Singapore 2 -- Do I really need the HIG and Workbook?

[SeaConquest]

We just switched from MM over to Singapore. The reason for the switch was because I found MM to be pretty dry, dense with problems, and just not very cutesy when compared to Singapore's workbooky style. I bought 1A and 1B Intensive Practice books to do over the summer as review before starting 2 (Standards edition) in the fall (to ensure there were no gaps with MM), and, so far, my son is really responding to the change. Singapore is just adorable for a 5 year old!

 

But, I find myself going through a lot of curricula, which is getting expensive. So, do I really need to buy the HIG to teach second grade math? The IP books just seem so self explanatory. And, to that end, do I really need the grade 2 workbooks if I am using the grade 2 textbooks, IPs and CWP? It seems like that is a lot of problems already. What has been your experience -- do the brighter kids really need all these books? Thanks so much!

[Crimson Wife]

do I really need the grade 2 workbooks if I am using the grade 2 textbooks, IPs and CWP? It seems like that is a lot of problems already. What has been your experience -- do the brighter kids really need all these books? Thanks so much!

Bill (SpyCar) would say the answer is yes, but I and plenty of other folks would say no.

[Targhee]

I only would get them if you didn't understand the teaching methodology.  Many parents look at them and can teach how to do the problems, but not necessarily with the different approach Singapore takes.  This can bite you later in 3 and 4.  So, if you feel pretty comfortable in how Singapore teaches then don't bother with the HIGs. You don't really need all three work texts. I personally prefer the workbooks and the CWPs, not as big a fan of the IP books.  But honestly, you could just use the textbook and your choice of work text.  

[lewelma]

I was just going to say that. ;)  My older only did the textbooks and IP. The textbooks actually have quite a few problems in them that are at the same level as the workbook.

But I will say that my younger really liked the workbook because there was so much more space for his workings and the lay out was clearer as to what was 1 lesson worth of work, whereas the IP does not make a distinction.


Ruth in NZ

[Dmmetler]

I'd also look at your child. In the younger SM books, my DD liked the workbook because it had all the cute, fun activities and cute pictures. She may not have needed the easier practice, but she needed the "cute". For the most part, I let her do what she wanted in the workbook, but assigned the IP/CWP problems.

 

 

As far as the HIG, I stopped buying them after SM 1, but I did SM teacher training (since I needed hours to retain my state teaching license anyway, might as well make them useful!) and I found that I didn't need it once I understood the reasoning behind how SM was taught.

[Butter]

I got the HIG the first time we did SM.  Almost never touched it.  Singapore just makes sense to me and my kids so it wasn't necessary.  I have the textbooks, but we haven't used them yet wit my 7 year old (did with my older kids years ago).  Fritz only uses the workbook.  If he runs into something confusing, we'll pull out the textbook.  We haven't gotten there yet (he's nearly done 3A).

[Gratia271]

Bill (SpyCar) would say the answer is yes, but I and plenty of other folks would say no.

 

:iagree: 

[SeaConquest]

Thanks everyone. So, it sounds like I should skip the textbook, but get the workbook for the cute, the IP, and the CWP. I was not brought up with Singapore Math, but I think I will work through the Grade 1 IPs this summer and decide on the HIGs then. Or, perhaps, buy the 2A HIG and see if I end up using it before I buy 2B as well.

 

I am really happy that we made the change from MM. MM was plugging along fine, but I just kept having this nagging feeling that Singapore would work better for us (in large part based on what I had read here), and I am glad that I listened to that instinct. So, thank you!

[sunnyday]

I go around and around about this. At the moment my little one who's using Singapore from the ground up, uses the 1A text and WB. The IP is waiting in the wings for her, and I have the HIG to help me cross-check the foundational concepts I need to be solidifying (eg. don't move on without this vs. move on but keep practicing that; where and how to use manipulatives; plus the mental math practice pages and place value cards). My bigger boy who's using it to fill gaps -- as he prefers to play with Beast Academy but needs practice with decomposing higher units to subtract -- looks through the text with me and then I mix up a combination of the WB and IP pages for practice. We're compacting 2A like whoa this way, which is kind of expensive but at least DD can use some of the materials coming up (I can probably even erase some of the books and let her use the same pages, we do so few problems in some sections.) I don't have the HIG for this level, I sometimes wish I did but can't justify the cost. Jury's out if I will pick it up before DD gets to this level though.

 

I've never used CWP but I'm not sold on word problems being the end-all be-all of higher order thinking. They're usually just computational problems embedded in ambiguous language. There are enough word problems in the WB and IP, plus the other supplements we use like competitive math, for me not to be at all interested in adding CWP.

 

So in sum, I think the text and WB as a core, adding IP and HIG as needed, would be my main preference for teaching from these materials. At this point I think I'd drop the text before I'd drop the WB, but like I said...I go around and around about this. You may just have to try it a few ways and see how the materials make the most sense to you.

[SeaConquest]

Sunnyday, We've been using the CWP for the last year along with MM, and, from my perspective, some of the problems in there are HARD, I can understand why some people use them a half or whole year behind. If you are using BA, which we aren't yet, they may not be necessary, but for us at this level, they are a really great addition.

[bakpak]

I have a related question - when did you start using CWP? From SM1A or later? We're about to finish up 1A (workbook only).

 

Also, FYI, I bought the HIG, but haven't used it too much so far. I recently realized I should double check that I was teaching things the 'Singapore Way', and I wasn't quite, so it was good to see a few examples to get back on track. I wasn't sure if I had had the textbook if it would have been clear enough.

 

Using the WB, I've found it funny that my DD might act like something's a bit too hard, but I'm realizing that it's possibly just not engaging enough. If it's page with 8 straight-forward problems she's distracted and I have to keep re-engaging to get her to finish it up. Based on that response I've often been hesitant to start one of those denser pages with 25 problems that you color to make a picture or a path, but instead she's dives in with glee, tackling problems much harder than the previous ones. It's been educational for me...

[bakpak]

Double post

[Crimson Wife]

If I were deciding between the textbook or the workbook, I would absolutely go with the textbook because that's where the teaching is. The whole point of doing an Asian-based math is the conceptual teaching, and none of that is in the workbook.

 

Now if you as teacher are comfortable teaching from the HIG without the textbook, then I suppose that could work. But for me personally, the textbook is essential while the workbook is optional.

 

ETA: Not to pick on anyone in particular, but I noticed that some of those who are saying "workbook only, drop the textbook" are only in the very early levels of Singapore. I've used 1A through 8A by this point, and I would say that the early levels of Singapore are not representative of the later ones. From my perspective as a long-time Singapore user, I would STRONGLY encourage you to use the textbook.

[Korrale]

If I were deciding between the textbook or the workbook, I would absolutely go with the textbook because that's where the teaching is. The whole point of doing an Asian-based math is the conceptual teaching, and none of that is in the workbook.

 

Now if you as teacher are comfortable teaching from the HIG without the textbook, then I suppose that could work. But for me personally, the textbook is essential while the workbook is optional.

 

ETA: Not to pick on anyone in particular, but I noticed that some of those who are saying "workbook only, drop the textbook" are only in the very early levels of Singapore. I've used 1A through 8A by this point, and I would say that the early levels of Singapore are not representative of the later ones. From my perspective as a long-time Singapore user, I would STRONGLY encourage you to use the textbook.

This is good to know. We have been using Singapore 1A, 1B and now 2A textbooks alone. And I do find them extremely light, and pretty straight forward. Mind you, I have a pretty heavy elementary math theory background. We do use other math. But I am so conflicted as to which Maths we like best. So we do a huge variety of programs. My son is the one that really wants Singapore. I think the cuteness is attractive to him. He enjoys reading through and verbally answering for me. We talk about doing things the Singapore way and he is competent.

I constantly wonder what the HIGs have that make them necessary to some and not others. I don't have the money to drop just to find out through. Know that you have done 8 years, do you think there is a point where the HIGs are needed?

[Crimson Wife]

I constantly wonder what the HIGs have that make them necessary to some and not others. I don't have the money to drop just to find out through. Know that you have done 8 years, do you think there is a point where the HIGs are needed?

I needed them with my oldest child from 3A on. With my 2nd child, I find that I'm using them a lot less because I'm now familiar with teaching the Singapore way. At this point (4A), I review the topic in the HIG prior to each new chapter, but mostly use it as an answer key. If my DS is having difficulty with a particular thing, I will pull out the HIG to help me. But I'm not using it remotely as much as I did with my guinea pig oldest student.

[sunnyday]

Now if you as teacher are comfortable teaching from the HIG without the textbook, then I suppose that could work. But for me personally, the textbook is essential while the workbook is optional.

 

This is what I did for 1B and it worked well. I agree that you need the HIG or the text, otherwise it's kind of pointless to do Singapore. Also, like you pointed out, this is a very early grade we're talking about.

 

[SierraNevada]

I'm probably using it all wrong and only learned of the HIG after I started using SM5a. We started with 4a and only used the workbook and CWP. We had the text, but never used it. I don't know if I am teaching the Singapore way, I don't feel like I need to do much teaching because DS just gets it. He even just gets how to do the CWP. Occasionally there are CWPs that are solved in the Singapore way and when we look at the solution because we are stuck, I admit, I don't really get or like how they are doing it. I guess it is because I gravitate to simple algebra to solve the problem. But they expect their bar graphs to substitute for algebra. DS also get basic linear algebra set ups, so he leans to those usually too. But there are some problems that really throw us because of the Singapore way. I guess I am just using the Singapore scope and sequence and the heavy use of applied and mental math as opposed to doing it the Singapore way. We also use other curriculums though to fill it out.

 

I would actually love for someone to describe in detail what the Singapore way or philosophy is. After using the program for level 4 and part of level 5, I guess I ought to seek for a better understanding of it:). I was going on the assumption that the Singapore way was just more applied/story problems than other programs. That and more mental math which DS gravitated to on his own and naturally did without teaching.

 

So would someone help clarify for me what the Singapore way means? I'd be forever grateful!

[SierraNevada]

And one more question-- I feel completely competent to teach elementary math without any sort of assistance, besides a list of scope and sequence. Jut curious if some of the people who say the HIG is mandatory feel less confident in their math abilities? Or if they just feel that it is mandatory in order to understand how the Singapore way works.

[Targhee]

Thanks everyone. So, it sounds like I should skip the textbook, but get the workbook for the cute, the IP, and the CWP. I was not brought up with Singapore Math, but I think I will work through the Grade 1 IPs this summer and decide on the HIGs then. Or, perhaps, buy the 2A HIG and see if I end up using it before I buy 2B as well.

 

I am really happy that we made the change from MM. MM was plugging along fine, but I just kept having this nagging feeling that Singapore would work better for us (in large part based on what I had read here), and I am glad that I listened to that instinct. So, thank you!

I wouldn't skip the text if you are not getting the HIG.  I would get the textbook and choose a work text or two.  If you want the cuteness then get the workbook and the CWP - leave the IP.  There is teaching in the textbooks - multiple methods of solving problems, visual representations of concepts (Singapore works concrete then visual then abstract).  If you want a workbook of problems then go ahead and get the three workbooks, and teach her what you know. But if you want to teach the singapore methods of math, then get the textbook and possibly the HIG.

[JennyD]

And one more question-- I feel completely competent to teach elementary math without any sort of assistance, besides a list of scope and sequence. Jut curious if some of the people who say the HIG is mandatory feel less confident in their math abilities? Or if they just feel that it is mandatory in order to understand how the Singapore way works.

 

I am perfectly confident in my own ability to do elementary school math, but I have nonetheless found the HIGs to be extremely useful.  Without the HIGs, I would have just taught the material in the texts and other books the way I learned it myself, instead of the way SM teaches it.  It wouldn't have been a catastrophe, but the Singapore way is often a bit different, and IMO, generally better.  Personally, I've found the HIGs to be well worth the money.  

[lewelma]

OP, to clarify, I did not suggest skipping the textbook. Both kids used the textbook and IP, and my younger added to that combination the workbook for more practice. The textbooks are what are cutsy, so if your kid likes color, you need the textbooks. I have told my kids that I will teach them with the material in the textbook, and then they do the workbook and IP independently. This approach worked very well to clarify my expectations.

 

Ruth in NZ

[SeaConquest]

Well, this topic is clear as mud! Lol! It sounds like I shouldn't attempt to be frugal since I was not taught math the Singapore way (defining that to mean a conceptual understanding of math that is broader than the plug-and-chug algorithms).

[Targhee]

I'm sure you are confident in teaching elem math! My comment was not to disparage - I'm sorry if I did. What I'm trying to say is this: if you want the benefits of the Singapore Math approach, you need to learn it yourself. The 1A-2B textbooks can possibly do this alone, but a HIG will be much more helpful in this regard. If you use the various work texts (IP, CWP, and workbook) alone, they are not sufficient to teach the Singapore method, and are like any other workbook (except possibly more challenging). The real Singapore advantage is in the method, and there is a difference (coming from a scientist who take advanced college math and stats).

[Crimson Wife]

I'm probably using it all wrong and only learned of the HIG after I started using SM5a. We started with 4a and only used the workbook and CWP. We had the text, but never used it. I don't know if I am teaching the Singapore way, I don't feel like I need to do much teaching because DS just gets it. He even just gets how to do the CWP. Occasionally there are CWPs that are solved in the Singapore way and when we look at the solution because we are stuck, I admit, I don't really get or like how they are doing it. I guess it is because I gravitate to simple algebra to solve the problem. But they expect their bar graphs to substitute for algebra. DS also get basic linear algebra set ups, so he leans to those usually too. But there are some problems that really throw us because of the Singapore way. I guess I am just using the Singapore scope and sequence and the heavy use of applied and mental math as opposed to doing it the Singapore way. We also use other curriculums though to fill it out.

 

I would actually love for someone to describe in detail what the Singapore way or philosophy is. After using the program for level 4 and part of level 5, I guess I ought to seek for a better understanding of it:). I was going on the assumption that the Singapore way was just more applied/story problems than other programs. That and more mental math which DS gravitated to on his own and naturally did without teaching.

 

So would someone help clarify for me what the Singapore way means? I'd be forever grateful!

How do you teach division of fractions? Simply invert and multiply? Or do you actually teach WHY that "trick" works?

 

Singapore is all about teaching the "why" of math. I had very procedural math growing up and while I could quickly calculate the correct answer, I didn't have the first clue why the algorithms actually worked until I started HSing using Asian-based math programs like Right Start, Singapore, and Math Mammoth.

[lewelma]

I have no idea if I taught in the Singapore way. I did not use and never saw the HIG. I did teach bars as a way of solving problems. But I just used the textbooks to inform me what and how to teach. Seemed to work fine.

[poiema]

if you want the benefits of the Singapore Math approach, you need to learn it yourself.

I would recommended starting out with the HIG, TB, and your choice of WB, IP, or EP. If you are set on using CWP, then I would start with HIG, TB/WB and CWP. Then, when the method becomes intuitive and you feel like you no longer need the HIG, you could use TB, WB/IP/EP and CWP. If you really want the benefits of Singapore math, you need to use at least the HIG or TB.

[Targhee]

The real Singapore advantage is in the method, and there is a difference (coming from a scientist who[bold] take[/bold] advanced college math and stats).

I failed advanced thumb typing :-O (and HTML tagging)

[SierraNevada]

How do you teach division of fractions? Simply invert and multiply? Or do you actually teach WHY that "trick" works?

 

<bold>We definitely do the why. I honestly don't remember how I was taught. Sure, I know the algorithms now, but was I ever taught the why? I don't recall. But I feel that I can easily explain the why and not just teach the algorithms. </bold>

 

Singapore is all about teaching the "why" of math. I had very procedural math growing up and while I could quickly calculate the correct answer, I didn't have the first clue why the algorithms actually worked until I started HSing using Asian-based math programs like Right Start, Singapore, and Math Mammoth.

I feel like when I go to teach something now, the why sometimes jumps out at me and I don't know that I had ever really thought about it before.

 

But is the Singapore way only about the why or is it also about the bar diagrams as a way of dealing with algebra?

[Dmmetler]

And one more question-- I feel completely competent to teach elementary math without any sort of assistance, besides a list of scope and sequence. Jut curious if some of the people who say the HIG is mandatory feel less confident in their math abilities? Or if they just feel that it is mandatory in order to understand how the Singapore way works.

 

I have a graduate degree in math ed, so yeah, I'm pretty confident in teaching elementary math, but Singapore truly does approach it differently than I'd learned it, and while it dovetailed nicely with a lot of what I studied in grad school, especially on the remediation side with the concrete-visual-abstract, it just was different. And I do see the difference in DD in that she is much more fluent and comfortable with mental math and with approaching a problem visually when she doesn't immediately see how to set up an equation, and then using the visual to get to the equation. I could have taught her math without it-but she's more capable at the same level of skill because she has more strategies in her toolbox-and this is a kid who HATED bar diagrams with a passion because she couldn't draw them "right".

[sunnyday]

I feel like when I go to teach something now, the why sometimes jumps out at me and I don't know that I had ever really thought about it before.

 

But is the Singapore way only about the why or is it also about the bar diagrams as a way of dealing with algebra?

 

I think mathwonk has a post somewhere about brainstorming with colleagues about ways to solve complex problems at the elementary level. Challenging each other, "Okay, that's a solution, but what if you didn't have that tool? Then how would you solve it? Good, okay, but now eliminate that as an option, say you don't have that skill yet, what then?" Which do you think is tougher, solving with the one easy tool or driving down to the conceptual underpinnings and finding the solution that uses the most basic principles?

 

When you smash an arithmetic problem with the sledgehammer of algebra, you aren't displaying nearly the depth of understanding that you'd have if you could simply visualize and diagram your way to an elegant solution. But once you've got that sledgehammer in your toolbox, everything looks like a sledgehammer-worthy problem. It's a unique and wonderful situation in early elementary that you have a student who *doesn't* have the sledgehammer yet, so his options are still wide-open for seeking out that simpler yet deeper understanding...and this builds for him a foundation on which the conceptual understanding of algebra can be built.

[SierraNevada]

I think mathwonk has a post somewhere about brainstorming with colleagues about ways to solve complex problems at the elementary level. Challenging each other, "Okay, that's a solution, but what if you didn't have that tool? Then how would you solve it? Good, okay, but now eliminate that as an option, say you don't have that skill yet, what then?" Which do you think is tougher, solving with the one easy tool or driving down to the conceptual underpinnings and finding the solution that uses the most basic principles?

 

When you smash an arithmetic problem with the sledgehammer of algebra, you aren't displaying nearly the depth of understanding that you'd have if you could simply visualize and diagram your way to an elegant solution. But once you've got that sledgehammer in your toolbox, everything looks like a sledgehammer-worthy problem. It's a unique and wonderful situation in early elementary that you have a student who *doesn't* have the sledgehammer yet, so his options are still wide-open for seeking out that simpler yet deeper understanding...and this builds for him a foundation on which the conceptual understanding of algebra can be built.

That is a great analogy and I fully agree that learning to do the problems with the elegant solution is an important foundation. But sometimes kids come pre-wired with an understanding that seems to have come out of no where. Honestly, I don't know how DS see the answers to problems like he does. I'm always a step behind him, writing it all out on paper. His tool box seems to have come stocked before me. Maybe that is why, FOR US, Singapore has worked without the HIG. It just doesn't matter too much how you teach it, he just has an innate understanding that came from.....well I don't know!

[Crimson Wife]

My oldest had done Hands-On Equations before she started Singapore, so I always gave her the option of using algebra to solve Singapore problems if she so desired. But if she used algebra and got stuck or an incorrect answer, I did require her to go back and draw the bar diagram.

 

I wouldn't get hung up on the bar diagram aspect of it. It's part of Singapore, but not crucial to it.

 

Teaching a deep understanding of concepts vs. just memorizing the procedures is what sets Asian-based math programs apart.

[SeaConquest]

I think mathwonk has a post somewhere about brainstorming with colleagues about ways to solve complex problems at the elementary level. Challenging each other, "Okay, that's a solution, but what if you didn't have that tool? Then how would you solve it? Good, okay, but now eliminate that as an option, say you don't have that skill yet, what then?" Which do you think is tougher, solving with the one easy tool or driving down to the conceptual underpinnings and finding the solution that uses the most basic principles?

 

When you smash an arithmetic problem with the sledgehammer of algebra, you aren't displaying nearly the depth of understanding that you'd have if you could simply visualize and diagram your way to an elegant solution. But once you've got that sledgehammer in your toolbox, everything looks like a sledgehammer-worthy problem. It's a unique and wonderful situation in early elementary that you have a student who *doesn't* have the sledgehammer yet, so his options are still wide-open for seeking out that simpler yet deeper understanding...and this builds for him a foundation on which the conceptual understanding of algebra can be built.

 

This is why I love this board. Ask a practical question about which books to use to save a buck, get an enlightening discussion about developing deeper mathematical understanding. I have a serious crush on this place. 

[sunnyday]

That is a great analogy and I fully agree that learning to do the problems with the elegant solution is an important foundation. But sometimes kids come pre-wired with an understanding that seems to have come out of no where. Honestly, I don't know how DS see the answers to problems like he does. I'm always a step behind him, writing it all out on paper. His tool box seems to have come stocked before me. Maybe that is why, FOR US, Singapore has worked without the HIG. It just doesn't matter too much how you teach it, he just has an innate understanding that came from.....well I don't know!

 

Sure, and maybe you want to use a less elaborate and less expensive program like MM for him to practice if he doesn't need the teaching. It makes sense to me! Gifted kids can be a horse of a different color and you just have to find what works!

 

Speaking of not understanding how they see things...I had a couple funny posts to Facebook before DS was really able to verbalize his methods. :) Here's one (it was a little over a year ago so he was not quite 6.5, and I think he was doing Life of Fred math...we had to "fix" this approach, which caused a hitch in his multi-digit subtraction, but now he's once more fluent but with a decomposing the higher value units approach...

 

Kindergartener is working on subtracting 805 - 7. "The 8 becomes 7. The 10 becomes 9. And then what's 2 less than 10?" Me: "Um...is that really relevant? Er...it's 8." "OK! So the answer is 798!" Me: "It...oh! Yes, I suppose it is!"

[Dana]

And one more question-- I feel completely competent to teach elementary math without any sort of assistance, besides a list of scope and sequence. Jut curious if some of the people who say the HIG is mandatory feel less confident in their math abilities? Or if they just feel that it is mandatory in order to understand how the Singapore way works.

I teach math at the cc. I liked using the HiG and found them useful.

[SierraNevada]

Well I'm not the OP, but this post has really made me wonder what I'm missing by not having the HIG. Do I need to buy yet another math book? It's looking like I might. Will starting the HIG at the 5th level be okay? Or will it throw us all out of sync? :)

 

So many math books floating around.

[Jackie Kelly]

We get the HIG, textbook, workbook, and challenging word problems. In my opinion, this builds the strongest foundation for later math.

[poiema]

And one more question-- I feel completely competent to teach elementary math without any sort of assistance, besides a list of scope and sequence. Jut curious if some of the people who say the HIG is mandatory feel less confident in their math abilities? Or if they just feel that it is mandatory in order to understand how the Singapore way works.

I am completely competent to teach elementary math (certified, actually). However, when I started homeschooling my k'er in 1B, I didn't understand the why of Singapore math, so I taught him the way I learned in school. He got through it, but it wasn't really Singapore math.

 

Well I'm not the OP, but this post has really made me wonder what I'm missing by not having the HIG. Do I need to buy yet another math book? It's looking like I might. Will starting the HIG at the 5th level be okay? Or will it throw us all out of sync? :)

 

So many math books floating around.

I don't think the HIG is mandatory. I don't even use it anymore. But I do think if you are using Singapore math that you should understand the method. For some people that means using the HIG. It's possible that you have picked up the method without the HIG. I'm assuming you are at least using the textbook. We are only in 3B, so I have no idea whether the HIG becomes more useful after that. My guess is that since you've made it this far, you probably don't need it. Just my 2 cents.