Was Singapore CWP worth the time and effort?

[matrips]

We've always tried to do IP and CWP but we are never caught up it seems. My kids get math fairly easily, but by the time we do the Textbook and Workbook and corrections, it is long enough.

 

So for those who have invested the time in CWP, was it worth it for your kids? How did it pay off? Or was it not worth it?

 

I searched old threads and was surprised by how many people only do the text and workbook and then move on. Do people really find them that simple and unimportant? I find the CWP books challenging. And I was an engineer who loved math. We are in CWP 5 now. Some are easy, some are tough. Some are just time consuming. I'm trying to get my kids in the habit of reading the problem, labeling info, and drawing pictures or writing equations. I don't just want the answer, I want the thought process. Am I overdoing it? I keep thinking it will be good habits for higher math, but maybe I'm just out of school too long.

[Alice]

We definitely found it worth it. My oldest is fairly quick in Math so I chose to only use the Textbook and IP with him. He didn't need the number of problems in the Workbook. That gave us some extra time. My second son sometimes needs more practice so I use all three with him. 

 

We also always did the CWP one level behind what we were doing. So if they were in Singapore 4, they did CWP 3. It served as review and I also found that the challenge of the problem was easier when the concept was not also new. 

 

[Zoo Keeper]

For my oldest, no, CWP or IP was not worth it.  Nothing but tears and frustration.  Even working a level behind.  It just made him hate word problems.  I do mean hate...  Mental block a mile high and a mile wide...  Dropped both CWP and IP around level 4 and he is grateful.  Truly grateful and blessed. ;)

 

For the next boy, yes, CWP *and* IP were worth it.  He needed (and even craved) the challenge, even though he had a love/hate relationship with the books.  He did IP through level 4, and is now just doing CWP as a supplement. 

 

Boy #3?  Is currently doing just CWP a level behind his grade; it has been good for him in building his problem solving skills.  I've had him do only 1-3 problems daily (ish), or he becomes waaay too frustrated.  I'm trying to avoid the same disaster my oldest had with CWP.  So far, so good. :)

 

Child #4?  She is working at grade level in CWP, and is trending like my second son did in math.  Very good for her, even though she doesn't always want to admit it. 

 

I will say that doing CWP *and* IP may be overkill.  The Intensive Practice books are well, more intensive, and could be the straw that is breaking the camel's back for some kids.  So far, only one of mine has truly done well with the IP books (but I do like the variety of problems in the IP books better...)

 

 

 

 

[matrips]

For my oldest, no, CWP or IP was not worth it. Nothing but tears and frustration. Even working a level behind. It just made him hate word problems. I do mean hate... Mental block a mile high and a mile wide... Dropped both CWP and IP around level 4 and he is grateful. Truly grateful and blessed. ;)

 

For the next boy, yes, CWP *and* IP were worth it. He needed (and even craved) the challenge, even though he had a love/hate relationship with the books. He did IP through level 4, and is now just doing CWP as a supplement.

 

Boy #3? Is currently doing just CWP a level behind his grade; it has been good for him in building his problem solving skills. I've had him do only 1-3 problems daily (ish), or he becomes waaay too frustrated. I'm trying to avoid the same disaster my oldest had with CWP. So far, so good. :)

 

Child #4? She is working at grade level in CWP, and is trending like my second son did in math. Very good for her, even though she doesn't always want to admit it.

 

I will say that doing CWP *and* IP may be overkill. The Intensive Practice books are well, more intensive, and could be the straw that is breaking the camel's back for some kids. So far, only one of mine has truly done well with the IP books (but I do like the variety of problems in the IP books better...)

So for your oldest, who didn't stick with it, he still does fine in higher math? I'm trying to find out if CWP is worth it from a 'makes future math so much easier' viewpoint.

[Zoo Keeper]

So for your oldest, who didn't stick with it, he still does fine in higher math? I'm trying to find out if CWP is worth it from a 'makes future math so much easier' viewpoint.

 

My oldest....hmmm, he is average in math.  Really, really, average.  He does fine, but he has to work very hard at it.  He needs smaller steps (less challenge and less intensive), and lots and lots of review.  He does Rod & Staff math at grade level, because that is where he is.  CWP did not make higher math any easier for him--it only continually convinced him that he couldn't do math.  Maybe if I had been a better *math teacher* in in earlier years, it might have had a difference for him, but he just isn't wired to understand and then apply math concepts easily.  He needs an amazing amount of process review before the lightbulb goes on.  THEN we can go over the concept that makes the process work.  The CWP books don't lend themselves to that kind of thought process very well.  It took me a few years to figure that out for this kid. 

 

For my second boy--yes, working through the challenge of CWP has been helpful in building his stick-to-it-even-though-it's-hard math muscles.  But he has always enjoyed working with concepts in math.  Totally different kid than his brother. 

[MrSmith]

So for those who have invested the time in CWP, was it worth it for your kids? How did it pay off? Or was it not worth it?

 

I searched old threads and was surprised by how many people only do the text and workbook and then move on. Do people really find them that simple and unimportant? I find the CWP books challenging. And I was an engineer who loved math. We are in CWP 5 now. Some are easy, some are tough. Some are just time consuming. I'm trying to get my kids in the habit of reading the problem, labeling info, and drawing pictures or writing equations. I don't just want the answer, I want the thought process. Am I overdoing it? I keep thinking it will be good habits for higher math, but maybe I'm just out of school too long.

 

For my kid the CWP was definitely worth it.  The problems not only reinforced the idea that math is not simply a collection of isolated ideas, but also fostered in him a sense of committment and accomplishment that elementary word problems just didn't provide.  I'm also with you on the need to clearly show the thought process behind the answer.  We have a slogan: "No Work = No Points".  Now he is finally starting the see the value in organizing his work, and I am hoping it carries on throughout the higher levels.

[EmilyGF]

When we used a different curriculum, we used CWP and that was good.

 

I think CWP and IP is overkill because IP already has many challenging word problems.

[SparklyUnicorn]

I have mixed feelings.  I used CWP with my first kid.  I felt like we spent so much time on the method just to have that not really be useful once we got to algebra.  I do think working on word problems is useful, but I don't know that we really needed to do that many at that level and I found the wording with some of them to be very confusing.

 

Then with my second kid I used Math in Focus.  There are word problems in the book (far more than in PM).  I felt that was enough.  The wording of the problems was also a lot clearer to me.

 

My first kid used IP too.  I thought IP was better than CWP.

 

 

 

 

[madteaparty]

We did not use IP.

CWP was hard, and we used them faithfully until book 5 or so, but, we did not use the Singapore bar method. Just learned how to set up an equation. That sort of problem solving is now DS' strongest area in math, so yes, worth it.

[Farrar]

No. I had both my boys doing the CWP at various points and they just struggled with it. And I struggled to teach this wacky method. I finally gave up. I don't see that the time invested was worth it down the line. In fact, one kid who struggled so much that I finally just thought, gee, this kid will never ever do well with word problems, suddenly started doing well with word problems, even really complex ones. And I can only conclude it was almost completely developmental.

 

With one of my boys after he clicked with word problems more, we switched to Process Skills in Problem Solving - I found the problems built up better from easy to hard, were easier to teach, were written better, and just had better instruction in the text than the CWP, which I always found just weird. Now he's doing some of the fifth and sixth grade ones on the side - just a couple a day - while doing pre-algebra. It exercises his brain in a really different way and is keeping some of his skills fresh. I like it so much better this way than trying to make him do them as we went.

[Woodland Mist Academy]

We did not use IP.

CWP was hard, and we used them faithfully until book 5 or so, but, we did not use the Singapore bar method. Just learned how to set up an equation. That sort of problem solving is now DS' strongest area in math, so yes, worth it.

 

I wish we would have done them this way. We used the Singapore bar method, which we have not used since. My dh never understood why I didn't just go straight to equations. I thought there was some brilliant reason to do the bar method first. There wasn't. At least not for my dd.

 

[mamaraby]

CWP wasn't enough hand holding for me or my kid, but Process Skills in Problem Solving was just right. I'm on my second swing through Singapore and I started dd out with Process Skills in Problem Solving and added in Extra Practice (instead of IP) and it's a really good combo. I plan on doing the same thing my third and final time around.

[kbutton]

CWP wasn't enough hand holding for me or my kid, but Process Skills in Problem Solving was just right. I'm on my second swing through Singapore and I started dd out with Process Skills in Problem Solving and added in Extra Practice (instead of IP) and it's a really good combo. I plan on doing the same thing my third and final time around.

 

We are planning to add the Process Skills books and to keep the IP next year. We use US edition for the text if that makes a difference in your thinking about it.

 

As for "worth it" with the bar modeling--I was not very good at setting up efficient equations in algebra. My equations were always the long way to do things. When I work out a bar model, I feel like it's helping me think about the problem in the most efficient way, and I think that will translate to algebraic thinking. Hopefully the Process Skills books will enhance this and also help us with the few IP problems we get hung up on. I feel like the CWP mixes in problems together in the same section that aren't quite the same, and we need more instruction.

[pitterpatter]

DD's strong suit is word problems, but she takes little joy in solving them. Although I bought IP this year, I dropped CWP. Of all subjects, DD just wants to get through math...the quicker the better. She's not bad at it, she just doesn't like it. She doesn't want to work on more challenging material for fun or any other reason. (Now logic, that's different.) There are more than enough extra word problems and everything else in IP for us. We rarely use it either, though. Extra math = tears for us.

 

We've used Process Skills before and DD did kind of enjoy it. Seeing talk of it, I may buy it again for our next level.

[matrips]

I guess we will keep chugging along. funny, in CWP 5 we are setting up half the problems using algebra/equations and the other half with bar diagrams, or sometimes a combination of it. I think it's giving them a good feel for how one can help the other. They seem to be more successful in this book than in past ones, but we are just a week in. But so far so good, and they are gaining confidence.

[EmilyGF]

The process skill problems, IMO, are better explained and easier. My kids zoomed through the books in a matter of weeks and came out better prepared for CWP.

[g1234]

I didn't even know IP and CWP existed when mine were in Singapore PM. We just did text and workbook. My older later went on to be very successful with Foerster Algebra 1 in 8th grade, and my younger is doing great with Singapore DM. Just another perspective....

[madteaparty]

I didn't even know IP and CWP existed when mine were in Singapore PM. We just did text and workbook. My older later went on to be very successful with Foerster Algebra 1 in 8th grade, and my younger is doing great with Singapore DM. Just another perspective....

Can I ask, what do you use for DM and do you find it complete as a curriculum? I recently ordered the workbooks to supplement AoPS and really really like them, except for the fact that the solutions in the solution book seem more like answers than solutions. This, I suspect, is why I can't use these as main curriculum, but I love the simplicity of the workbooks.

Ps: to address other posts, yes we preferred process skills books to CWP, but discovered them fairly late.

[g1234]

Can I ask, what do you use for DM and do you find it complete as a curriculum? I recently ordered the workbooks to supplement AoPS and really really like them, except for the fact that the solutions in the solution book seem more like answers than solutions. This, I suspect, is why I can't use these as main curriculum, but I love the simplicity of the workbooks.

Ps: to address other posts, yes we preferred process skills books to CWP, but discovered them fairly late.

 

We use the textbook, the workbook, and the solutions manuals for each.  (The parts add up in cost, plus from what I understand it's now very hard to find the parts for sale, which is why I bought up everything for the full series as soon as I heard about publishing issues.)  She does all the textbook problems, and I select some workbook problems for her to do after she's done with each chapter.  Yes, I do consider it a complete curriculum--in fact, a deep and challenging one.  I have heard that if you're going to do the SAT subject test in math, there might be a few things to add in because our country does math a little differently, but overall it doesn't sound like something to be worried about.  The one thing that some people might be concerned about is that it does not do proof-heavy, American-style geometry.  It absolutely does geometry very thoroughly, but there is very little emphasis on proofs--as I remember, one of the last books has a cursory chapter or two on proofs.  I am okay with this, personally.  My older (a Foerster girl) is doing geometry with proofs this year, and that's fine, too.  I know people can have very strong opinions about whether or not geometry proofs are important.  I'm not one of them.  I do notice that the DM workbook problems (which are more challenging than the textbook problems) definitely have her doing progressively more advanced algebra proofs, though they don't call it that.  They usually just say, "Show that..."  For example, workbook problem 19b for Chapter 3 of DM8A says, "Show that m2[squared] + 2mn + n2[squared] + m + n is even if m and n are positive integers."  So without talking about or explicitly teaching proofs, it's starting to lead her along the path of that kind of thinking and math manipulations.

 

My children are a case study in why you can't just name one curriculum as objectively excellent.  My older tried and hated DM after Singapore PM (which she loved).  It killed all her interest and her self-confidence.  Foerster (mastery approach) has been perfect for her.  But when my younger came along post-Singapore PM, we tried a few things (Dolciani, Saxon, and AoPS), all of which deadened her blossoming love of math, until I tentatively tried the DM that older had so hated.  The light came back into younger's eyes and now she happily spends at least 1 1/2 hours/day on math, and wishes she felt she had time for more.  So I highly recommend DM, but with that caveat.

 

Hth!