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

Implementing Singapore Implementing Singapore Math in Elementary Math in Elementary

SchoolsSchools

Implementing Singapore Implementing Singapore Math in Elementary Math in Elementary

SchoolsSchoolsJames BadgerJames BadgerDianna SpenceDianna SpenceGregg VelatiniGregg Velatini

Georgia Mathematics Conference Georgia Mathematics Conference 20092009

Friday, October 16Friday, October 16

Agenda• Singapore Math Overview & Examples

– Dianna

• Our Research: “What, Why, How”&

Findings: Surveys, Observations, Interviews – James

• Findings: Student Performance (CRCT/ITBS)– Gregg

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.

Why Singapore Math?Trends in International Math/Science Study

• Singapore 4th graders consistently outperforming 4th graders in other countries

TIMSS: Mean Score, 4th Grade MathCOUNTRY 1995 2003Singapore 590 594Hong Kong 557 575Japan 567 565Netherlands 549 540Latvia 499 533England 484 531Hungary 521 529U.S. 518 518Cyprus 475 510Australia 495 499New Zealand 469 496Scotland 493 490Slovenia 462 479Norway 476 451Source: http://nces.ed.gov/timss

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”

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

9

2 7

6,325 + 400 = 6,725

“12 of Jack’s marbles are red,which is 2/9 ofhis collection…”

Example: Place Value Disks

Thousands Hundreds Tens Ones . 110100

11

1 1

11

111 1

537+ 184

1010

1010

10

10

10

1010

10

100

100

100100

100

10

100

27 1

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?”

666666666

12 6 x 7 = 42

Whole collection

Classroom Best Practices

• Concrete Pictorial Abstract

• Emphasis on place value, mental math

• Conceptual approach, not rule-based•Spiral approach to topics

3 + 4

3 4

Research Questions1. Has the implementation of Singapore Math resulted in

higher student math scores?2. Has the implementation of Singapore Math had a positive

impacted on student interest and/or confidence in mathematics?

3. Has the implementation of Singapore Math resulted in measurable changes in the teachers’ attitudes toward mathematics?

4. Is there fidelity in the implementation of the Singapore Math curriculum?

5. How do elementary teachers implement the Singapore Math curriculum?

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)

Qualitative and Quantitative Data

i. Interviews with teachers & studentsii. Participating teachers’ journals (4 times)iii. Classroom observationsiv. Teacher and student survey – fall/springv. Video-taping of Singapore Math lesson (4

times) – analysis using TPR (Teaching Performance Record)

vi. End-of-year test scores: CRCT & ITBS

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.

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

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

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.

Interview Results, cont.

• Parents’ reactions to Singapore Math ranged from enthusiasm to frustration.

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”.

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?

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.

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.

Student Performance: CRCTSchool Mean Math Score by Grade

Change in CRCT Math Mean ScoreGrade 1

Increased80%

Decreased20%


Increased85%

Decreased15%

Student Performance: CRCTSchool Mean Math Score by Grade


Increased70%

Decreased30%


Increased85%

Decreased15%

Student Performance: CRCTPercent Change in Mean Math Score

Percent Change in Math CRCT Mean ScoreGrade 1 - Top 5 vs. Lowest 5

-0.62%

-0.16%

-0.15%

-0.13%

0.03%

1.01%

1.04%

1.32%

1.35%

1.54%

-5.00% -4.00% -3.00% -2.00% -1.00% 0.00% 1.00% 2.00% 3.00% 4.00% 5.00%

Mean Score Change



-0.28%

-0.13%

-0.01%

0.02%

0.11%

0.83%

0.96%

1.22%

1.40%

2.34%

-5.00% -4.00% -3.00% -2.00% -1.00% 0.00% 1.00% 2.00% 3.00% 4.00% 5.00%

Mean Score Change


-2.64%

-0.93%

-0.51%

-0.49%

-0.24%

1.77%

1.86%

1.92%

2.33%

4.32%

-5.00% -4.00% -3.00% -2.00% -1.00% 0.00% 1.00% 2.00% 3.00% 4.00% 5.00%

Mean Score Change



-0.86%

-0.83%

-0.30%

0.01%

0.17%

1.37%

1.50%

2.10%

2.52%

3.72%

-5.00% -4.00% -3.00% -2.00% -1.00% 0.00% 1.00% 2.00% 3.00% 4.00% 5.00%

Mean Score Change


Student Performance: CRCTStudents Meeting Min. RequirementsChange in Percentage of Students

Meeting CRCT Math Minimum RequirementGrade 1

Increased85%

Decreased15%

Change in Percentage of Students Meeting CRCT Math Minimum Requirement

Grade 2

Increased95%

Decreased5%

Student Performance: CRCTStudents Meeting Min. RequirementsChange in Percentage of Students

Meeting CRCT Math Minimum RequirementGrade 3

Increased75%

Decreased25%

Change in Percentage of Students Meeting CRCT Math Minimum Requirement

Grade 4

Increased60%

Decreased40%

Change in Percentage of Students Meeting Minimum Math CRCT Requirements

Grade 1: Top 5 and Lowest 5

-3.1

-2.5

-1.9

0.1

2.3

8.2

9.4

12.3

13.9

15.4

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

Change in Percentage

Students Meeting CRCT Math Req.’sChange in Percentage Points



-1.4

0.1

0.2

0.2

0.3

8.9

9.1

9.6

9.8

24.5

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0





-24.0

-8.0

-6.7

-3.5

-2.8

12.8

13.7

13.9

28.4

34.0

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0





-7.9

-7.0

-6.4

-5.6

-5.4

7.7

11.5

19.2

27.7

27.8

-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0



Student Performance: ITBSMean Percentile Ranking in Math

Change in ITBS Mean Percentile Ranking in Math

Grade 2

Increased70%

Decreased30%


Grade 3

Increased100%

Decreased0%


Grade 4

Increased100%

Decreased0%

Student Performance: ITBSChange in Mean Percentile Ranking

Change in Mean Percentile Ranking on ITBS Math Scores


-6.35

-6.00

-2.23

-1.79

-0.86

8.20

8.41

9.11

10.32

11.39

-30.00 -20.00 -10.00 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00

Change in Mean Percentile Ranking



0.98

1.08

2.43

4.65

5.70

11.91

12.11

12.44

15.83

17.29

-30.00 -20.00 -10.00 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00





0.87

1.91

2.44

4.37

5.79

16.80

17.29

18.67

21.32

29.47

-30.00 -20.00 -10.00 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00



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

Documents

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