1. Implementing Singapore Math in Elementary Schools
James Badger
Dianna Spence
Gregg Velatini
Georgia Mathematics Conference 2009
Friday, October 16

2. Agenda Singapore Math Overview & Examples
Dianna
Our Research: “What, Why, How” & Findings: Surveys, Observations, Interviews
James
Findings: Student Performance (CRCT/ITBS)
Gregg

3. What Is Singapore Math?
Curriculum based on elementary mathematics teaching techniques used in Singapore
Initial curriculum: “Primary Mathematics”
Created in 1981
Developed by CDIS (Curriculum Development Institute of Singapore)
Revisions
1992: stronger problem-solving focus (2nd Ed.)
1999: reduced content (3rd Ed.)
2001 & forward: adapted for U.S.

4. Why Singapore Math? Trends in International Math/Science Study
Singapore 4th graders consistently outperforming 4th graders in other countries
TIMSS: Mean Score, 4th Grade Math
COUNTRY
Singapore
Hong Kong
Japan
Netherlands
Latvia
England
Hungary
U.S
Cyprus
Australia
New Zealand
Scotland
Slovenia
Norway
Source:

5. Characteristics of Singapore Math
Concrete  pictorial  abstract approach for each concept
Strong emphasis on place value
Repetitive drill minimized: topics are sequenced to reinforce/apply skills
Problem solving based on conceptual approach rather than memorization of rules, “clue words”

6. Hallmark Strategies of Singapore Math9 2 7
Number bonds
operations and part-whole relationships
Mental math
leverages and reinforces place value
Bar models
helps conceptualize arithmetic operations, fractions, ratios, algebraic thinking
6, = 6,725
“12 of Jack’s
marbles are red,
which is 2/9 of
his collection…”

7. Example: Place Value Disks
537
+ 184
Thousands Hundreds Tens Ones .
100 10 10 1 1 1
100
100 10 1 1 1
100
100 1 10 10 1 10 10 1
100 7 1 2 1 1 10 10 10 10
100 10

8. Example: Bar Modeling
“12 of Jake’s marbles are red, and these make up 2/9 of his collection. How many marbles in Jake’s collection are not red?” 12
6 x 7 = 42 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
Whole collection

9. Classroom Best Practices
Concrete  Pictorial  Abstract
Emphasis on place value, mental math
Conceptual approach, not rule-based
Spiral approach to topics 3 4

10. Research Questions
Has the implementation of Singapore Math resulted in higher student math scores?
Has the implementation of Singapore Math had a positive impacted on student interest and/or confidence in mathematics?
Has the implementation of Singapore Math resulted in measurable changes in the teachers’ attitudes toward mathematics?
Is there fidelity in the implementation of the Singapore Math curriculum?
How do elementary teachers implement the Singapore Math curriculum?

11. Research Design
County-wide implementation in a school district in the south-east of the U.S.
21 (experimental) and 3 (control) elementary schools
One teacher from each of the 24 schools in K-4 volunteer to participate (first year)

12. Qualitative and Quantitative Data
Interviews with teachers & students
Participating teachers’ journals (4 times)
Classroom observations
Teacher and student survey – fall/spring
Video-taping of Singapore Math lesson (4 times) – analysis using TPR (Teaching Performance Record)
End-of-year test scores: CRCT & ITBS

13. 1. Survey Results
Teachers, Kindergarten in particular, indicated a stronger affinity for and liked teaching mathematics at the end of the school year than they had previously reported.
Content knowledge of mathematics is important for effective teaching: teachers report some degree of understanding and confidence in teaching mathematics.

14. Survey Results, cont.
A degree of satisfaction with the training and resources for mathematics teaching in 2009 – i.e. Singapore Math training and mentoring initiatives were apparently noticed and appreciated by many teachers.
Echoed in interview and journal data

15. 2. Interview Results
A fluid integration of the new curriculum: a consequence of the training provided by the county and ongoing support delivered by school administration
Teachers reported manipulatives frequently integrated in the classroom
value discs and number bonds cited as fostering learning

16. Interview Results, cont.
Teachers report students possessed a deeper understanding of mathematical concepts with the Singapore Math curriculum.
Teachers claimed that they have higher expectations of students in Singapore Math.

17. Interview Results, cont.
Parents’ reactions to Singapore Math ranged from enthusiasm to frustration.

18. 3. Journal Results
Teachers wrote that students liked using place value disks
a helpful hands-on manipulative to assist students grasp the concept of place value.
Teachers wrote that students enjoyed activities, games, and manipulatives.
the students showed enthusiasm in class.
Students described these parts of math class as “fun”.

19. 4. Classroom Observation
Some teachers
tended to emphasize low-level cognitive processes in their instruction
rarely asked students to draw associations to real-world contexts
accountability pressure and time constraints?
preponderance of teacher instruction at the expense of higher cognitive instruction, deeper questioning, and more occasions for cooperative student learning?

20. Second Year,
No design changes in the second year of the study – i.e. same data collection instruments, teachers volunteer to participate, fifth grade classes added, compare first and second year data.
Data collected in the second year will
Determine student comprehension and achievement, fidelity of curriculum implementation.

21. Student Performance: Things to Keep in Mind
Testing occurred during most teachers’ first year using new curriculum
Most students in higher grades (e.g., 3rd and 4th) had not previously been taught Singapore Math
Data we are really interested in will not be available for 3-4 more years.

22. Student Performance: CRCT School Mean Math Score by Grade

23. Student Performance: CRCT School Mean Math Score by Grade

24. Student Performance: CRCT Percent Change in Mean Math Score

25. Student Performance: CRCT Percent Change in Mean Math Score

26. Student Performance: CRCT Percent Change in Mean Math Score

27. Student Performance: CRCT Percent Change in Mean Math Score

28. Student Performance: CRCT Students Meeting Min. Requirements

29. Student Performance: CRCT Students Meeting Min. Requirements

30. Students Meeting CRCT Math Req.’s Change in Percentage Points

31. Students Meeting CRCT Math Req.’s Change in Percentage Points

32. Students Meeting CRCT Math Req.’s Change in Percentage Points

33. Students Meeting CRCT Math Req.’s Change in Percentage Points

34. Student Performance: ITBS Mean Percentile Ranking in Math

35. Student Performance: ITBS Change in Mean Percentile Ranking

36. Student Performance: ITBS Change in Mean Percentile Ranking

37. Student Performance: ITBS Change in Mean Percentile Ranking

38. Concluding Thoughts Teacher training and support are essential
Not a “drop-in” solution, especially at higher grades (need phased approach)
Parent “buy-in” is important
Will take time to see full impact