? to those who are using/used Singapore math

[SereneHome]

I FINALLY made a decision on what to use and got Grade 1(1A) textbook and workbook for my almost 5 yr old. After I looked through it, I realized that we would probably be starting somewhere in the middle of the book, bc he already knows a lot what is in it.

 

So..............now I a bit confused - I thought the book is for 1st grade? No? And what does book Grade 1 (1B) teaches?

 

Am I missing something? Should I just ignore the "grade" references and go by the material? And how long did it take you to get through their "grade" of books?

 

Thanks!!

[zoo_keeper]

Did you get either (or both!) of the CWP and IP? If not, I would highly recommend those. The wb is super easy in comparison, these extra books really stretch the material. We rarely even use the wb anymore these days.

[SereneHome]

CWP and IP?

 

ETA: would you mind giving me a link? thank you

[Monica_in_Switzerland]

We are just finishing up level 1. It is supposed to represent first grade, yes.

 

A few questions-

When you say you have already covered it, what do you mean? Does your child know his math facts by memory, does he understand the process of grouping by tens, etc? The "material" covered in singapore 1 is similar to all first grade math programs, but it is taught it a specific way to encourage mental math and conceptual understanding. A child could learn the same material many different ways, but not be as prepared by some methods as other for more advanced math. If you feel your child has a strong conceptual understanding of the material covered, there is nothing wrong with moving on to the next level though!

[SereneHome]

We have been doing Math books from CTC, so he knows how to do simple addition/subtraction, etc. This is embarassing, but I really don't know "how" he knows how to do it - we would do pages of exercises and he answers it. He does it in his head, but I think he is using his fingers in his head if it makes sense...

 

Hmmm, may be I am overestimating how much he knows, I think doing 1A probably WOULD be a great start.

[ondreeuh]

The textbook is not an accurate way to gauge the Singapore program. Most of the concepts are taught through manipulatives first, and the instruction for that is in the Instructor's Guide. The textbook just has example problems. The bare-bones Singapore package is the IG, workbook, and textbook. Many people add Intensive Practice and Challenging Word Problems to round it out.

[SereneHome]

I just looked on their website and only am seeing it textbooks and workbooks and teacher's guide, nothing else.

 

Also, I am using US edition, is this correct?

[zoo_keeper]

Here is the relevant Challenging Word Problems and the first Intensive Practice.

[Crimson Wife]

With a bright child, I would sub out the Intensive Practice book for the regular workbook. My kids go through the chapter in the textbook first, then do the corresponding IP and CWP.

[twoxcell]

I would start at the beginning it is ok if it is easy for a few weeks. ;)

[Spy Car]

We are just finishing up level 1. It is supposed to represent first grade, yes.

A few questions-

When you say you have already covered it, what do you mean? Does your child know his math facts by memory, does he understand the process of grouping by tens, etc? The "material" covered in singapore 1 is similar to all first grade math programs, but it is taught it a specific way to encourage mental math and conceptual understanding. A child could learn the same material many different ways, but not be as prepared by some methods as other for more advanced math. If you feel your child has a strong conceptual understanding of the material covered, there is nothing wrong with moving on to the next level though!

 

This is spot-on advice!

 

The big goal of 1A is to begin the process of learning re-grouping stratagies as a way to find sums and differences. And being able to explain in mathematical terms how you arrived at the solution. "Knowing" without being able to explain ones strategy or getting the "right answer" by finger counting are completely insufficient (and even detrimental) responses.

 

 

We have been doing Math books from CTC, so he knows how to do simple addition/subtraction, etc. This is embarassing, but I really don't know "how" he knows how to do it - we would do pages of exercises and he answers it. He does it in his head, but I think he is using his fingers in his head if it makes sense...

Hmmm, may be I am overestimating how much he knows, I think doing 1A probably WOULD be a great start.

 

Focus on your child explaining his reasoning to you. Do not be "answer oriented," rather be "explanation of answer oriented."

 

These are vastly different approaches.

 

The Standards Edition is better than the US Ecition IMO. It has better HIGs (Home Instructors Guides). The core books of PM lack the "concrete learning" component of the math lesson. The HIGs help give a parent that part of the program. There are other ways to get the "concrete" part of the math program.

 

Miquon is a complimentary math program whose strong suit is making the concrete part of learning fun and effective for children using Cuisenaire Rods as the primary manipulative. If you search for "Education Unboxed" you can see videos (produced by a WTM mom) that show this sort of learning in action.

 

The HIGs unfortunately chose Unifix Cubes and Linking Rods over C Rods. I think this was a very unfortunate choice. The good news is the HIG activities can be easily translated to C Rods activities, and I would urge you to do so. The HIGs also have bad advice about "parking" early on to memorize math facts. This advice is no good advice. It is premature to most kid's readiness and short-cuts the necessary practice doing number-bonds (re-groupings) that is the hallmark skill in PM.

 

If it sounds like I've "trashed" the HIGs, let me add that (other than these valid criticisms) they are a pretty good guide to adding a concrete learning component to PM. Especially if one is strapped for time.

 

We did 1A SE in Pre-K, so ideas about the "level" of the material will vary. The important thing is to know what the important objective is (and is not). Don't believe that getting "right answers" alone, without showing understanding of the concepts of re-grouping—which means being able to explain them well—is sufficient. It is not.

 

Bill

[Spy Car]

With a bright child, I would sub out the Intensive Practice book for the regular workbook. My kids go through the chapter in the textbook first, then do the corresponding IP and CWP.

 

I think suggesting people should skip the Workbooks is very bad advice. It is not the way the series was designed or intended to be used, and could cause serious negative consequences my not following the method as designed.

 

The Workbooks are them time time for students to show competence with basic level work in an independent (or semi-independent fashion in early levels) after having interactive learning with a parent/teacher using the Textbook.

 

The IPs are great books for raising the bar of challenge. In many ways they are my favorite component of PM. But they are not intended to be a replacement for the Workbooks.

 

Bill

 

 

 

 

[NittanyJen]

 

 

Don't believe that getting "right answers" alone, without showing understanding of the concepts of re-grouping—which means being able to explain them well—is sufficient. It is not.

 

Bill

 

Math is about the logic, not so much the answer (yes, we want a correct answer, but the logic is the real mathematics).

 

[SereneHome]

I understand that math is not about giving the right answer, I never said it was.

 

The problem is that he is having a hard time articulating how he knows the right answer, that's why it's hard for me to determine what is the best method to teach him.

 

Unfortunately, my IL's have been telling him that "oh, you are such a smart boy" from the day he was born, so that's his go-to answer for everything. Hey, E - how do you know that water evaporates? Bc I am smart. Hey, E - how do you know what makes wind blow? Bc I am smart. You get the idea.

 

It's very frustrating when he gives me an answer but doesn't want to explain it how he got it

[Spy Car]

I understand that math is not about giving the right answer, I never said it was.

 

The problem is that he is having a hard time articulating how he knows the right answer, that's why it's hard for me to determine what is the best method to teach him.

 

Unfortunately, my IL's have been telling him that "oh, you are such a smart boy" from the day he was born, so that's his go-to answer for everything. Hey, E - how do you know that water evaporates? Bc I am smart. Hey, E - how do you know what makes wind blow? Bc I am smart. You get the idea.

 

It's very frustrating when he gives me an answer but doesn't want to explain it how he got it

 

 

I would say sticking with Primary Mathematics is your best answer. Just treat "no explaination" as an insufficient answer. Other programs might reward his tendency to give a "correct answer" as sufficient. I think you see that is a bad trap.

 

Look at Education Unboxed and how C Rods can be used playfully to illustrate concepts.

 

My son at this age was required to explain each and every problem. No explaination, no credit. The time spent of this process payed off in a big way.

 

On a practical level the re-grouping skills learned in the Singapore Method at this level are fundamental to later success, as these skills "scale up" as numbers become larger.

 

Bill

[Roadrunner]

With a bright child, I would sub out the Intensive Practice book for the regular workbook. My kids go through the chapter in the textbook first, then do the corresponding IP and CWP.

 

We began doing this as well. CWP has easy problems just like a workbook does as well as higher level ones (which the workbook lacks). I don't see that the workbook has anything unique not found in IPs. It has lots more of easy practice problems and many kids need it, but ot all. IF you find ouself that SM is an overkill (we have textbook, HIG, workbook, IP and CWP), I agree that the workbook would be the one to drop.

We also use BA and pull the best out of MEP.

[Arcadia]

Unfortunately, my IL's have been telling him that "oh, you are such a smart boy" from the day he was born, so that's his go-to answer for everything. Hey, E - how do you know that water evaporates? Bc I am smart. Hey, E - how do you know what makes wind blow? Bc I am smart. You get the idea.

 

It's very frustrating when he gives me an answer but doesn't want to explain it how he got it

 

 

I had that problem also of in-laws saying the same thing. When they were five, we resort to asking questions while they were in the car. They have nothing better to do than give lengthy explanations for things like how hurricanes are form or how they work out math problems. Now they know that I don't give "credit" for understanding unless they can explain to me how they got their answers.

[Crimson Wife]

I think suggesting people should skip the Workbooks is very bad advice. It is not the way the series was designed or intended to be used, and could cause serious negative consequences my not following the method as designed.

 

The Workbooks are them time time for students to show competence with basic level work in an independent (or semi-independent fashion in early levels) after having interactive learning with a parent/teacher using the Textbook.

 

The IPs are great books for raising the bar of challenge. In many ways they are my favorite component of PM. But they are not intended to be a replacement for the Workbooks.

 

Bill

 

 

The textbook practices can be used for independent work and they are more challenging than the problems in the workbook. If the student can solve the problems in the textbook practices, IP, and CWP independently, than the easier problems in the workbook are a waste of that child's time. Would a music teacher have the child play "Mary Had a Little Lamb" if he/she could play Mozart?

[k8c]

Can the Intensive Practice be used with the Standards Edition, or does it do best with the US Edition? I have read that the Standards Edition is the better overall, but wasn't sure if I could still use the IP with it or not. The CWP specifically says it can be used with either, but the IP says US Ed.

[SereneHome]

So, what is the difference between Standard Edition and US Edition? I thought Standard was for CA? No?

[Spy Car]

 

 

The textbook practices can be used for independent work and they are more challenging than the problems in the workbook.

 

If the Texboooks are used for "independent practice" then the "teaching, interactive, Socratic" experience is LOST! That is the whole crux of the problem.

 

You constantly complain about the "conceptual leaps" in Primary Mathematics. Not using the program as directed, which includes turning the intended Textbook lessons into independedent work (in defiance of the way the program is designed—for good reason—to be used) is asking for trouble.

 

If the student can solve the problems in the textbook practices, IP, and CWP independently, than the easier problems in the workbook are a waste of that child's time.

 

Wrong. The Textbook lessons are the time when Teacher/Parents make sure the lessons are fully understood, and if there are problems that they are discussed an clarified. That is how PM is designed to be used.

 

Would a music teacher have the child play "Mary Had a Little Lamb" if he/she could play Mozart?

 

If a music teacher thinks students should tackle Mozart without instruction, said music teacher should not complain if their student faces "conceptual leaps" in their knowledge of music theory.

 

The object is to assure a sound foundation. Parent/teachers ought to have a role in the math instruction. Turning the Textbook into a Workbook (and removing the teaching component of PM) is a supremely bad idea.

 

Bill

 

 

[Tanikit]

I would ask a child of 5 or less to Show me how he got his answer rather than telling me and then possibly put what he demonstrated into words for him because even if they can do mental maths they should be able to demonstrate it concretely if they understand it whereas the language to explain what went on in their heads is far less accessible at this age.

 

I used Singapore 1a with my child at 4.5 years of age. At 5.5 she is nearly done wth 1b and it has been fine. The CWP should probably only be started in 1b (which is how I have done it with my child) or even 2a.

[Spy Car]

Can the Intensive Practice be used with the Standards Edition, or does it do best with the US Edition? I have read that the Standards Edition is the better overall, but wasn't sure if I could still use the IP with it or not. The CWP specifically says it can be used with either, but the IP says US Ed.

 

The IP books can be used with either edition. They were written for ( and "keyed to" the US Edition) but many people purposefully use the IPs slightly behind the sequence to serve in part as "review" (and to provide greater challenge) rather than lining up the IPs directly with the lessons in the Textbooks and Workbooks.

 

All the topics in the US Edition are covered in the SE so it is not as if there are skill gaps.

 

Bill

[Monica_in_Switzerland]

I understand that math is not about giving the right answer, I never said it was.

 

The problem is that he is having a hard time articulating how he knows the right answer, that's why it's hard for me to determine what is the best method to teach him.

 

Unfortunately, my IL's have been telling him that "oh, you are such a smart boy" from the day he was born, so that's his go-to answer for everything. Hey, E - how do you know that water evaporates? Bc I am smart. Hey, E - how do you know what makes wind blow? Bc I am smart. You get the idea.

 

It's very frustrating when he gives me an answer but doesn't want to explain it how he got it

 

Bill mentioned Cuisinaire Rods as a manipulative. They are great, but you could also use an abacus or base-ten blocks (or all three... we do!) It's very important to break the finger counting habit. The nice thing about C rods (or an abacus) is that for children who have a hard time explaining, they can "show" how they got the answer with rods. To give an example:

 

We could ask: What is 13 - 5 ?

 

Child A might not be able to give much of an explanation, because he answered the problem by "counting back" 5 steps: 13 12 11 10 9 8. It would be hard to articulate "how" one counts back.

 

Child B, who has learned the Singapore mental math method, would say something like, "I took the 5 away from the 10, which left 5 and 3, which makes 8."

Child C, who learned the Singapore way, but has trouble expressing himself verbally, could show with cuisinaire rods that the 5 doesn't fit under the 3, so slide it under the 10, then an 8 rod (or a 5 and a 3 rod) fit in the gap.

 

I hope that makes sense! It's hard to understand Cuisinaire rods until you get your hands on a set... but they are truly magic!

 

It may seem like the Singapore way of doing things is uselessly complicated compared to the simple "counting on/counting back" methods that most children can sort of figure out on their own, but it is vastly superior in terms of real understanding of number manipulation. I would be concerned that, even if your child could answer correctly the problems in Singapore 1, they would not be ready for 2 unless they had learned how to do math the "Singapore" way.

[Monica_in_Switzerland]

To add, there are a handful of other curricula that teach this way- Right Start Math, Math Mammoth...

[Spy Car]

So, what is the difference between Standard Edition and US Edition? I thought Standard was for CA? No?

 

 

It was designed to meet or exceed CA's outstanding math standards. That means advancing some topics a little earlier than they are presented in the US Edition. There are also some important topics included in the SE (like negative numbers and data analysis issues) that get covered in SE over the full course, but are not in the US Edition.

 

There is also more content and more built-in review in the SE. And the HIGs are improved in the SE.

 

Bill

 

[UrbanSue]

If the Texboooks are used for "independent practice" then the "teaching, interactive, Socratic" experience is LOST! That is the whole crux of the problem.

 

You constantly complain about the "conceptual leaps" in Primary Mathematics. Not using the program as directed, which includes turning the intended Textbook lessons into independedent work (in defiance of the way the program is designed—for good reason—to be used) is asking for trouble.

 

 

 

Wrong. The Textbook lessons are the time when Teacher/Parents make sure the lessons are fully understood, and if there are problems that they are discussed an clarified. That is how PM is designed to be used.

 

 

 

If a music teacher thinks students should tackle Mozart without instruction, said music teacher should not complain if their student faces "conceptual leaps" in their knowledge of music theory.

 

The object is to assure a sound foundation. Parent/teachers ought to have a role in the math instruction. Turning the Textbook into a Workbook (and removing the teaching component of PM) is a supremely bad idea.

 

Bill

 

 

Bill, I totally agree with everything you've said here. But I'm pretty sure that Crimson Wife is referring to the "Practices" found at the end of each section starting in 2A. Actually, they don't start until a bit into the 2A book. I tend to agree (with one kid through 2B and in BA and one accelerated math-loving girl just starting 2A) that the workbook can be skipped as long as the concrete/pictorial/abstract progression is being honored in some way. We used the workbook for 1A/B because that was the only option but for 2A I plan to have her write out reviews and/or practice pages at the ends of chapters on her own to test of competency. The textbook exercises are still being done orally and together.

 

Would you still maintain that this isn't in keeping with the Singapore way? I'm definitely interested to hear this hashed out.

[UrbanSue]

So, what is the difference between Standard Edition and US Edition? I thought Standard was for CA? No?

 

 

 

The HIGs (Home Instructor Guides NOT the Teacher's Guides) for SE are really great and will really help you see what Singapore is trying to do. When I first started out I was told they were just answer keys so I skipped them and we proceeded to spend several months banging out heads against the wall and wondering why people liked Singapore so much. Definitely get the HIGs.

[Spy Car]

 

 

Bill, I totally agree with everything you've said here. But I'm pretty sure that Crimson Wife is referring to the "Practices" found at the end of each section starting in 2A. Actually, they don't start until a bit into the 2A book. I tend to agree (with one kid through 2B and in BA and one accelerated math-loving girl just starting 2A) that the workbook can be skipped as long as the concrete/pictorial/abstract progression is being honored in some way. We used the workbook for 1A/B because that was the only option but for 2A I plan to have her write out reviews and/or practice pages at the ends of chapters on her own to test of competency. The textbook exercises are still being done orally and together.

 

Would you still maintain that this isn't in keeping with the Singapore way? I'm definitely interested to hear this hashed out.

 

 

I also use the review sections in the Texbooks as independent work. That is the way the program is supposed to be used. Not dong the lessons in the Textbooks interactively is the problem. This is definitely not how the program is designed to be used.

 

And in this case we at talking about a student in 1A. This is a foundational level. Suggesting the Textbook should be used as a Workbook is a bad idea. I think we agree there. It is true that the SE Textbooks have some areas for students to do independent work. If they are able to do so, they should do them this way. If they can't parents should take that as a heads up.

 

Where parents might lead, or discuss, or nudge, or ask questions, or demonstrate when doing the Textbooks (while requiring explainations from the students of their reasoning) the Workbooks exist to test if the student has absorbed the lessons to the point they can do problems on their own (or not).

 

I don't think the practice/review questions alone are sufficient practice for most kids. Are there outliers? Sure. But I would not pass on the practice in the Workbooks, and I have a pretty math adept kid. As a general rule I think foregoing the Workbook practice is a bad idea. Turning the Textbook into a Workbook is far (far) worse.

 

Bill

[NittanyJen]

I actually thought the idea was, for bright kids, turning the IP book and CWP into the workbook for independent work ( aside from Crimson's comment; I agree with Bill on the follow-up to that one).

 

I see no problem with a kid going right to the IP and CWP and skipping the workbook if that works for him for retention and understanding. In our house, we use just the workbook and IP for independent work. The textbook, and the work we do concretely prior to opening the text, is interactive.

 

DS 9 will be starting DM 7A common core in the fall. That will require a whole new shift and should be interesting... I am pre-reading the books. He wants to do Fred like his brother, but Singapore is working so well with him that I just can't give it up...

 

 

[SereneHome]

OK, so if I start with US edition for 1A, would it be OK/make sense to switch to SE for 1B and beyond?

[SereneHome]

 

 

The HIGs (Home Instructor Guides NOT the Teacher's Guides) for SE are really great and will really help you see what Singapore is trying to do. When I first started out I was told they were just answer keys so I skipped them and we proceeded to spend several months banging out heads against the wall and wondering why people liked Singapore so much. Definitely get the HIGs.

 

Can I use HIG for SE with Textbook and Workbook 1A from US edition?

[UrbanSue]

OK, so if I start with US edition for 1A, would it be OK/make sense to switch to SE for 1B and beyond?

 

Yes, you can do that no problem between 1a and 1b.

[UrbanSue]

 

 

Can I use HIG for SE with Textbook and Workbook 1A from US edition?

 

Probably. The page numbers will be off but the idea is to teach the concepts concretely first. You can read the HIG and probably figure this out on your own.

[SereneHome]

I'll be honest, I wasn't going to get HIG at all, I figured that I should be able to explain simple concepts to a 5 yr old - am I missing something?

 

I am looking at 1A textbook and am not sure what is guide going to tell me about 1+1? Am I being arrogant?

[UrbanSue]

Not arrogant, no. I thought the same thing as you when I was there a few years ago. But, for the same reason that you want your child to have a really, really solid conceptual framework for basic math (so that he can build off of that for more difficult math), you want to re-train yourself to teach math the "Singapore Way." Your child may not need to spend much (or any) time doing a concrete lesson with manipulatives on 1+1, but you should at least read those sections.

 

Get some c-rods and build fluency with them with those early lessons so that the manipulative itself isn't an obstacle later. You don't have to beat it all to death. You can kill the love for math by going too slow, but I'd take some time with the concrete lessons even with easier stuff just so you can both become more familiar with the Singapore approach.

[zoo_keeper]

I don't use the HIGs. Alternatively, I consult the textbook that is used to train teachers to teach the first 3 levels of PM: Parker and Baldridge's "Elementary Mathematics of Teachers."

[Crimson Wife]

If the Texboooks are used for "independent practice" then the "teaching, interactive, Socratic" experience is LOST! That is the whole crux of the problem.

 

 

You misunderstand. I do teach the lesson part of the Singapore textbook using the HIG. The part of the textbook where it says "Practice A/B/etc." is what I assign as independent work. There are typically several pages in each section which I go through with my student. Then the practice at the end is what is done independently.

[SereneHome]

One more question - it seems that IP are ONLY US edition, is that correct? So, if I move to SE for 1B, how would that work with IP?

[awisha.]

Serial SPAMMER reported. *sheesh* some people need to get a life :lol:

[nansk]

I a bit confused - I thought the book is for 1st grade? No? And what does book Grade 1 (1B) teaches?

 

Not sure if someone answered these questions, so here goes:

 

1. 1A and 1B are both for first grade. For every year, there is an A text and A workbook and a B text and B workbook.

 

2. Usually, in any given year, the A text covers the 4 operations (add/sub/mult/div). The B text covers measurement, fractions, geometry, and such like. But of course, these topics include review of the 4 operations.

[boscopup]

One more question - it seems that IP are ONLY US edition, is that correct? So, if I move to SE for 1B, how would that work with IP?

 

 

People using SE can still use the IP, but some topics in the SE textbook will not be in the IP at all (like negative numbers and data analysis in grades 4+). I think the grade 1 books are similar enough that the IP will probably be easier to match up.

 

I personally wouldn't use IP in place of the workbook either, mostly for the reason above - you'd be missing out on practice of some topics taught in the textbook. But you can use the IP as review, regardless of the edition you're using.

 

My oldest did textbook/workbook/CWP. We dabbled in IP, but I like the workbook better for him because there were less problems on a page/in an exercise, and he could always do ALL the problems in the workbook completely independently, building up confidence. IP sometimes required help for a few problems. CWP also requires help sometimes (we race each other at the white board).

 

My middle son is doing textbook/workbook now, but I'll add in IP and/or CWP next school year when he does the grade 2 books (he did grade 1 for K and had no problems). I've kept things "easy" for him this year, because he's working hard at learning to read still.

 

I used the HIG for both kids and highly recommend it. If you try to teach it without the HIG (or at least without learning the "Singapore way" of teaching, as a previous poster mentioned a book to train elementary teachers that would also work), you'll default to how you learned math, and you'll miss the whole point of Singapore. Singapore doesn't just have you memorize that 8+5=13. It has you break it down that 5 is 2 and 3, and the 8 needs 2 from the 5 to make a 10, so 10+3=13. Those techniques are scaled up to larger numbers, and pretty soon, your kid is adding and subtracting 3-digit numbers in his head before he even learns how to regroup on paper. :) You still memorize the facts, and it sounds like your son has those down pat already, which is great, but he'll need to work on explaining how he got an answer. It's very typical, especially of bright young math students, to just "know" the answer and not have any idea where that answer came from. It's your job to model and guide him into figuring out where that answer came from. When I was teaching my oldest to do mental math techniques, I'd ask him how he did it, and he didn't know. Then I'd say, "Well, I did it this way..," and I'd explain how I did it. My son could at least say he did it that way too or did a different way. Pretty soon, he was seeing how HE did it and able to explain it. He still likes to do word problems in his head (including multi-step ones that *I* have to write something down for), but he knows how to show his work now. It has just taken time and patience, plus lots of discussion. :) And discussion is one thing I love about Singapore. I can take the HIG in my hand and teach at the white board (more so in the later grades than in grade 1), and we have great math discussions.

[SereneHome]

OK, I am bookmarking this thread bc it has been SUPER helpful, thank you all!!

 

Now, I just added all the cost and if I get textbook/workbook/IP/CWP and HIG for 1A and 1B it's over $100!! wow that is expensive!!! Thanfully, I already have C rods and some other manipualatives, but will still need to get a few as well. WOW!!

[NittanyJen]

For what it's worth, (and here Bill will disagree with me) a very careful reading of the text will show you the 'Singapore Way' very clearly, including giving good inspiration for concrete activities for introducing concepts first via c-rods and other manipulatives... If you are a flexible thinker and reasonably math adept. You must read the thought-bubble cartoons as well as the examples to see all of this (I can see this information in the US Edition; I have not previewed the SE edition).

 

However, the forum consensus is correct-- this is a very different approach to math than the way you learned to think of things, and in the long run, more efficient, and IMO better at highlighting the relationships between different mathematical operations. At the first sign of defaulting back to the way you were taught to do things (oh just line'em up, borrow here, carry here...) run, don't walk, to an HIG and learn the Singapore way, or else you are forfeiting the point of the program. It would be like buying your kid only Suzuki violin books but teaching him by traditional methods and wondering why you were not getting Suzuki results.

 

 

[SereneHome]

Just so you know, guys, I was not born/raised in US, so I learned math VERY differently than they teach here :tongue_smilie:

[boscopup]

OK, I am bookmarking this thread bc it has been SUPER helpful, thank you all!!

 

Now, I just added all the cost and if I get textbook/workbook/IP/CWP and HIG for 1A and 1B it's over $100!! wow that is expensive!!! Thanfully, I already have C rods and some other manipualatives, but will still need to get a few as well. WOW!!

 

I would recommend starting with HIG/TB/WB for first grade, then decide on IP/CWP later. You don't have to use the most challenging parts in first grade level, especially with a younger child.

[Spy Car]

For what it's worth, (and here Bill will disagree with me) a very careful reading of the text will show you the 'Singapore Way' very clearly, including giving good inspiration for concrete activities for introducing concepts first via c-rods and other manipulatives...If you are a flexible thinker and reasonably math adept. You must read the thought-bubble cartoons as well as the examples to see all of this (I can see this information in the US Edition; I have not previewed the SE edition).

 

You assume too much :D

 

I think a careful reading of the Textbook would give many people a clear understanding of the Singapore Way, and could inspire some (but fewer) people to come up with concrete activities to back up the lessons. The more people get the purpose of the lessons and understand the goals of the Singapore Model the better chance they have of creating activities to back up those lessons.

 

Where the HIGs are a huge help are for people who don't really understand the Singapore method, are strapped for time teaching other subjects (and perhaps a range of other children) and who want a "go to guide" rather than trying to reinvent the wheel.

 

Personally I was much more of a "reinvent the wheel" type guy.

 

So I actually agree with you. If you understand the Singapore Model Method, and you are math-adept and math-intuitive (and/or have a background with Miquon or Miquon-like activities, and/or have borrowed from RightStart games and place value activities, and/or watched the Education Unboxed videos, and/or plunder ideas from MEP, and/or reading Parker and Baldridge or other Singapore books, and/or have put creative time and energy into inventing ones own activities). then the HIGs may be superfluous.

 

But for those who lack the time or inclination to extrapolate from the Textbooks and create their own activities, the HIGs do a pretty good job distilling easily impremented lessons into one package. This is something that provides value to many.

 

However, the forum consensus is correct-- this is a very different approach to math than the way you learned to think of things, and in the long run, more efficient, and IMO better at highlighting the relationships between different mathematical operations. At the first sign of defaulting back to the way you were taught to do things (oh just line'em up, borrow here, carry here...) run, don't walk, to an HIG and learn the Singapore way, or else you are forfeiting the point of the program. It would be like buying your kid only Suzuki violin books but teaching him by traditional methods and wondering why you were not getting Suzuki results.

 

 

Yup.

 

Bill

[Spy Car]

 

 

I would recommend starting with HIG/TB/WB for first grade, then decide on IP/CWP later. You don't have to use the most challenging parts in first grade level, especially with a younger child.

 

 

With a smart kid I wouldn't want to skip the IPs. They add the thnking challenges that make this program more fun. The CWPs (and here I can only speak of the old ones) were mostly valuable for introducing the basic form of bar-diagrams, which one can (and should) do with the word problems in the IP books IMO.

 

Bill

 

 

[twoxcell]

For 1a/1b I used the textbooks, workbooks, and manipulatives including c-rods. You can get the HIG's if you want but I don't personally think you need to get the other books unless you want to. ;) Also we use the US edition and so far it is working fine. I have the HIG's for 2a and up.

[corduroy]

This thread is so illuminating, thanks!

 

Randomly, does anyone know of a list (perhaps on Amazon?) that breaks down the different products you need to buy to do Singapore for different ages/abilities?