]

The practice isn't the problem. She catches on very quickly once she has been explicitly taught the concept. She just needs all the in-between steps formally explained to her where Singapore jumps over them and assumes she can follow along.

 

Imagine a cookbook that has an ingredient list and then a picture of the final product without all the in-between step-by-step instructions. Some intuitive cooks might be able to figure out how to make the product by themselves, but most people would go, "What do I need to do?"

 

I *think* I understand what you're saying wrt your daughter, but your analogy isn't quite there. Having "parsley, chopped" on the ingredient list with no further instruction might be more apt? This is the type of detail that you, as teacher are expected to provide if the child needs it; and it seems that in her case MM is an ideal fit. However, this need is not typical of most kids using the Singapore, and that's why folks just don't see the leaps you're taking about. I certainly don't. It's not a good fit for everyone, and that's OK. My kids wild go crazy using MM. Even the US-centric units I've used with DD the Younger (her main math program is from the UK) make her fidgety.