Implementing Singapore Math: Transforming Elementary Education

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 1995 2003 Singapore 590 594 Hong Kong 557 575 Japan 567 565 Netherlands 549 540 Latvia 499 533 England 484 531 Hungary 521 529 U.S. 518 518 Cyprus 475 510 Australia 495 499 New Zealand 469 496 Scotland 493 490 Slovenia 462 479 Norway 476 451 Source: http://nces.ed.gov/timss

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. 9 2 7 6,325 + 400 = 6,725 “12 of Jack’s marbles are red, which is 2/9 of his collection…” Hallmark Strategies of Singapore Math • Number bonds • operations and part-whole relationships • Mental math • leverages and reinforces place value • Bar models • helps conceptualize arithmetic operations, fractions, ratios, algebraic thinking

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

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 3 + 4 • 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 2008-2009 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, 2009-2010 • 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: CRCTSchool Mean Math Score by Grade

23. Student Performance: CRCTSchool Mean Math Score by Grade

24. Student Performance: CRCTPercent Change in Mean Math Score

25. Student Performance: CRCTPercent Change in Mean Math Score

26. Student Performance: CRCTPercent Change in Mean Math Score

27. Student Performance: CRCTPercent Change in Mean Math Score

28. Student Performance: CRCTStudents Meeting Min. Requirements

29. Student Performance: CRCTStudents Meeting Min. Requirements

30. Students Meeting CRCT Math Req.’sChange in Percentage Points

31. Students Meeting CRCT Math Req.’sChange in Percentage Points

32. Students Meeting CRCT Math Req.’sChange in Percentage Points

33. Students Meeting CRCT Math Req.’sChange in Percentage Points

34. Student Performance: ITBSMean Percentile Ranking in Math

35. Student Performance: ITBSChange in Mean Percentile Ranking

36. Student Performance: ITBSChange in Mean Percentile Ranking

37. Student Performance: ITBSChange in Mean Percentile Ranking

38. Concluding Thoughts • Teacher training and supportare 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