Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I hear a lot about Singapore Math, but it's really hard for me to fully grasp what it constitutes, or how it's different, because there do not seem to be a lot of free resources on the internet. I'm particularly curious about where it falls along the traditional math------constructivist math continuum, and I'd also like to know how this might be used in a classroom to supplement district-issued textbooks and resources. And if there's anything else you can tell me about Singapore Math or how it works in your experience (especially for students that have been taught math using other methods), I'd love to hear it!
My kids were taught singapore math through 6th grade. When dd#2 moved back to the public school in 7th grade, she tested out of 9th grade algebra but we made her take it anyway as we did not want our then 7th grader taking 10th grade math at the high school. Her sister skipped algebra when she moved back to the public school in 9th grade but, later, had to take it when we transferred her to a much more rigorous school that would not accept what she did in Singapore math as algebra I (algebra I was a cake walk for her).
I think it's a wonderful program.
It did not seem constructionist to me. What it's strong in is logical reasoning. Kids are doing story problems and reasoning through solutions from 2nd grade on (dd#2 started this program in 2nd grade, her sister in 5th grade so she didn't get quite the advantage).
My kids were taught singapore math through 6th grade. When dd#2 moved back to the public school in 7th grade, she tested out of 9th grade algebra but we made her take it anyway as we did not want our then 7th grader taking 10th grade math at the high school. Her sister skipped algebra when she moved back to the public school in 9th grade but, later, had to take it when we transferred her to a much more rigorous school that would not accept what she did in Singapore math as algebra I (algebra I was a cake walk for her).
I think it's a wonderful program.
It did not seem constructionist to me. What it's strong in is logical reasoning. Kids are doing story problems and reasoning through solutions from 2nd grade on (dd#2 started this program in 2nd grade, her sister in 5th grade so she didn't get quite the advantage).
Thanks for the information. I'm curious as to how an upper-elementary/early middle grades (4th-6th) teacher might use some of this in a classroom where students have never seen it before? I know that in reality they should do it everyday if they're going to do it, but I'm not sure that with what's assigned by the district that it is really possible. I would like to incorporate a little bit to see how they do, or perhaps use it as a supplement when time permits.
In regards to the traditional-constructivist aspect, I have read and it seems like Singapore Math is a more traditional method. But then I look online and see some of the companies selling SM products pointing out how it incorporates the use of manipulatives and that this makes it constructivist. It's a bit confusing, but I also suspect that because constructivism seems to be "all the rage" these days that they may just throw that in there to get people to buy the product.
Thanks for the information. I'm curious as to how an upper-elementary/early middle grades (4th-6th) teacher might use some of this in a classroom where students have never seen it before? I know that in reality they should do it everyday if they're going to do it, but I'm not sure that with what's assigned by the district that it is really possible. I would like to incorporate a little bit to see how they do, or perhaps use it as a supplement when time permits.
In regards to the traditional-constructivist aspect, I have read and it seems like Singapore Math is a more traditional method. But then I look online and see some of the companies selling SM products pointing out how it incorporates the use of manipulatives and that this makes it constructivist. It's a bit confusing, but I also suspect that because constructivism seems to be "all the rage" these days that they may just throw that in there to get people to buy the product.
I do know it was less effective with dd#1 who started the program in 5th grade, however, she was testing one year behind in math when she entered 5th grade and testing one year ahead in math when she finished 5th grade. They jumped her to the G&T track for 6th grade as a result. Unfortunately, they did not continue the program in middle school. I think she lost ground there and ended up about half a year ahead but that wasn't enough to allow her to skip algebra. Dd#2 was 3 years ahead in math in 7th grade. Because we did not want our 7th grader in classes wiht 10th graders and moving between schools, we made her take algebra anyway because it was taught at the middle school as an 8th grade honors course so she's only two years ahead in math now.
Both of my kids reason through problems with ease. I predict both will love and do well with calculus as a result. The program really reminds me of how calculus was presented in college. Lots of story problems and applications for math. Algebra isn't taught as a separate course, it's woven in to the program from an early age (they start with just leaving a box and having students solve for what's in the box then introduce variables later). It's very visual. I remember my kids doing problems where they divided things up into boxes and then reasoned out the answers. (hard to explain on line) It was very algebra like but without the variables. Just boxes and dividing them up and figuring out what the missing number was. This could, easily, be done with manipulatives but I think it would be less effective as the manipulatives might become a crutch. My kids can mentally move those peices around in their heads and make it fit.
I think you're right on the manipulatives. I don't recall my dd's using them. You have to sell what people want.
I do know it was less effective with dd#1 who started the program in 5th grade, however, she was testing one year behind in math when she entered 5th grade and testing one year ahead in math when she finished 5th grade. They jumped her to the G&T track for 6th grade as a result. Unfortunately, they did not continue the program in middle school. I think she lost ground there and ended up about half a year ahead but that wasn't enough to allow her to skip algebra. Dd#2 was 3 years ahead in math in 7th grade. Because we did not want our 7th grader in classes wiht 10th graders and moving between schools, we made her take algebra anyway because it was taught at the middle school as an 8th grade honors course so she's only two years ahead in math now.
Both of my kids reason through problems with ease. I predict both will love and do well with calculus as a result. The program really reminds me of how calculus was presented in college. Lots of story problems and applications for math. Algebra isn't taught as a separate course, it's woven in to the program from an early age (they start with just leaving a box and having students solve for what's in the box then introduce variables later). It's very visual. I remember my kids doing problems where they divided things up into boxes and then reasoned out the answers. (hard to explain on line) It was very algebra like but without the variables. Just boxes and dividing them up and figuring out what the missing number was. This could, easily, be done with manipulatives but I think it would be less effective as the manipulatives might become a crutch. My kids can mentally move those peices around in their heads and make it fit.
I think you're right on the manipulatives. I don't recall my dd's using them. You have to sell what people want.
I understand what you mean with the empty boxes being used for division. I've seen it used in other math curriculum, though only as what I would describe as a novelty.
One more question...if a student finishes the program up through 6B (I think that's how it is termed), about how far along does that correlate with the American math sequence? Roughly through Algebra I and HS Geometry? Or even a little further? I know that they say that 6B is on par with 7th grade math, but they don't really say what that means or covers. The United States is one of the few countries that compartmentalizes courses focusing on single topics (i.e. algebra II one year, trigonometry the next year, and so on) once students hit secondary school, so that makes it difficult for me to try to compare scope when looking at what is used in other countries.
I understand what you mean with the empty boxes being used for division. I've seen it used in other math curriculum, though only as what I would describe as a novelty.
One more question...if a student finishes the program up through 6B (I think that's how it is termed), about how far along does that correlate with the American math sequence? Roughly through Algebra I and HS Geometry? Or even a little further? I know that they say that 6B is on par with 7th grade math, but they don't really say what that means or covers. The United States is one of the few countries that compartmentalizes courses focusing on single topics (i.e. algebra II one year, trigonometry the next year, and so on) once students hit secondary school, so that makes it difficult for me to try to compare scope when looking at what is used in other countries.
I would say they'd either test out of algebra I or be ready to take algebra I in 7th grade. That's two years early in my district. IMO, as a parent and a teacher, they would have no need for middle school math and could jump right to high school math. Unfortunately, for dd#1, we did not move her back to district in 7th grade. I'm sure she would have, at least, qualified to take algebra I in 7th grade if we had. Instead she went through two years of middle school math that did nothing for her. I'm convinced that middle school math is all about catching up the kids who are behind before high school starts and it does nothing for kids who are ahead. Dd#1, unfortunately, was our experimental child so she lost the advantage she gained going through Singapore math. Her sister didn't. We knew better with her.
Some districts do have separate tracks for accelerated students in middle school. In fact kids in my local district can take Pre-algebra as early as 6th grade and be taking Algebra II by the time they're freshmen in high school.
From what I've seen, for on-level students there is a lot of review in middle school, but also with some new concepts sprinkled in.
Some districts do have separate tracks for accelerated students in middle school. In fact kids in my local district can take Pre-algebra as early as 6th grade and be taking Algebra II by the time they're freshmen in high school.
From what I've seen, for on-level students there is a lot of review in middle school, but also with some new concepts sprinkled in.
Our district does. This is what dd#2 did. The charter school that dd#1 attended for middle school did not. They had one math class for middle school. What dd#1 got was a lot of things she already knew reinforced while her sister skipped middle school math alltogether. She took algebra in 7th grade and then walked over to the high school to take geometry in 8th.
There are tracks by 5th grade in the middle schools here. Middle school is 5th and 6th and Jr. High is 7th and 8th. The problem we are having with that is that my granddaughter is advanced in math and science, but not necessarily in language arts and social studies. They do not allow for kids who are gifted in one area but not another area until 7th grade. So she is struggling with her language arts and social studies because she is in all g/t instead of in average for those and g/t for the math and science. It's a conundrum because if she was in all average classes, she would be bored with the math and science curriculum.
I understand what you mean with the empty boxes being used for division. I've seen it used in other math curriculum, though only as what I would describe as a novelty.
One more question...if a student finishes the program up through 6B (I think that's how it is termed), about how far along does that correlate with the American math sequence? Roughly through Algebra I and HS Geometry? Or even a little further? I know that they say that 6B is on par with 7th grade math, but they don't really say what that means or covers. The United States is one of the few countries that compartmentalizes courses focusing on single topics (i.e. algebra II one year, trigonometry the next year, and so on) once students hit secondary school, so that makes it difficult for me to try to compare scope when looking at what is used in other countries.
Singapore math basically it is about using the concept of the Model Method (MM) to solve math problems. Through MM, a student learns the skills and heuristic of solving problems, mainly the skills of analysis, synthesis and application. These skills prepare students for higher learning of math. With the necessary skills, students will be able to learn trigonometry, statistics, calculus without much difficulties! The MM just provides the learners with basic foundation in learning math and pre-algebra. When an abstract problem becomes visual, it will alleviate the fear of learning math. This concept makes math easy.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
