Singapore, conceptual leaps?

[Aza]

Something I've heard frequently in reviews about Singapore math is that there are more "conceptual leaps" than in other programs. That description seems to come up especially in comparisons to Math Mammoth. Can anyone give me an example of this? I'm just looking for some idea about how big the "leaps" are, lol. 

[3 ladybugs]

My son was doing 2a. He had done addition with remainders, and subtraction with borrowing. Not much on other math concepts such as measuring or money. Then he came across this problem.

 

It showed a book on a scale with the weight of 22 oz (analog not digital). Then weights of 8 oz with a space, 4 oz with a space, and 1 oz with a space. The question reads: "How much of each weight do you need to balance the weight of the book?"

 

I took this question to mean 3 problems. I then quickly got mad as 22 doesn't divide into 8 or 4 equally. Then after a text message to my husband, I found out that they were looking for 2-8 oz, 1-4 oz and 2-1 oz. At that I gave up not knowing how to teach that.

[Crimson Wife]

In one of the fraction chapters in SM 3 or 4 the book has the student adding fractions with unlike denominators where one denominator is a multiple of the other (like fourths and eighths or whatever). To solve the problems, the student changes one denominator into the equivalent fraction with the other denominator. So far, so good.

 

All of a sudden, there is a problem where the unlike denominators are totally different (think fourths and sevenths). To solve the problem, the student has to make the conceptual leap to change BOTH denominators into a common multiple without being explicitly taught.

 

Math Mammoth never springs these kinds of leaps on students but explicitly walks them through baby step by baby step by baby step.

[Roadrunner]

My son was doing 2a. He had done addition with remainders, and subtraction with borrowing. Not much on other math concepts such as measuring or money. Then he came across this problem.

 

It showed a book on a scale with the weight of 22 oz (analog not digital). Then weights of 8 oz with a space, 4 oz with a space, and 1 oz with a space. The question reads: "How much of each weight do you need to balance the weight of the book?"

 

I took this question to mean 3 problems. I then quickly got mad as 22 doesn't divide into 8 or 4 equally. Then after a text message to my husband, I found out that they were looking for 2-8 oz, 1-4 oz and 2-1 oz. At that I gave up not knowing how to teach that.

See, I think this is just fine. You don't need to know anything about ounces or conversions to solve this problem. All you need to do is add creatively. This is the sort of stuff that made SM tolerable for us. I didn't find any conceptual leaps in SM. In fact we felt the opposite- too much of repetition and very easy workbook problems that put us to sleep.

[Spy Car]

In one of the fraction chapters in SM 3 or 4 the book has the student adding fractions with unlike denominators where one denominator is a multiple of the other (like fourths and eighths or whatever). To solve the problems, the student changes one denominator into the equivalent fraction with the other denominator. So far, so good.

 

All of a sudden, there is a problem where the unlike denominators are totally different (think fourths and sevenths). To solve the problem, the student has to make the conceptual leap to change BOTH denominators into a common multiple without being explicitly taught.

 

Math Mammoth never springs these kinds of leaps on students but explicitly walks them through baby step by baby step by baby step.

Oh come on, this example of yours has been debunked so many times it's ridiculous.

 

Primary Mathematics (Singapore Math) is one of the most systematic and carefully elementry graded math programs in the world. At least when used as designed, which is not how you used it.

 

You've invented the phrase "conceptual leaps" and repeated it so many times that posters "know they've heard it," when it is ABSOLUTELY NOT THE CASE.

 

To the OP. Some of the "challenge problems" (expecially in books like the Intensive Practice or Challenging Word Problem books) are designed to require students *think*, and that is a good thing. Not everything in a good math program ought to be spoon-fed. That said, the basic instruction in arthematic and basic mathematics is presented very clearly in the basic introductions in the Teaching books, and the learning is expanded in the Practice books.

 

The "conceptual leaps" thing is a canard created by one person (who did not use the materials as directed and not understanding how students were to reason the problem solving in one lesson, after having her failure to "get the method" patiently explained over-and-over again) who repeats and repeats and repeats someting that ain't so.

 

It ain't so.

 

Singapore Math may not be everyones cup of tea, but the "conceptual leaps" thing is pure and utter nonsense. This is a program with a proven (and very clear) mathematical model behind it, and outstanding teaching/learnng materials to go with it. The track record speaks for itself

 

Bill

[strawberryjam]

For people with issues in Singapore making "conceptual leaps", do you use the home instructor guides? I've found that often people who are having issues are not using the guides... usually because they thought they weren't necessary. The guides are imperative. They contain half the curriculum really. So it may seem like a "leap" if you are only going by workbook or textbook questions, meanwhile things have already been addressed thoroughly within the home instructor guides (likely with suggestions to use manipulatives, games, other hands-on activities to figure things out). Singapore is by far the best curriculum we have ever used in any subject, but the home instructor guides (together with the manipulatives they suggest) really make it what it is.

[Sneezyone]

I agree w/the HiG issue. The HiG for 4a/fractions encourages the kids to write out/list the multiples of each denominator to find a common one, create two equivalent fractions with like denominators, then add. My DD had no trouble with it after I taught the corresponding lesson.

[kiwik]

I was wondering about that. It sounds like the sort of thing might be in a teacher's manual but presented in the student book as a challenge. The teacher can guide with questions using their book as required. It is a pity there couldn't be one HIG per year though as the costs add up (I have been looking). Does anyone know somewhere that sells the non US version? (I don't want imperial measures).

[TheAttachedMama]

I am on book 2B and I have not noticed any conceptual leaps either.   I **do** use the program as intended.  (With the HIG, textbook, and workbook.)   Perhaps that is why? 

 

Sort of OT:   To speak to what was written above...

I'm still early on in the program, but I have noticed that so many people think the HIG is optional.   It is not. 

I have also noticed that Most (not all, but most) of the people who have issues with the program are attempting to use singapore with just an independent student workbook.  The program is not meant to be that way.  It is not meant to be an student-self-taught program.   Even if your kids can do the workbook without instruction, they aren't getting a true 'singapore math' experience that way.   There is a lot of good stuff taught in the HIG!  It would be the equivalent of me trying to teach All About Spelling with the word lists alone then complaining that the program doesn't teach the spelling rules.  You need the teacher's guide! 

 

So far, the HIG has explicitly taught all conceptual ideas before they were encountered in the textbook or workbook.   So I haven't found any conceptual leaps at all.   

 

And for people who say that Singapore doesn't provide enough practice.....I have also noticed that they aren't using Singapore as it was meant to be used either.   Most of the time they are trying to use *just* the workbook.   The HIG, texbook, and workbook are all required books.  When you factor in all of the problems in those required books, that is a lot of practice!   Then there are the optional Challenging Word Problems and Extra practice books.   I really don't see how a math program could possibly put in MORE practice. 

[73349]

I use the standards ed. (we're near the end of 2B), and I don't recall seeing anything I'd call a leap.

[Kathryn]

We are almost done with 4B Standards. I'm using it with a math-hating boy with high functioning autism. I've not found any area where I felt there were "conceptual leaps."

[SparklyUnicorn]

I can't remember exact examples, but once in awhile in SM it seemed like there was a question or two where I thought how would the kid know that based on what has been taught so far?  Either way it was not a huge deal.  I showed them as a "this is what's coming up at some point" and kept going. 

 

 

[Aza]

It looks like this has a backstory that I didn't intend to dig up. 

 

I've been trying to compare Singapore and Math Mammoth. Aside from the "conceptual leaps" description I've seen here, I've also seen Math Mammoth generally described as more incremental, step by step. My concern about leaps was because I'm not very mathy and in older grades I don't know if I can handle teaching with too many leaps, but I also think its good for kids to have to figure things out sometimes instead of it being spoon fed. 

 

The idea of Singapore having leaps was really holding me back but if that isn't the case, I think I'd like to give it a try. On the other hand, Math Mammoth is much more affordable, its also easily reusable. Price matters to some degree, but it isn't the leading factor. I want something that challenges the kids to think. My son really enjoys the puzzle-like questions in MEP that I've been doing with him, and I like that it makes him think about things differently but there is no way I could do MEP as our spine. I have visual processing issues and the layout of the curriculum won't work for me. 

 

I know there have been a number of Singapore vs. Math Mammoth threads but if anyone has anything helpful to add, I'd appreciate it. 

[SparklyUnicorn]

It looks like this has a backstory that I didn't intend to dig up. 

 

I've been trying to compare Singapore and Math Mammoth. Aside from the "conceptual leaps" description I've seen here, I've also seen Math Mammoth generally described as more incremental, step by step. My concern about leaps was because I'm not very mathy and in older grades I don't know if I can handle teaching with too many leaps, but I also think its good for kids to have to figure things out sometimes instead of it being spoon fed. 

 

The idea of Singapore having leaps was really holding me back but if that isn't the case, I think I'd like to give it a try. On the other hand, Math Mammoth is much more affordable, its also easily reusable. Price matters to some degree, but it isn't the leading factor. I want something that challenges the kids to think. My son really enjoys the puzzle-like questions in MEP that I've been doing with him, and I like that it makes him think about things differently but there is no way I could do MEP as our spine. I have visual processing issues and the layout of the curriculum won't work for me. 

 

I know there have been a number of Singapore vs. Math Mammoth threads but if anyone has anything helpful to add, I'd appreciate it. 

 

FWIW this was not a problem for me at all with SM.  There is nothing special about my math abilities. 

[Spy Car]

It looks like this has a backstory that I didn't intend to dig up. 

 

I've been trying to compare Singapore and Math Mammoth. Aside from the "conceptual leaps" description I've seen here, I've also seen Math Mammoth generally described as more incremental, step by step. My concern about leaps was because I'm not very mathy and in older grades I don't know if I can handle teaching with too many leaps, but I also think its good for kids to have to figure things out sometimes instead of it being spoon fed. 

 

The idea of Singapore having leaps was really holding me back but if that isn't the case, I think I'd like to give it a try. On the other hand, Math Mammoth is much more affordable, its also easily reusable. Price matters to some degree, but it isn't the leading factor. I want something that challenges the kids to think. My son really enjoys the puzzle-like questions in MEP that I've been doing with him, and I like that it makes him think about things differently but there is no way I could do MEP as our spine. I have visual processing issues and the layout of the curriculum won't work for me. 

 

I know there have been a number of Singapore vs. Math Mammoth threads but if anyone has anything helpful to add, I'd appreciate it. 

 

Put aside concerns about "conceptual leaps" they (honestly) don't exist. PM is very methodical, and customizable by adding things like HIGs, IP, CWP, etc.

 

If you have problems with visual processing I'd suggest looking at both the PM and Math Mammoth materials to see which works for you. As a PM user it seems to have a lot more "negative space" and illustrations of concepts that appeal to children than MM does. But maybe *you* prefer the look of MM? Look and see.

 

MM does have the reputation of being more incremental than PM. Ask yourself if that is a good thing or a bad thing in your case. In our case PM was clear and efficient, a *more* incremental approach would have been boring. For a child who is quick on the uptake (and enjoys MEP-like challenges) the "core" of PM is going to seem pretty methodical, MM might seem slow. We added challenging supplements to PM (while appreciating the structure of Singapore math) to make the math program harder (more fun). For others the increased incrementalism of MM might be just the thing. Know your child. 

 

Another option (one I have not used) is Math-in-Focus. It is another program from Singapore (My Pals Are Here!) adapted to the American market. Some parents who've felt intimidated by PM have liked M-i-F for seeming teacher friendly.

 

If you chose PM you would benefit from reading from the various teaching materials so you "get" the method. MM in contrast is written to the student.

 

It isn't like you have any bad choices here. These program have different styles. That's a good thing. Try to settle on the one you think will fit you best.

 

Best wishes,

 

Bill

[twoxcell]

I have used SM PM US from 1a-6b and we have not run into any leaps that I can remember. ;)

[Lucy the Valiant]

We are an average-intelligence family who just finished Singapore 1A-6B (with 2 students) and didn't have any problems whatsoever. Got a couple of the younger levels still in progress, but Singapore has been an ideal fit for our family. It was *MY* first exposure to that "style" of math, but I can honestly say that I wish I had been taught that way, and I'm a total convert to the Singapore way.

 

We do use the HIG, as needed (many times my 2 students asked to skip "the lesson" because they already knew how to do the problems; if it was repetition / intensification, we skipped it, but if the lesson taught a new PROCESS, I made them listen to me, LOL).

[EmilyGF]

There is a ton of info in the HIG that is not in the textbook (and the publishers of the HIG would be wise to hire a better typesetter in the future - I was not impressed).

 

Emily

[Momto4inSoCal]

We haven't used Singapore math but we used math in focus which is based on the Singapore way of math. For my daughter it didn't work because she needed the extra steps that math mammoth provided. She is not math minded and the problems in MiF pushed her to the point of tears daily. Math Mammoth has been a life saver for us. It gives her step by step instruction to get her to the point of doing mental math and she understand different ways to do math problems. The turn around has been phenomenal. She doesn't like math and maybe she never will but now she understands it. My younger daughter I think would do great with MiF but since we are already using MM I am just going to stick with it. It really depends on the kid and what their needs are. 

[Crimson Wife]

The Standards edition HIG is a significant improvement over the U.S. Ed one, which is a major reason I switched editions partway through with my oldest. The U.S. Ed. HIG is not much more than an answer key with hardly any guidance for the teacher.

 

I've heard it claimed on this forum that the problem I referenced is "clearly a typo" but when it shows up in the textbook (not the IP) without warning and causes a meltdown in a normally compliant student, it sure did not feel like "just a typo".

[Crimson Wife]

The Standards edition HIG is a significant improvement over the U.S. Ed one, which is a major reason I switched editions partway through with my oldest. The U.S. Ed. HIG is not much more than an answer key with hardly any guidance for the teacher.

 

I've heard it claimed on this forum that the problem I referenced is "clearly a typo" but when it shows up in the textbook (not the IP) without warning and causes a meltdown in a normally compliant student, it sure did not feel like "just a typo".

[mamaraby]

The Standards edition HIG is a significant improvement over the U.S. Ed one, which is a major reason I switched editions partway through with my oldest. The U.S. Ed. HIG is not much more than an answer key with hardly any guidance for the teacher.

I'm not sure what HIG you're referring to. I've used 1A-4A (and own 4B) of the US Edition and the answer key portion takes up maybe 1/4 of the HIG and that's probably being generous and incouding Mental Math. The rest is guidance for the teacher. At the beginning of each section it explains the concept that will be taught and then each lesson has instructions on how to teach the lesson and any games you can play for renforcement.

 

I have noticed that both of my kids have needed a little extra practice with 1A and the beginning of 1B, but adding in EP seems to have helped dd quite a bit. I think ti would have helped ds if I had thought bout it when he went through 1A/B. I'm going to use it again with dd2 when she gets there. Aside from that, by the time we go over the lesson, the textbook, and the workbook exercise, there's just not enough time to add in much else without making math over long.

[Five More Minutes]

We've used Singapore here and so far (into 4B) haven't come across what I would consider a conceptual leap. Questions that made us think? Definitely. Times when we needed to slow down a bit? You bet. But nothing that ever made me feel that I didn't have the tools I needed within the program itself to adapt it for my child.

 

We tried Math Mammoth, but my daughters found the pages too busy *for them*. As far as they were concerned, Singapore was "cute" in the early levels and they begged for it.  :001_smile:

[TheAttachedMama]

I have used both Math Mammoth and Singapore....so I will try my best to compare them.  (Writing this without drinking my morning coffee....so hopefully it makes some type of sense!) :wacko:

 

Math Mammoth Pros:

1)  Cost:  It is a GREAT deal for a very nice math program.  For very little money, you can buy everything you need to teach math for an ENTIRE family for next to nothing.

2)  ONE Book:   I like that everything you need to teach the program is in one book.  (But see point 1 below.)

3)  Great Staff:   If you have questions, you can get direct support from the creator the program.  You aren't going to get that with Singapore

4)  VERY thorough program:   My daughter tested in the 99.9 percentile for her grade in math on standardized tests after using MM for a year.

5)  Aligned to the Common Core:  Pro or con?  I'm not sure.  But if there is a chance your kids might go to public school some day, you will know they will be doing the same stuff as the local school.

 

Math Mammoth Cons:

1)  For some unknown reason, MM made my formally-math-loving children HATE math.   They just HATED it.   I switched back to singapore and they are back to loving math again.   I think that MM has too much practice.   It felt like work for them.  That may have to do with how I assigned MM.  Maybe I should have skipped some problems or something?   I had them do two pages of math per day.  (That is the number of pages they had to do in order to finish the program in a year.)    I tend to be a box checker.  I have a hard time not doing everything on the page.  I start to worry if I skip something they won't have enough practice to have true mastery.   Plus, how do I know what to skip? 

 

With singapore, I can JUST assign the textbook and workbook pages.  (We do the textbook together as examples on the board, then they do the workbook independently.)   Then, IF I need more practice (or need to slow down) I can pull out the extra practice book and use that.

 

SO--my point:   My kids dreaded their MM worksheets.   BUT, they love their Singapore practice.   Little things like 'code cracking' puzzles and things like that make math fun for them.   Both my kids tell me they want to be math teachers now after switching to Singapore.  That is music to my ears! :wub:

 

2)  I mentioned that MM is a thorough program.  It is.   BUT, Singapore is just a tiny bit more academically rigorous IMHO.   (Some of those 2nd grade "Challenging" word problems are tough!)    Math is a high priority in my homeschool.  I really hope to raise kids with strong math backgrounds.  So we switched to Singapore for that reason. 

 

3)  MM is not very visually appealing to me.   This is a personal preference, but Singapore just looks more pleasing to the eye.   They obviously had a whole slew of graphic artists helping them with their layout. The bad thing is that you have to pay for that added visual quality! 

[cmarthur]

We have used Singapore Standards Edition 1B-4B and are also using Math Mammoth 4.  As others have said, the look and teaching of the two programs are different.  I have not found any conceptual leaps in Singapore but it does require a student to think beyond standard pencil and paper math.  MM has not worked for us.  The fact that everything is in tiny steps and only on the worksheets has been a problem for me.  I like Singapore's HIG which gives an explanation to the teacher at the start of each chapter on what will be learned as well as when prior and future concepts will be taught.  I like the background information that is given by the HIG.  With MM, I found myself not fully getting the author's purpose a few times.  I had to search out different ways to teach a concept because the MM one wasn't clicking while I recall Singapore sometimes providing different ways to teach a concept.  The other issue I had was trying to put together a lesson and independent practice with MM.  After teaching the concepts, I had to go back and say do these two problems, these three problems, etc..for independent practice..  It didn't flow well for us.  MM is a thorough program and a lot of people like it but worksheet after worksheet wasn't working for us.  My advice would be to try the MM samples on her website and then check out the Singapore books at a local bookstore. 

[4KookieKids]

So maybe I'm weird (and I'll give that we're only in grade 1 right now), but the examples given above don't show any "leap" in my opinion - just a logical extension/next step (i.e., manipulating one denominator vs manipulating two, knowing how to divide with remainders vs recursively dividing with remainders in the weight problem)

 

Put aside concerns about "conceptual leaps" they (honestly) don't exist. PM is very methodical, and customizable by adding things like HIGs, IP, CWP, etc.

 

 

For people with issues in Singapore making "conceptual leaps", do you use the home instructor guides? I've found that often people who are having issues are not using the guides... usually because they thought they weren't necessary. The guides are imperative. They contain half the curriculum really.

 

I feel like there are two conflicting opinions here: one being that the guides are optional (but help the program be customizable) and the other being that they are necessary. Does anyone else have thoughts on this or want to expand further on this?

 

Currently we're just using the student workbook for grade 1. My boy (5) loves it and will sometimes do extra lessons while his sisters watch a movie just so he has something else to do during the movie. :) I find the concepts simple enough to teach, though we often talk math at other times during the day, too. I planned to start using the student textbook in grade 2 as well (probably), but I'd really like to know if the guides are something I really should get as well. I was under the impression that they weren't necessary but would like to revise my thinking if they are. FWIW, I have a phd in math, and have taught at most every level, including teaching primary grade teachers. (Not saying this to boast, but am really wondering how much "extra" the guides would give me, given my background.) I choose Singapore because it most aligned with how I wanted to teach things, and also because I hate drill-and-kill. But I'd hate to not know I need the guides and wind up really sunk in a few years because their content was crucial in teaching the method correctly.

[Alice]

I used Singapore 1A-6B with my oldest. My second son is on Singapore 3B. My daughter is in 1A. We use the US edition. My oldest son is good in math, not a math genius kind of kid but he has a good solid understanding and also is much more intuitive about math that I am. I think that is partly him and partly Singapore. My middle son does not like math very much (but he doesn't like much of anything that is school related) but he's a pretty good student. He's not as quick or intuitive as his brother but Singapore has still been a good fit for him. My daughter is in kindergarten and LOVES everything so she doesn't really count for evaluating curriculum. :)

 

I have not found there to be major conceptual leaps. I think sometimes there are problems presented in the word problems section or challenging problems section that do expect the kids to think about a problem in a way that they haven't been explicitly taught. We just did the fractions section in 3B. There was one problem in the Challenging Problem section that did have them do problems like 1/2 + 2/3 and they had not been taught how to add fractions of unlike numerators and denominators. However, they had been taught how to convert fractions. It didn't take much for me to suggest to my son, "try converting it to different fractions and see if that helps". I also showed him how he could do it by drawing a picture of a circle and dividing it into the appropriate fractions. It was easy for him to see it that way. But those were challenging problems in the IP book, not the text book and those are the kind of problems I feel give Singapore it's strength. 

 

As for the HIG, I have all the ones for the US edition. I think they are pretty good. I have heard people say they aren't very good but I never found that to be the case. They definitely are more than an answer key. I used them a lot with my oldest and use them hardly at all with the others as I now feel like I know how to teach the Singapore method. Occasionally I pull them out for ideas if we hit a wall or someone seems to be struggling. I found the guides critical for helping to teach things the Singapore way, especially when you get to solving problems. The bar method is fantastic but wasn't intuitive for me to learn and the guides helped a lot with that. Just today, my son used what was essentially the bar method to solve a problem in his AOPS prealgebra book. He did it so quickly that I had to take another look to see if he was right. He was and it was a fairly nice simple elegant solution. 

 

Otherwise, we use the TB (which is really essential) and the Intensive Practice Book. With my oldest I didn't use the Workbook at all because it was too slow for him. For my middle son I use the Workbook some to give him extra practice on some concepts. For my daughter I use the Workbook because MORE IS BETTER in her eyes. :)

 

ETA: I don't think the HIG does much to customize the program other than give you more examples of ways to teach a concept and some games to use. The IP book and CWP were for us the real ways to make it more what we wanted. And I'd imagine the Extra Practice book is useful for a kid who needs more, well, practice. 

 

[Gil]

Something I've heard frequently in reviews about Singapore math is that there are more "conceptual leaps" than in other programs. That description seems to come up especially in comparisons to Math Mammoth. Can anyone give me an example of this? I'm just looking for some idea about how big the "leaps" are, lol. 

I don't know about Singapore Primary Mathematics from first hand experience, but SPM does have a lot of moving parts--textbooks, workbooks, extra practice books, home instructors guides, intensive practice books and challenging word problem books.

 

I would take this along with the fact that Americans notoriously denounce the value in drill/practice, and whether or not people were using the core components of the program--whatever those components are--properly and dutifully.

 

Singapores math education is considered serious success on a global scale. Countries admire, respect and (try to) emulate what Singaporean kids can do with math, so I highly doubt they just have "conceptual leaps" in their primary school curriculum for the hell of it.

Even without seeing the program up close or using it, I have every confidence that the teaching is measured and explicitly taught/guided. The program was written with the expectation that kids are drilling the fundamentals outside of school, that the teacher has a certain ability with teaching and with math. It might be that those complaining of conceptual leaps are just not following the program as prescribed or not drilling the basics enough.

 

[Southern Ivy]

nm

 

[Southern Ivy]

Put aside concerns about "conceptual leaps" they (honestly) don't exist. PM is very methodical, and customizable by adding things like HIGs, IP, CWP, etc.

 

If you have problems with visual processing I'd suggest looking at both the PM and Math Mammoth materials to see which works for you. As a PM user it seems to have a lot more "negative space" and illustrations of concepts that appeal to children than MM does. But maybe *you* prefer the look of MM? Look and see.

 

MM does have the reputation of being more incremental than PM. Ask yourself if that is a good thing or a bad thing in your case. In our case PM was clear and efficient, a *more* incremental approach would have been boring. For a child who is quick on the uptake (and enjoys MEP-like challenges) the "core" of PM is going to seem pretty methodical, MM might seem slow. We added challenging supplements to PM (while appreciating the structure of Singapore math) to make the math program harder (more fun). For others the increased incrementalism of MM might be just the thing. Know your child. 

 

Another option (one I have not used) is Math-in-Focus. It is another program from Singapore (My Pals Are Here!) adapted to the American market. Some parents who've felt intimidated by PM have liked M-i-F for seeming teacher friendly.

 

If you chose PM you would benefit from reading from the various teaching materials so you "get" the method. MM in contrast is written to the student.

 

It isn't like you have any bad choices here. These program have different styles. That's a good thing. Try to settle on the one you think will fit you best.

 

Best wishes,

 

Bill

Just curious how Crimson Wife's example has be debunked many times? 

 

I (and the other 7 grade level teachers) see this same thing within our enVision curriculum, which is modeled after Singapore math. We go through problem after problem of same denominator addition; then suddenly, they are expected to know how to change the denominators to common multiples. It is a jump in concepts and that concept is never covered in full (or again) 4th grade math. It's covered in 5th. 

 

[Roadrunner]

 

I feel like there are two conflicting opinions here: one being that the guides are optional (but help the program be customizable) and the other being that they are necessary. Does anyone else have thoughts on this or want to expand further on this?

 

 

 

I think this depends on the student and a teacher. Nothing in the SM method strikes me as "different" from a normal math instruction. I didn't grow up on American math, so SM method isn't strange to me. That's how I was taught growing up (minus bar models, which I learned in order to teach), so I can teach this without HIGs. I would recommend parents to at least read through the HIGs to understand how they are suppose to be teaching, if they don't already know it. 

 

I think it also depends on the student. My kids are very intuitive on math, so my attempts to do a "proper" SM lesson failed; they roll their eyes and beg to move on. They can do math without much of explaining at all, so for us, HIGs weren't necessary, even though I always order them because I don't want to be second guessing anything. 

If you have a kid that needs instruction in math, use HIGs. The lessons are well put together. 

[Roadrunner]

Just curious how Crimson Wife's example has be debunked many times? 

 

I (and the other 7 grade level teachers) see this same thing within our enVision curriculum, which is modeled after Singapore math. We go through problem after problem of same denominator addition; then suddenly, they are expected to know how to change the denominators to common multiples. It is a jump in concepts and that concept is never covered in full (or again) 4th grade math. It's covered in 5th. 

 

 

I am not SpyCar, but I believe that particular example is taught in the HIG. I gave away the lower level ones, but that's what I remember. 

 

 

We used enVision when my kids were in school. My boys said that all the problems were super easy and the entire class knew all the answers, but "think about it" (or something of the sort) section, which had a tougher problem.  We haven't seen upper elementary enVision, but yes, we weren't too impressed with the program. 

[SeaConquest]

I think this depends on the student and a teacher. Nothing in the SM method strikes me as "different" from a normal math instruction. I didn't grow up on American math, so SM method isn't strange to me. That's how I was taught growing up (minus bar models, which I learned in order to teach), so I can teach this without HIGs. I would recommend parents to at least read through the HIGs to understand how they are suppose to be teaching, if they don't already know it. 

 

I think it also depends on the student. My kids are very intuitive on math, so my attempts to do a "proper" SM lesson failed; they roll their eyes and beg to move on. They can do math without much of explaining at all, so for us, HIGs weren't necessary, even though I always order them because I don't want to be second guessing anything. 

If you have a kid that needs instruction in math, use HIGs. The lessons are well put together. 

 

This is my experience as well. I have the HIGs, but have seldom ever used them. Thus far, my son has just intuited SM, and we only use the IP and CWP. He is bored by the WB and TB. I don't have the experience that CW has with SM (we are just beginning 3A), but we have not experienced any conceptual leaps to date (even using the curriculum "incorrectly").

 

I also have personal experience with MM; we used 1A and B before jumping ship to SM. For my son, MM was too incremental, there were too many problems on the page, and he needed the rigor (with a side of cute) that SM provides. 

[Spy Car]

The Standards edition HIG is a significant improvement over the U.S. Ed one, which is a major reason I switched editions partway through with my oldest. The U.S. Ed. HIG is not much more than an answer key with hardly any guidance for the teacher.

 

I've heard it claimed on this forum that the problem I referenced is "clearly a typo" but when it shows up in the textbook (not the IP) without warning and causes a meltdown in a normally compliant student, it sure did not feel like "just a typo".

 

I was not a typo. The solution has been patiently explained to you (more than once) but you have continued to beat a dead-horse for 4 years. 

 

Give it a rest.

 

Bill

[EKS]

I felt there were a few conceptual leaps in 1B (I think it was).  It was something to do with moving into two digit addition.  But I used it back when there was no HIG for that level, so I was essentially winging it with a picture book.  We moved to RightStart for a season, and then back to 2A and had no further problems.

 

Singapore math is truly an amazing program.  

[Southern Ivy]

I am not SpyCar, but I believe that particular example is taught in the HIG. I gave away the lower level ones, but that's what I remember. 

 

 

We used enVision when my kids were in school. My boys said that all the problems were super easy and the entire class knew all the answers, but "think about it" (or something of the sort) section, which had a tougher problem.  We haven't seen upper elementary enVision, but yes, we weren't too impressed with the program. 

What is the HIG? 

ETA: 

Never mind. Figured it out via google. :)

 

 

That's very interesting about your kids and enVision. I guess it depends on what they were using prior to enVision. It's been a change for my students since we used Everyday Math. When we first began piloting enVision, it was 10x harder for my students. As the years go by and we see more students who have been exposed for several years, it's not as hard, but it's still challenging for them, especially the writing/problem solving aspects. 

[Sneezyone]

Singapore Standards first teaches multiples and equivalent fractions in grade 3 and amplifies in grade 4 (by adding factors). There is no 'leap' in grade 4. The HiG (Home instructor's guide) makes this transition seamless.

[TracyP]

I used most of SM 1 and parts of 2. I did see leaps but agree that they were small, probably designed to make kids think. The thing was, for my dd (who is thriving with AoPS this year), these leaps were too much for her. She loved the incremental breakdown of steps in MM, which we ended up using alongside CLE. For us it was better to have those steps there, and skip if it was too incremental, than to not have them.

 

I think that the size of these leaps depends on the teacher and student. The teacher because at this point I could probably make any elementary program work - I could not have said that 5 years ago. I didn't know how to back up and reteach. Honestly, at the time I just freaked out. :blush: The student because if the kid intuits these "leaps" than neither teacher or student will even notice they are there. I suspect that is why you see disagreement here. I have no doubt some kids never felt a leap at all. I know for a fact that at least one kid did. ;)

[Spy Car]

 

That's very interesting about your kids and enVision. I guess it depends on what they were using prior to enVision. It's been a change for my students since we used Everyday Math. When we first began piloting enVision, it was 10x harder for my students. As the years go by and we see more students who have been exposed for several years, it's not as hard, but it's still challenging for them, especially the writing/problem solving aspects. 

 

My son is finishing up with enVision (5) this year (after starting in K).

 

enVision would not be my choice were I in charge, but it is not bad. Not GREAT, but not bad.

 

Too much bouncing from topic to topic for my taste, and the emphasis on "estimation" makes me kookoo. I wish that it had a fully fleshed math model (like Singapore Primary Mathematics does) instead of a sort of half-way implementation of "Singapore math." But some adoption of Singapore-style math is better than none.

 

Bill

[Arcadia]

That's very interesting about your kids and enVision. I guess it depends on what they were using prior to enVision. It's been a change for my students since we used Everyday Math. When we first began piloting enVision, it was 10x harder for my students. As the years go by and we see more students who have been exposed for several years, it's not as hard, but it's still challenging for them, especially the writing/problem solving aspects. 

 

My district have been using enVision Math for a long time, before my oldest was in kindergarten.  Not impressed but tolerable.  My district is using enVisionMATH® California Common Core now since they buy the new workbooks yearly for the students, they spend over $100 per kid for math curriculum in K-5.  My older get to bring home his enVisionMATH workbook when he was in public school. 

 

As for whether there are conceptual leaps in Singapore Primary Maths, that depends on the parent and the child.  Singapore math teachers have comprehensive training though and do get put back under mentoring if needed.

[Southern Ivy]

My son is finishing up with enVision (5) this year (after starting in K).

 

enVision would not be my choice were I in charge, but it is not bad. Not GREAT, but not bad.

 

Too much bouncing from topic to topic for my taste, and the emphasis on "estimation" makes me kookoo. I wish that it had a fully fleshed math model (like Singapore Primary Mathematics does) instead of a sort of half-way implementation of "Singapore math." But some adoption of Singapore-style math is better than none.

 

Bill

Agreed on the estimation. I hate it and so do my students. 

 

I do like what/how I teach with enVision (of course, almost anything would have been an improvement over Everyday Math). So, knowing it's just a "sort of half-way implementation of Singapore math" makes me even more excited to be able to use Singapore math with my daughter later on. 

[Roadrunner]

My son is finishing up with enVision (5) this year (after starting in K).

 

enVision would not be my choice were I in charge, but it is not bad. Not GREAT, but not bad.

 

Too much bouncing from topic to topic for my taste, and the emphasis on "estimation" makes me kookoo. I wish that it had a fully fleshed math model (like Singapore Primary Mathematics does) instead of a sort of half-way implementation of "Singapore math." But some adoption of Singapore-style math is better than none.

 

Bill

 

Not to derail this thread, but just curious what you middle school is going to use. 

I am not sure what our middle school uses, but I know our high school uses CC math published by Carnegie Learning. I can't find a single review. 

[Spy Car]

Agreed on the estimation. I hate it and so do my students. 

 

I do like what/how I teach with enVision (of course, almost anything would have been an improvement over Everyday Math). So, knowing it's just a "sort of half-way implementation of Singapore math" makes me even more excited to be able to use Singapore math with my daughter later on. 

 

If you like enVision (which is not unreasonable) you will love Primary Mathematics. It is the real deal.

 

Bill

[Spy Car]

Not to derail this thread, but just curious what you middle school is going to use. 

I am not sure what our middle school uses, but I know our high school uses CC math published by Carnegie Learning. I can't find a single review. 

 

We will be in an unusual situation in that my son will be entering one of the very few programs in the huge Los Angeles school district that is being allowed to "accelerate" students (a no-no under common core) this year. So for him 6th will be Prealgebra (with a little bit of standard 6th Grade math thrown in.) 

 

They may be changing textbooks (as the old ones are not really "common core" aligned) and the teachers at this "Math Academy" use a lot of their own materials in any case.

 

So I don't know for sure.

 

Bill

[aprilleigh]

I'll admit right up front that I'm rather math-oriented myself, as is my DS, so what may be seen as a leap to someone who isn't all that strong in math is likely to be completely overlooked by us. That said, I've gone over my notes from the beginning and I haven't found any weaknesses of that sort in the Standards Edition so far (I have everything from the Kindergarten program through 3B of Primary Mathematics). The few times we've run into something that seemed to require a bit more explanation here and there have been in the Intensive Practice (IP) books, which are actually aligned with the US Edition. The Home Instructor Guides (HIGs) are absolutely essential, however, even for someone math-oriented like me. If you don't use the HIGs you are far more likely to run into things like this.

 

To me, Singapore was a no-brainer, primarily because I wanted the rigor. My son is math and science oriented, so I knew he would thrive on that. The layout is pleasing to both of us, the problems are adequate (might be insufficient for a student that needs more practice, but that's what the Extra Practice is for), and the HIG is very definitely an integral part of the program if you don't purchase the Teacher's Guides (the HIG is a home instructor's version of the classroom-oriented Teacher's Guide).

[sweetpea3829]

Re: obtaining the HIGs...I would suggest it, if only because it often presents multiple ways of teaching a concept and that can be beneficial.  They aren't that expensive.

 

 

Somebody mentioned that the TB is essential.   Honestly, eldest DS and I rarely crack his textbook.  We have used Singapore from K through 3B (halfway...which is where we are now).

 

Actually, the only thing I really use the TB for is the review sections, which I often assign to DS as a "test".  Yes, we have the Test books, too...but I usually put those aside for summer review.  I would probably not buy the test books (because we have plenty of other review options) if it weren't for the fact that I have two younger boys that I hope to continue Singapore with.  And they may need the test books for extra review.  

 

But thus far...the TBs have been pretty useless for us.  DS and I do the lessons from the HIG on our whiteboard.  He is a math-intuitive kid, though.