It’s an unwritten or unspoken fact that other than local Singapore parents and homeschoolers, both local and foreign math students and teachers are equally kiasu, with the extreme ones being conferred the ignoble title of “Ugly Singaporean.”
In the age of the pandemic, how would you redefine the word “kiasu” in math or math education? Below is one such attempt to relook at this Singaporean “negative trait.”
Singapore’s CPDD’s Primary Math One Textbook
Are we guilty of “mathematical kiasuism” without even being aware of it? Or we think that no one would notice it!
It’s never too late to stop and ask ourselves every now and then whether our actions (or inactions) have made us more or less kiasu.
Are we prone to rationalizing our “selfish” behaviors because after all few folks are really “hurt” or “inconvenienced” by our doings (or “wrongdoings”)? Isn’t it a thousand times easier to spot a “mathematical kiasuist” than reluctantly admitting that we’d be one ourselves, knowingly or unknowingly?
Parents are generally blamed to be super-kiasu. Teachers are über-kiasu. Students are kiasu. What about math editors, writers, or consultants? Are they less so?
Based on feedback from dozens of school teachers, editors, authors, tutors, and parents, below are ten local publishers that are known to sell thick and cheap Singapore math books, and most of them are also notorious for being indifferent or allergic to editorial, conceptual, and linguistic ills. Don’t say you haven’t been warned!
A common sight at Popular bookstores: The first three shelves are stacked with EPH math titles.
BookOne
Casco Publications Pte Ltd
EPH (Educational Publishing House Pte Ltd)
Examaid Book Publishers Pte Ltd
FBP (Fairfield Book Publishers)
Penman (Penman Publishing House Pte Ltd)
Raffles Publications
SAP Education
teachers@work (an imprint of SAP)
Success Publications Pte Ltd
Even in educational publishing, it would be naive for us to think that we could get “good, cheap, and updated” math titles. Undiscerning potential buyers continually think that most local publishers are nonprofit, which offer decent Singapore math titles with a wallet-friendly price tag, except perhaps for a few odd balls, who publish books out of passion for the subject.
Cheap Singapore math assessment books are notoriously littered with mistakes and out-of-syllabus topics, because most of these titles are ghostwritten, if not, written by reluctant editors on a payroll. And yet, undiscerning parents never fail to go for those thick, cheap (hopefully, not “cheat”) supplementary math titles, thinking that they’re getting a pretty good deal.
Bargain Hunters
It always tickles me to witness mothers flip through so many assessment books in Popular bookstores, and after that, they still opt for the thick, cheap ones.
In the early days, parents used to buy math books that were “authored” by those with a PhD, but as consumers become more educated and informed, the percentage of buyers who are still title-conscious seem to have gone down exponentially.
A publishing hypothesis based on feedback from sales and marketing personnel from publishing houses is that the sales figures of Singapore math titles by writers in academia are disappointingly low. Consumers are no longer lured by thick titles, “authored” or “consulted” by those with big academic titles.
Consultant or Con-sultant
Two consultants, five authors.
Interestingly, but not surprisingly, it’s an open secret that a disturbing number of National Institute of Education (NIE) lecturers, and a few moonlighters from the National University of Singapore (NUS), who had served as profs-turned-consultants for local and foreign publishers, had their ghostwritten or consulted manuscripts rejected by the Ministry of Education (MOE), Singapore.
Just because they have a PhD or are a tenured faculty staff is no guarantee that they‘ve the knowhow or make-up to add value to a manuscript. Or, just because they’ve been supervising trainee teachers for years or decades, or they’d published a dozen-odd papers in reputable journals doesn’t necessarily make them a suitable math consultant or general editor for a set of textbooks, which need to be MOE-approved before they’re allowed to be used in local schools.
Under-deliver and Over-promise
Two PhDs and Four Authors
At best, their cosmetic suggestions are worth less than a dime a dozen. At worst, their “inputs” had led publishers to lose millions of dollars’ worth of potential revenue due to their MOE-unapproved consulted manuscripts, not to say, missed overseas sales, in the light of growing global interest on Singapore math.
A check with textbook editors who have been in the industry for decades reveals that more often than not, local lecturers from both the NIE and NUS are “under-qualified” and “over-rated” to review manuscripts from teachers-writers, compared to their counterparts from overseas, who generally treat consulting a textbook more as an honor or a privilege rather than a quick way to boost their ego and income.
Zero Sign of Decline
The publication rate of cheap (or “cheat”) and thick supplementary math titles shows no signs of abating, nor is the number of university lecturers who secretly long to be textbook consultants or general editors going to dwindle any time soon, albeit they’ve been “warned” by the university management that they’re not encouraged to freelance or moonlight for both local and foreign math publishers. When ethics often gives in to economics, how many of them would prevent a fat royalty from obstructing an early retirement?
In recent years, because of the popularity of Singapore math books being promoted and used in many countries, suddenly local publishers seemed to have been hit by an aha! moment. They realized that it’s timely (or simply long overdue?) that they should come up with a general or pop book on the Singapore’s model (or bar) method for the lay public, especially among those green to the problem-solving visualization strategy.
A Monograph à la Singapour
The first official title on the Singapore model method to hit the local shelves was one co-published by the Singapore’s Ministry of Education (MOE) and Panpac Education, which the MOE christened a “monograph” to the surprise of those in academia. Thank God, they didn’t call it Principia Singapura!
A wallet-unfriendly title that focuses on the ABC of the Singapore’s problem-solving visualization strategy
This wallet-unfriendly—over-promise, under-deliver— title did fairly well, considering that it was the first official publication by the MOE to feature the merits of the Singapore’s model method to a lay audience. Half of the book over-praises the achievements of the MOE in reversing the declining math performance of local students in the seventies and eighties, almost indirectly attributing Singapore’s success in TIMMS and PISA to the model method, although there has never been any research whatsoever to suggest that there is a correlation between the use of the model method and students’ performances in international comparison studies.
Busy and stressed local parents and teachers are simply not interested in reading the first part of this “monograph”; they’re looking for some practical teaching strategies that could help them coach their kids, particularly in applying the model method to solving word problems. However, to their utter disappointment, they found out that assessment (or supplementary) math books featuring challenging word problems are a better choice in helping them master the problem-solving strategy, from the numerous graded worked examples and detailed (and often alternative) solutions provided—and most of them cost a fraction of the price of the “monograph.”
A Missed Opportunity for a Better Strategy
Not long after the MOE’s publication, the Singapore public was spoilt with another local title on the bar method. Unfortunately, the editorial team working on Bar Modeling then didn’t take advantage of the lack of breadth and depth of the MOE’s “monograph” to offer a better book in meeting the needs and desires of local parents and overseas math educators, especially those not versed with the bar model method.
Another wallet-unfriendly title that ill-prepares local parents and teachers to mastering the model, or bar, method in solving non-routine word problems
Based on some investigation and feedback why Dr. Yeap Ban Har didn’t seize the opportunity to publish a better book than the one co-published by the MOE, it sounds like Dr. Yap had submitted his manuscript one or two years prior to the MOE’s publication, but by the time his publisher realized that the MOE had released a [better?] book similar to theirs, they had little time to react (or maybe they just over-reacted to the untimely news?); as a result, they seemed to have only made some cosmetic changes to the original manuscript. Sounds like what we call in local educational publishing as an example of “editors sitting on the manuscript” for ages or years only to decide publishing it when a competitor has already beaten them to the finishing line.
This is really a missed opportunity, not to say, a pity that the editorial team failed to leverage on the weaknesses or inadequacies of the MOE title to deliver a better book to a mathematically hungry audience, at an affordable price.
Is Another Bar Model Method Book Needed?
Early this year, we’re blessed with another title on the bar method, and this time round, it’s reasonably affordable, considering that the contents are familiar to most local teachers, tutors, and educated parents. This 96-page publication—no re-hashed Dr. Kho articles and authors’ detailed mathematical achievements—comprises four topics to showcase the use of the model method: Whole Numbers, Fractions, Ratio, and Percentage.
As in Dr. Yeap book, the questions unfortunately offer only one model drawing, which may give novices the impression that no alternative bar or model drawings are possible for a given question. The relatively easy questions would help local students gain confidence in solving routine word problems that lend themselves to the model method; however, self-motivated problem solvers would find themselves ill-equipped to solve non-routine questions that favor the visualization strategy.
In the preface, the authors emphasized some pedagogical or conceptual points about the model method, which are arguably debatable. For example, on page three, they wrote:
“In the teaching of algebra, teachers are encouraged to build on the Bar Model Method to help students and formulate equations when solving algebraic equations.”
Are we not supposed to wean students off the model method, as they start taking algebraic food for their mathematical diet? Of course, we want a smooth transition, or seamless process, that bridges the intuitive visual model method to the abstract algebraic method.
Who Invented the Model method?
Because one of the authors had previously worked with Dr. Kho Tek Hong, they mentioned that he was a “pioneer of the model method.” True, he was heading the team that made up of household names like Hector Chee and Sin Kwai Meng, among others, who helped promote the model method to teachers in the mid-eighties, but to claim that Dr. Kho was the originator or inventor of the bar method sounds like stretching the truth. Understandably, it’s not well-known that the so-called model method was already used by Russian or American math educators, decades before it was first unveiled among local math teachers.
I’ll elaborate more on this “acknowledgement” or “credit” matter in a future post—why the bar model method is “math baked in Singapore,” mixing recipes from China, US, Japan, Russia, and probably from a few others like Israel and UK.
A wallet-friendlier book on the Singapore model method, but it fails to take advantage of the weaknesses of similar local and foreign titles on the bar method
Mr. Aden Gan‘s No-Frills Two-Book Series
Let me end with two local titles which I believe offer a more comprehensive treatment of the Singapore model method to laypersons, who just want to grasp the main concepts, and to start applying the visual strategy to solving word problems. I personally don’t know the author, nor do I have any vested interest in promoting these two books, but I think they’re so far the best value-for-money titles in the local market, which could empower both parents and teachers new to the model method to appreciate how powerful the problem-solving visualization strategy is in solving non-routine word problems.
A number of locals may feel uneasy in purchasing these two math books published by EPH, the publishing arm of Popular outlets, because EPH’s assessment math books are notoriously known to be editorially half-baked, and EPH every now and then churns out reprinted or rehashed titles whose contents are out of syllabus. However, my choice is still on these two wallet-friendly local books if you seriously want to learn some basics or mechanics on the Singapore model (or bar) method—and if editorial and artistic concerns are secondary to your elementary math education.
A no-frills two-assessment-book series that gives you enough basic tools to solve a number of grades 5–6 non-routine questions
References
Curriculum Planning & Development Division Ministry of Education, Singapore (2009). The Singapore model method. Singapore: EPB Pan Pacific.
Gan, A. (2014). More model methods and advanced strategies for P5 and P6. Singapore: Educational Publishing House Pte. Ltd.
Lieu, Y. M. & Soo, V. L. (2014). Mathematical problem solving — The bar model method. Singapore: Scholastic Education International (Singapore) Private Limited.
A Singapore math primer for grades 4–6 students, teachers, and parents
In Model Drawing for Challenging Word Problems, one of the better Singapore math primers to have been written by a non-Singaporean author for an American audience in recent years, under “Whole Numbers,” Lorraine Walker exemplified the following before-and-after problem, as we commonly call it in Singapore.
Mary had served $117, but her sister Suzanne had saved only $36. After they both earned the same amount of money washing dishes one weekend, Mary noticed she had twice as much money as Suzanne. What was the combined total they earned by doing dishes?
The author shared that she did two things to make the model look much clearer:
• To add color in the “After” model;
• To slide the unit bars to the right.
This is fine if students have easy access to colored pens, and know which parts to shift, but in practice this may not always be too convenient or easy, especially if the question gets somewhat more complicated.Let me share a quick-and-dirty solution how most [elementary math] teachers and tutors in Singapore would most likely approach this before-and-after problem if they were in charge of a group of average or above-average grades 4–5 students.
From the model drawing,
1 unit = $117 – $36 = $81
1 unit – $36 = $81 – $36 = $45
2 × $45 = $90
They earned a total of $90 by doing dishes.
Analysis of the model method
Notice that the placement of the bars matters—whether a bar representing an unknown quantity is placed before or after another bar representing a known quantity.
In our model, had we placed the [shaded] bar representing the unknown unit on the right, it would have been harder to deduce the relationship straightaway; besides, no sliding or shifting is necessary. So, placing the bar correctly helps us to figure out the relationship between the unknown unit and the known quantities easier and faster.
In general, shading and dotting the bars are preferable to coloring and sliding them, especially when the problem gets harder, with more than two conditions being involved.
The Stack Method
This word problem also lends itself very well to the Stack Method. In fact, one can argue that it may even be a better method of solution than the bar model, especially among visually inclined below-average students.
Take a look at a quick-and-dirty stack solution below, which may look similar to the bar method, but conceptually they involve different thinking processes. To a novice, it may appear that the stack method is just the bar method being depicted vertically, but it’s not. Perhaps in this question, the contrast isn’t too obvious, but for harder problems, the stack method can be seen to be more advantageous, offering a more elegant solution than the traditional bar method.
From the stack model diagram, note that the difference $81(= $117 – $36) must stand for the extra unit belonging to Mary.
This before-and-after problem also lends itself pretty well to the Sakamoto method, if the students have already learned the topic on Ratio. Try it out!
Let me leave you with three practice questions I lifted up from a set of before-and-after grades 4–6 problems I plan to publish in a new title I’m currently working on, all of which encourage readers to apply both the bar and the stack methods (and the Sakamoto method, if they’re familiar with it) to solving them.
Practice
Use the model and the stack methods to solve these questions.
1. At first, Joseph had $900 and Ruth had $500. After buying the same watch, Joseph has now three times as much money as Ruth. How much did the watch cost?
2. Moses and Aaron went shopping with a total of $170. After Moses spent 3/7 of his money and Aaron spent $38, they had the same amount of money left. How much money had Aaron at first?
3. Paul and Ryan went on a holiday trip with a total of $280. After Paul had spent 4/7 of his money and Ryan had spent $52, the amount Paul had left was 1/4 of what Ryan had left. How much money did Ryan have at first?
Answers
1. $300 2. $86 3. $196
Reference
Walker, L. (2010). Model drawing for challenging word problems: Finding solutions the Singapore way. Peterborough, NH: Crystal Springs Books.
The US edition of a grade 5 Singapore math supplementary title.
Recently, while revising a grade 5 supplementary book I wrote for Marshall Cavendish, I saw that other than the answer, there was no solution or hint provided to the following question.
If Ann gave $2 to Beth, Beth would have twice as much as Ann.
If Beth gave $2 to Ann, they would have the same amount of money.
How much did each person have?
Most grade 7 Singapore math textbooks and assessment books would normally carry a few of these typical word problems, whereby students are expected to use an algebraic method to solve them. For instance, using algebra, students would form two linear equations in x and y, before solving them by the elimination, or substitution, method. A pretty standard application of solving a pair of simultaneous linear equations, by an analytic method.
However, it’s not uncommon to see these types of word problems appearing in lower-grade supplementary titles, whereby students could solve them, using the Singapore model, or bar, method; and the Sakamoto method. In other words, these grade 7 and 8 questions could be solved by grade 5 and 6 students, using a non-algebraic method.
Algebra versus Model Drawing
Conceptually speaking, I think a grade 6 or 7 student who can solve the above word problem, using a model drawing, appears to exhibit a higher level of mathematical maturity than one who simply uses two variables to represent the unknowns, before forming two simultaneous linear equations to solve them. Of course, because the numbers in this question are relatively small, it’s not surprising to catch a number of average students relying on the trial-and-error method to find the answer.
Try to solve the question, using both algebra and a model; then compare the two methods of solution. Which one do you think demands a deeper or higher level of reasoning or thinking skills?
Depicted below is a model drawing of the above grade 5 word problem.
From the model drawing,
1 unit = 2 + 2 + 2 + 2 = 8
1 unit + 2 = 10
1 unit + 6 = 14
Ann had $10.
Beth had $14.
Generalizing the Problem
A minor change in the question, by altering the “number of times” Beth would have as much money as Ann, reveals an interesting pattern: the model drawing remains unchanged, except for the varying number of units that represent the same quantity.Here are two modified versions of the original grade 5 question.
If Ann gave $2 to Beth, Beth would have three times as much as Ann.
If Beth gave $2 to Ann, they would have the same amount of money.
How much did each person have? Answer: Ann–$6; Beth–$10.
If Ann gave $2 to Beth, Beth would have five times as much as Ann.
If Beth gave $2 to Ann, they would have the same amount of money.
How much did each person have? Answer: Ann–$4; Beth–$8.
From Problem Solving to Problem Posing
The two modified questions could serve as good practice for students to become skilled in model drawing, and to help them deduce numerical relationships confidently from them. Besides, they provide a good opportunity to challenge students to pose similar questions, by altering the “number of times” Beth would have as much money as Ann. Which numerical values would work, and what ones wouldn’t, in order for the model drawing to make sense, or for the question to remain solvable?
Conclusion
Let me end, by tickling you with another grade 5 question, similar to the previous three word problems.
If Ann gave $2 to Beth, Beth would have three times as much as Ann.
If Beth gave $2 to Ann, they would have twice as much money as Beth.
How much did each person have?
Answer: Ann–$4.40; Beth–$5.20.
How do you still use the model method to solve this slightly modified ratio question? Test it on your better students or colleagues! It’s slightly harder, because any obvious result isn’t easily deduced from the model drawing, as compared to the ones posed earlier on. Besides, unlike the three previous word problems whose answers are integers, this last problem has a decimal answer—it just doesn’t lend itself well to the guess-and-check strategy.
Share with us how your students or colleagues fare on this last question. Remember: No algebra allowed!
Mr. Chow’s new revised grade 7 textbook—a US edition is also available, which competes with an equivalent title in the “Math in Focus” series.
It’s an open secret that two of the well-paid math authors in Singapore are Dr. Fong Ho Kheong and Mr. Chow Wai Keung—two non-Singaporeans who have made it to the Millionaire Dollar Club. Also on the Forbes’ Singapore Math List are local folks like Dr. Y. H. Leong, Andrew Er, Fabian Ng, and Lee-Ann Goh, albeit their names are most likely alien to those outside Singapore.
Obscure writing, obscene royalties
A talking point in the local mathematical community is that both millionaires-authors “can’t write”—their titles are notoriously heavily edited or ghostwritten by editors. For instance, there is a decade-long local joke that over a hundred editors have their “editorial footprints” on Dr. Fong’s dozen odd titles.
Form or substance
As for Mr. Victor Chow, his critics remarked that his series of no-frills Discovering Maths titles—apparently a canned version of his ill-written books, which have been poorly received in Hong Kong—is ironically (or miraculously?) doing pretty well in Singapore, in spite of the fact that the competitors’ authors have been household names in math education for decades—many of whom are still teaching teachers.
Many attributed the decent or successful adoption of the Discovering Mathematics series in local schools, primarily because of better sales and marketing strategies by the publisher, as compared to those used by its competitors—form has allegedly triumphed over substance, thanks to lateral (and often shady) marketing.
Interestingly, that many in academia and in local publishing circles subscribe to the above views or rumors, whether because they’re jealous and envious of their “obscene” royalties, is understandable. Apparently, they rationalized that Dr. Fong’s and Mr. Chow’s “below-average writing skills” didn’t match their deserved earnings.
Dr. Fong co-authored latest grade 1 textbook, based on the new Singapore syllabus.
A mix of jealousy and envy and …
Having had the opportunity to speak with some of Dr. Fong’s ex-colleagues, and those who know him personally, it sounds to me that jealousy and envy feature high in discrediting him for “earning so much,” as they feel that they “can lecture better” and “have written more quality research papers” than him.
The argument is that writing textbooks (even successful ones) are for second-rate math educators and mathematicians—unspokenly, first-rate math folks write papers and speak at conferences; second- and third-rate folks write textbooks, or become consultants of these textbooks.
What is seldom talked about is that a number of these so-called seasoned lecturers feel marginalized or “blacklisted” by local publishers for not approaching them—many are still waiting for publishers to line up outside their offices to beg them to write for them. As a result, it’s not surprising that a number of them condescendingly blame local publishers and editors for choosing second-rate writers to author the school textbooks.
Dr. Fong—Singapore’s math popularizer
What we seldom hear, though, is that albeit Dr. Fong might arguably be a “boring presenter or lecturer,” as remarked by his critics, he nevertheless had the guts to promote his books in public, unlike his fellow ex-colleagues who think that it’s a “degrading job” to become a salesperson in promoting their titles at math conferences. Today, who’s having the last laugh to the bank?
In fact, it’s probably not an exaggeration to say that other than Fabian Ng and one or two ghostwriters, it’s Dr. Fong who helped popularize the Singapore model method and the problem-solving strategies locally, through his supplementary math books and public talks in the nineties, written for both students and parents. Yes, long before the Andrew Er’s and Yeap Ban Har’s books were spotted in the local market.
An assessment title of yesteryear—a forerunner of Dr. Fong & Company’s titles.
When risky wasn’t the new safe yet
At the other end of the wealth distribution curve, we’ve dozens of local math writers who wouldn’t dare to being a full-time author, simply because they’re more likely to end up begging than earning enough royalty to pay their bills. Unless you’re a shrewd textbook author-entrepreneur like Dr. Fong, the rest of us write more for our egos than expect any financial rewards, albeit few would admit it.
Negative royalties
I’ve also heard of local math authors who had earned “negative royalties,” which means they owed the publisher instead—they had sold zero copies, and dozens of free copies were given, as part of some book promotion or launch.
Math can make you rich!
Dr. Fong and Mr. Chow both show that you needn’t be the best writer in town, not even a decent one, but if you work hard and smart, and ignore your critics; and if you’ve faith that your publisher has a good sales and marketing strategy, it’s possible to make a decent living in math education.
And what’s even more amazing is that both are foreign-born writers, who have seized the opportunity to make it big in Singapore, when the majority, some of whom are no doubt smarter and better than them, have let their intellectual or mathematical pride and arrogance prevent them from contributing more to raising the standard of mathematics education in Singapore.
Postscript: The author (@Zero_Math and @MathPlus) is a self-professed zeronaire, who is “infinitely jealous and envious” of these authors-millionaires, who have shown us that with hard work (and some luck by the side) “one can get rich with math,” infinitesimal as the chances may be.
There is a millennium myth that Singapore math is hard or tough—that only geeks from some remote parts of Asia (or from some red little dot on the world map) should do it. The mass media (and math educators, too) have implicitly mythologized that those who are presently struggling with school math, should avoid Singapore math, in whatever form it’s being presented, totally. A grave mistake, indeed!
Is Singapore math a mere fad?
After reading dozens of tweets and blog posts on the pluses and minuses of Singapore math, it sounds as if Singapore math has a certain mystique around it—some kind of foreign math bestowed by some creatures from outer space to terrorize those who wished math were an optional subject in elementary school.
Not to say, folks who totally reject Singapore math on the basis that it’s just another fad in math education, or another marketing gimmick to promote an allegedly “better foreign curriculum” to math educators. They believe that “back-to-basics math,” whatever that phrase means to them, with all its memorizing and drill-and-kill exercises, is a necessary mathematical evil to get kids to learn arithmetic.
Singapore math OR/AND Everyday Math
Singapore math? Sure, no problem! It’s no big deal!
Well, it’s a big deal for traditional publishers, which may lose tons of money if more states and schools continue to embrace this “foreign brand” of math education.
Poor writing and teaching from a number of us could have indirectly contributed to the white lie that if you can’t cope with Everyday Math or Saxon Math, or whatever math textbook your school or state is currently using, Singapore math is worse! You might as well forget about it!
One of the first few Singapore supplementary titles to promote the model method in the mid-nineties.
The bar method as a powerful problem-solving strategy
Objectively speaking, Singapore math doesn’t come close to most pedagogical insights or creative ideas featured in journals and periodicals published by the MAA and the NTCM. Personally, I must admit that I become a better teacher, writer, and editor, thanks to these first-class publications. The Singapore model method, although a key component of the Singapore math curriculum, is just one of the problem-solving strategies we use every day, as part of our problem-solving toolkit.
On the other hand, for vested interests on the part of some publishers, little has been done to promote other problem-solving strategies, such as the Stack Method and the Sakamoto method, which are as powerful, if not more elegant, than the bar method—in fact, more and more local students and teachers are using them as they see their advantages over the model method in a number of problem situations.
Fabien Ng in his heyday was a household name in mathematics education in Singapore—it looks like he’s since almost disappeared from the local publishing scene.
Don’t throw out the mathematical baby yet!
You may not wish to adopt the Singapore math curriculum, or even part of it; but at least consider the model and stack methods, not to say, the Sakamoto method, as part of your arsenal of problem-solving strategies (or heuristics, as we call them here). Don’t let traditional publishers (or “math editors” with a limited repertoire of problem-solving strategies) prevent you from acquiring new mathematical tools to improve your mathematical problem-solving skills.
In Singapore, the model, or bar, method is formally taught until grade six to solve a number of word problems, because from grade seven onwards, we want the students to switch over to algebra. However, this doesn’t mean that we’d totally ban the use of the model method in higher grades, because in a number of cases, the model or stack method often offers a more elegant or intuitive method of solution than its algebraic counterpart.
