? to those who are using/used Singapore math

[Spy Car]

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?

 

It is difficult to have one list. Part of the strength of Singapore math is that it can be easily tailored to people's needs. Now some people see the "too many books" issue as a negative, so perspectives vary.

 

The most commonly used components are the Textbook and Workbooks. These are the "core" books.

 

Then there are the "practice books" of which the Intensive Practice books (IPs) are the most popular. Some people use the IPs "on level" and others use them to some degree "behind" since they are more challenging. The SE (Standards Edition) also has an "Extra Practice" book designed for student who need more reenforcement in the basic level lessons and more practice. The EPs are less widely used by parents here, but are there for those that need them.

 

The HIGs (Home Instructors Guides) are for parents who are unfamiliar with the Singapore method who want to make sure they teach it the right way. It includes activities and mental math ideas, and other information parents should know. They are a pretty efficient way of "rounding" the program and including concrete activities in the mix. I have some problems with the HIGs. I wish they used C Rods instead of Linking Cubes, and the advice in Level 1 to stop and memorize math facts is very poor, but overall they are pretty good.

 

The CWPs (Challenging Word Problems) focus on learning the bar-diagram method of word problem solving. Pretty much world class.

 

The above are the most popular books, but there are a slew of supplementary books beyond this that come from Singapore, many of which can be has at singaporemath[dot]com.

 

Bill

[boscopup]

 

 

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

 

I said for first grade, not forever more. She is concerned about the cost, and she's trying a new program. I think it's fine to just do the basics for a year.

 

I've not used IPs or CWP with my K'er this year. We'll pick them up next year when we do the grade 2 books. My oldest didn't do grade 1 IP/CWP either, and he's just finished 5B without problem, and he does CWP5 without problem. He clearly didn't miss anything by not doing the most challenging thing at first grade level. :)

[Spy Car]

 

 

I said for first grade, not forever more. She is concerned about the cost, and she's trying a new program. I think it's fine to just do the basics for a year.

 

I've not used IPs or CWP with my K'er this year. We'll pick them up next year when we do the grade 2 books. My oldest didn't do grade 1 IP/CWP either, and he's just finished 5B without problem, and he does CWP5 without problem. He clearly didn't miss anything by not doing the most challenging thing at first grade level. :)

 

 

I know. Our advice is all colored by our own experiences. In my experience it was the IPs that made PM most appealing to my son. Yes, the core books had "the method" (and are outstanding in that regard) but they lacked the "brain candy" of cognitively challenging work that he needed to keep the subject interesting.

 

The (free to download) MEP (Mathematics Enhancement Programme) materials are also good for filling the brain-candy needs, so the OP might look for them too. MEP and Singapore are pretty sympathetic in the way they teach math.

 

Because the OP mentioned she had a smart kid I, personally, would not skip the IPs at Level 1 if she has a kid that she feels need "challenge" to stay in the game.

 

Bill

 

 

 

[a27mom]

 

 

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.

 

 

 

Yup.

 

Bill

 

 

So glad I saw this thread. I have been about to chuck Singapore because I couldn't figure out what this super secret "Singapore way" is that can only be found in the HIG. (I definitely find the one I have to be superfluous). I am definitely the reinvent the wheel type, and math intuitive. Maybe I will continue with Singapore. I just couldn't bring myself to buy another HIG to just sit on my shelf after I glanced through it and didn't find anything I couldn't think of myself. I do realize I am a bit weird. I'd rather learn all the theory behind something and teach it myself than follow someone else's directions.

 

Thanks for clarifying Bill :)

[Spy Car]

 

 

So glad I saw this thread. I have been about to chuck Singapore because I couldn't figure out what this super secret "Singapore way" is that can only be found in the HIG. (I definitely find the one I have to be superfluous). I am definitely the reinvent the wheel type, and math intuitive. Maybe I will continue with Singapore. I just couldn't bring myself to buy another HIG to just sit on my shelf after I glanced through it and didn't find anything I couldn't think of myself. I do realize I am a bit weird. I'd rather learn all the theory behind something and teach it myself than follow someone else's directions.

 

Thanks for clarifying Bill :)

 

The HIGs are just one woman's guide to teaching Primary Mathematics. I think she did a mostly good—but occasionally not—job of providing parents who have no interest in thinking it all up themselves a reasonable alternative. Since I assume (rightly or wrongly) that most people don't want to re-invent the wheel, I "generally" advise their purchase. Because PM should be "rounded out" IMO.

 

But I love coming up with my own ideas and/or stealing good ideas from multiple sources. For me the HIGs were something I compared with my own ideas. They sometimes had ideas I thought that *I* had invented myself, and they distilled many of the best ideas I gather form other sources. There wasn't much I didn't get in other ways. But I spent/spend a lot of time on this—more than most people might consider reasonable—and the HIGs have many of the same ideas for less expenditure of effort.

 

But, if you are like me and world rather figure it out for yourself, the HIGs are not necessary. In some ways knowing where a child has clarity and moving on, and where they have difficulty (and addressing that through exercises, including concrete examples if that's what's appropriate, it the idea scenario in any case vs following a general schedule.

 

I am a terrible direction taker myself. Can't do it. Would rather think it out myself. So we are both weirdos.

 

Bill