Singapore Math 1

COMPARATIVE EDUCATION: A STUDY OF THE EFFICACY OF THE SINGAPORE MATH APPROACH IN A FIFTH GRADE CLASSROOM

A project submitted

by

Jessica Lynn Stephens

to

LaGrange College

in partial fulfillment of

the requirement for the

degree of

EDUCATION SPECIALIST

in

Curriculum and Instruction

LaGrange, Georgia

July 22, 2011

Singapore Math iii

Abstract

This action/evaluation research investigated the efficacy of the Singapore Math methods

in relation to fifth grade Georgia Criterion Reference Competency Test math scores in the

domain of measurement to the subjects’ fourth grade CRCT math scores in the domain of

measurement. Various methods were used in this research project to answer the three focus

questions and to analyze the data. The data for this research was collected by CRCT assessments,

student surveys, a reflective journal, and an interview. The results of this study showed that the

implementation of the Singapore math methods in the teaching of measurement made no

significant differences in the students’ fourth grade CRCT results in the domain of measurement

to the students’ fifth grade CRCT results in the domain of measurement. However, there was a

gain in overall achievement from the students’ fifth grade math CRCT scores compared to the

fourth grade math CRCT scores.

Singapore Math iv

Table of Contents

Abstract...........................................................................................................................................iii

Table of Contents............................................................................................................................iv

Lists of Tables..................................................................................................................................v

Chapter 1: Introduction...................................................................................................................1 Statement of the Problem.....................................................................................................1 Significance of the Problem.................................................................................................1 Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks............................................................................3 Focus Questions...................................................................................................................5 Overview of Methodology...................................................................................................6 Human as Researcher...........................................................................................................7

Chapter 2: Review of the Literature.................................................................................................8 Singapore Math....................................................................................................................8 United States Math.............................................................................................................11 Supporters of Singapore Math...........................................................................................13 School Improvement..........................................................................................................15 Implementing Change........................................................................................................15 Summary of Literature Review..........................................................................................16

Chapter 3: Methodology................................................................................................................17 Research Design.................................................................................................................17 Setting................................................................................................................................17 Subjects and Participants...................................................................................................18 Procedures and Data Collection Methods..........................................................................18 Validity/Reliability/Dependability/Bias/Equity.................................................................21 Analysis of Data.................................................................................................................23

Chapter 4: Results..........................................................................................................................26............................................................................................................................................................

Chapter 5: Analysis and Discussion of Results.............................................................................30 Analysis..............................................................................................................................30 Discussion..........................................................................................................................35 Implications........................................................................................................................36 Impact on School Improvement.........................................................................................37 Recommendations for Future Research.............................................................................38

References......................................................................................................................................39

Singapore Math v

Appendices.....................................................................................................................................42

List of Tables

Tables

Table 3.1. Data Shell …………………………………………….…………………………19

Table 4.1 Dependent t-test ………………………………………………………………...26

Table 4.2 Chi square test …………………………………………………………………..27

Singapore Math vi

Singapore Math 1

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

Statement of the Problem

This study will explore the achievement gap in African American elementary students

compared to non - African American students, and the incorporation of the Singapore math

methods as a comparative education design to increase student achievement in fifth grade math.

A problem identified from statewide mathematic assessments is the percent of African American

students not meeting grade - level standards is consistently greater than Whites and other sub-

groups, including English language learners. Yueng and Conley (2008) stated, “research based

on test results from the National Assessment of Educational Progress conducted since the 1970s

showed a substantial lag in achievement of Black students vis-a`-vis their White counterparts”

(p. 303). Additionally, Phillips, Crouse, and Ralph (1998) stated, “these disparities had been

observed to exist before children enter kindergarten, widen as they move through elementary and

middle schools, and persist into adulthood” (p. 303).

Significance of the Problem

Poor achievement in math leads to problems and concerns not only for the individual and

his or her future, but additionally for the nation and its economic growth rate. Welsh, Nix, Blair,

Bierman, and Nelson (2010) stated, “there are substantial achievement gaps between middle-

income children and low-income children at school entry that widen over time and contribute to

serious disparities in learning difficulties, educational attainment, and long-term employment

potential” (p. 43). Research has found that delays in school readiness are often experienced by

culturally diverse children or children growing up in poverty. One of the groups that

compromise the culturally diverse learners is African Americans. Low achievement in math “…

Singapore Math 2

presents a challenge for a society that demands at least minimal math competency for success in

formal schooling, daily living, and employment” (Proctor, Floyd, & Shaver, 2005, p. 1).

In the 2008 publication from the Thomas B. Forham Institute Education Olympics, The

Games in Review, Ballard, Palmieri, and Winkler (2008) stated, “although the strengths of the

U.S. economy and its higher-education system offer some hope for the future, the situation at the

K-12 level should spark concerns about the long-term outlook for the U.S. economy, which

could eventually have an impact on the higher-education system as well” (p. 3). Additionally, as

cited by Ballard et al., Hanushek and his colleagues Jamison, Jamison, and Woessman, looked at

student performance on twelve math and science standardized international tests as a measure of

cognitive skills among those entering the workforce:

Though the analysis was complicated, Hanushek’s key finding was simple: The level of

cognitive skills of a nation’s students has a large effect on its subsequent economic

growth rate. He also found that more years of schooling, previously thought to be the

major advantage that other countries had over the U.S., only boosted the economy when

it was tied with student learning. In other words, “It is not enough simply to spend more

time in school; something has to be learned there.” (Ballard et al., 2008, p. 2)

It is important as educators to identify all under-achieving students in math and move them to a

level of proficiency where they can be successful not only in their education, but additionally in

their future economic world. Therefore, the purpose of this study will be to identify the specific

areas where African American elementary students are low achievers: numbers and operations,

measurement, geometry, algebra, and data analysis and probability. Additionally, this study will

determine if there is a specific trend within the data areas or if low achievement is evident in all

Singapore Math 3

mathematical areas. In relation to these research findings, the Singapore math method will be

used to increase student achievement in fifth grade math in the domain of measurement.

Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks

This research project strongly conveys the theory of constructivism. Powell and Kalina

(2009) stated, “an effective classroom, where teachers and students are communicating

optimally, is dependent on using constructivist strategies, tools and practices” (p. 241). Within

constructivism there is cognitive constructivism dependent on Jean Piaget’s theory and social

constructivism dependent on Lev Vygotsky’s theory. Piaget and Vygotsky were both advocates

of inquiry-based instruction. Within this type of instruction, students perceive a problem,

construct a mental model to solve the problem, and then formulate a solution (Pass, 2004, p.

110). Furthermore, Powell and Kalina (2009) defined the differences between cognitive and

social constructivism:

In cognitive constructivism, ideas are constructed in individuals through a personal

process, as opposed to social constructivism where ideas are constructed through

interaction with the teacher and other students. While they are fundamentally different

both types will ultimately form overall constructivism or constructed learning elements

for students to easily grasp; the main concept being that ideas are constructed from

experience to have a personal meaning for the student. (p. 241)

This research project related and incorporated the elements of the cognitive constructivism

theory.

Within the cognitive constructivism theory, a student’s individual thought needs to be

acquired in content or subject areas to actually understand the material instead of just being able

to recite it. Powell and Kalina (2009) stated, “promoting classroom situations and activities that

Singapore Math 4

promote individual learning is required” (p. 242). Referring to Piaget’s theory of cognitive

development stated, “humans cannot be given information, which they immediately understand

and use; instead humans must construct their own knowledge” (Powell & Kalina, 2009, p. 242).

For students to be successful in elementary mathematics, they have to learn how to develop their

own knowledge of the content and not merely memorize the rules. From a cognitive

constructivist perspective, Larochelle, Bednarz, and Garrison (1998) stated, “it is reasonable to

characterize learning as a problem solving process in which children reorganize their

mathematical activity in an attempt to resolve what they find problematic within their worlds of

experiences” (p. 71).

Integrating the cognitive constructivist theory into an elementary mathematics classroom

strongly coincides with the second tenet of the LaGrange College Education Department’s

(2010) Conceptual Framework, exemplary professional teaching practices. The undergirding

knowledge base of this tenet includes the thoughts by Delpit and Kincheloe stating, “we believe

that teachers must link the life histories of their students to the content taught in classrooms, so

that their students can make deep, meaningful personal connections” (LaGrange College

Education Department, 2010, p. 5). Additionally, this tenet focuses candidates on

interrelationships between society and its institutions on one hand and issues of race, ethnicity,

gender, and social class on the other. Furthermore, this tenet incorporates methods characterized

by differentiated instruction, since all students do not learn in the same way or the same rate.

(LaGrange College Education Department, 2010)

Within the second tenet of the LaGrange College Education Department’s (2010)

Conceptual Framework, there are two competency clusters that relate to this thesis: instructional

skills and assessment skills. The instructional skills “advocate differentiated instructional

Singapore Math 5

processes that begin with teaching for conceptual understanding, move to presentation of new

knowledge, and then give learners an extended period during which they can apply this new

information in active, meaningful, and cooperative ways” (LaGrange College Education

Department, 2010, p. 7). The assessment skills include understanding and using formal and

informal assessment strategies to evaluate and ensure continuous intellectual, social, and

physical development of students. In addition, students are involved in self-assessments that

help them “become aware of their strengths and needs and that encourages them to set personal

goals for learning” (LaGrange College Education Department, 2010, p. 7). In response to

student feedback, strategies are monitored and adjusted.

With regards to the National Board of Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS),

instructional skills are directly linked to Proposition Two which states, “teachers know the

subjects they teach and how to teach those subjects to students” (LaGrange College Education

Department, 2010, p. 12). The assessment skills are directly linked to the NBPTS Proposition

Three. This proposition states that, “teachers are responsible for managing and monitoring

student learning” (LaGrange College Education Department, 2010, p. 12). The instructional

skills are related to Element 1C of the NCATE 2000 standards. This element focuses on the

professional and pedagogical knowledge and skills for teacher candidates. The instructional

skills are related to Element 1D of the NCATE 2000 standards. This element focuses on student

learning for teacher candidates.

Focus Questions

After identifying the specific mathematical areas where 5th grade African American

elementary students perform poorly, the purpose of this study was to see if the implementation of

Singapore Math 6

the Singapore math method increased student achievement in fifth grade math in the targeted

areas of difficulty. The following focus questions were used to guide the research for this study:

1. Did the International Singapore Math approach positively affect fifth grade math

student achievement?

2. How do learners feel about the International Singapore Math approach?

3. How well did the International Singapore Math change process work in relation to

fifth grade math achievement?

Overview of Methodology

As part of this research project, a pilot study incorporated the Singapore math method as

a comparative education design to increase student achievement in fifth grade math. Kubow and

Fossum (2007) stated, “comparative education draws on multiple disciplines… to examine

education in developed and developing countries” (p. 6). Kubow and Fossum continue by

stating, comparative education “… encourages us to question our educational systems and to

examine how societal values influence our attitudes toward how we educate” (p. 6).

This study took place in a Title I elementary school in Troup county Georgia. The

subjects in this study were 5th grade math students. The participants included two 5th grade math

teachers and a principal. The first focus question used quantitative instruments including the

math CRCT results. These quantitative data were analyzed using a dependent t-test. The second

focus question was answered with surveys, which were analyzed using the Chi-square test. To

answer the third focus question, qualitative data were collected through interviews and a

reflective journal, which were analyzed by coding for themes.

Singapore Math 7

Human as Researcher

I have taught the past twelve years in a Title 1 school. During this time, I have seen a

change in regards to the increased emphasis on testing and how it relates to student achievement.

In response to this increased emphasis, I have learned how to analyze and disaggregate data from

school benchmarks, state wide assessments, and teacher observations to increase student

achievement. Additionally, I have served on my school’s leadership team as grade - level team

leader for the past six years. One of the duties of serving on the school’s leadership team was to

participate in the development of the School Improvement Plan. Data analysis and targeting

academic areas of weakness throughout the school was a key component of the School

Improvement Plan. Participating in the above data analysis situations has provided me with the

background knowledge to complete this research project.

Singapore Math 8

CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Reviewing literature on a topic under investigation provides the opportunity to learn what

is already known about the topic. The research provided in this chapter is from what other

researchers have already discovered and will provide current information to understand my topic.

Comparative education examines education in developed and developing countries. Wilson

(2003) defined comparative education as “an intersection of the social sciences, education and

cross-national data to test propositions about the relationship between education and society and

between teaching practices and learning outcomes” (p.15). Comparative examination often leads

to an analysis of the role that education plays in an individual and national development.

Furthermore, comparative education inspires us to question our educational systems and to

observe how societal values influence our attitudes toward how we educate (Kubow & Fossum,

2007, p. 6).

To help struggling students, it is beneficial to look at other countries educational systems.

Little (2009) stated, “comparison studies from recent commissions and reports have focused on

student results. Students in the United States are not performing as well in math as students in

many other countries” (p. 3). Additionally from recent national test scores, the United States

remains academically behind most of the developed world. Therefore we, as educators, can

observe educational systems from other countries that have been successful in educational

attainment and study and implement those strategies into our educational system and classrooms.

Singapore Math

Through the years, Singaporean students have consistently outranked United States’

students in mathematics. According to the 2003 Trends in International Mathematics and

Singapore Math 9

Science Study, Singaporean students ranked first in the world. Scores for United States students

were among the lowest of all industrialized countries. Hammond (2010) stated:

This accomplishment is even more remarkable given that fewer than half of Singapore’s

students routinely speak English, the language of the test, at home. Most speak one of

the other official national languages of the country – Mandarin, Malay, or Tamal – and

some speak on of several languages or dialects. (p. 181)

Ginsburg, Leinwand, Anstrom, and Pollock (2005) stated Singaporean students are “more

successful in math than their U.S. counterparts because Singapore has a world-class mathematics

system with quality components aligned to produce students who learn mathematics to mastery”

(p. 13). Additionally, Ginsburg et al. (2005) stated:

The components of Singapore math include Singapore’s highly logical national

mathematics framework, mathematically rich problem-based textbooks, challenging

mathematics assessments, and highly qualified mathematics teachers whose pedagogy

centers on teaching to mastery. Singapore also provides its mathematically slower

students with an alternative framework and special assistance from an expert teacher.

(p. 13)

Singapore math highlights the development of strong number sense, excellent mental

math skills, and a deep knowledge of place value. The curriculum is built on a progression from

concrete experience, using manipulatives, to a pictorial stage and finally to the abstract level.

This sequence gives students a concrete understanding of basic mathematical concepts and

relationships before they start working at the abstract level. Singapore math incorporates a

strong emphasis on model drawing, a visual approach to solving word problems that helps

students organize information and solve problems in a step-by-step manner. Concepts are taught

Singapore Math 10

to mastery, then later revisited but not re-taught. Ginsburg et al. (2005) stated Singapore math

“… covers a relatively small number of topics in-depth and carefully sequenced grade-by-grade,

following a spiral organization in which topics presented at one grade are covered in later grades,

but only at a more advanced level” (p. 15).

Singapore math textbooks offer clear, straightforward presentations of the mathematical

concepts and topics outlined according to the national framework. Additionally, the textbooks

provide numerous problem sets and explain mathematical concepts primarily through problems

that illustrate concepts from a variety of different perspectives. Ginsburg et al. (2005) stated

“this approach accords with research affirming the value of problem-based learning, which

requires students to work through extensive problem sets that include routine and non-routine

applications in a wide variety of real-world contexts” (p. 39). Furthermore Singapore textbooks

feature mathematical explanations that begin with physical examples or picture representations

and only later build up to more abstract concepts. This technique is particularly helpful to

students who have difficulty understanding abstract mathematics. Singapore textbooks also use

pictures to develop heuristics that are predominantly useful in helping students visualize how to

break down and attack complex problems.

Singapore and the United States assessments greatly differ. Singapore’s assessments are

administered chiefly for the purposes of pupil accountability and placement. Singapore does not

have a common, annual exam at most primary grades. However, mathematics achievement is a

major component of the grade 4 exam given at the end of grade 4, the PSLE given in grade 6,

and the O-level exam typically given in grade 10. In addition to using assessments for individual

pupil placement and accountability, Singapore uses grades 6 and 10 scores to reward high -

Singapore Math 11

performing schools that achieved better than expected performance on value-added measures of

school outcomes. Ginsburg et al. (2005) stated:

The value-added measure of school performance quantifies the school’s contribution to

student outcomes. This is necessary and desirable, because simple comparisons of the

average outcomes of pupils at a school are not a good measure of school effectiveness;

they do not account for differences in the entry performance levels of students. (p. 66)

United States Math

The United States mathematics system does not have similar features with the Singapore

math system. The United States mathematics system lacks a centrally identified core of

mathematical content that provides a focus for the rest of the system. Its traditional textbooks

emphasize definitions and formulas, not mathematical understanding. The United States

mathematical assessments are not particularly challenging and too many United States teachers

lack sound mathematics preparation. Ginsburg et al. (2005) stated:

At-risk students often receive special assistance from a teacher’s aide who lacks a college

degree. As a result, the United States produces students who have learned only to

mechanically apply mathematical procedures to solve routine problems and who are,

therefore, not mathematically competitive with students in most other industrialized

countries. (p. 13)

In the United States there is no single approach to the mathematic curriculum. Most

curriculum decisions in the United States are made at the local or state level. In Singapore, the

Ministry of Education determines what will be taught nationwide. Therefore, certain elements of

the Singapore approach are distinctly different from what’s typical in the United States.

However, the United States mathematics system has some features that are an improvement on

Singapore Math 12

Singapore’s system, markedly an emphasis on 21st century thinking skills, such as reasoning and

communications, and a focus on applied mathematics. However, if United States students are to

become successful in these areas, they must begin with a strong foundation in core mathematics

concepts and skills, which, by international standards, they presently lack. Additionally, the

United States places a greater emphasis on applied mathematics, including statistics, probability,

and real word problem analysis. The United States mathematics frameworks stress data analysis

and probability, while the Singapore framework treats statistics in a strictly theoretical way

(Ginsburg et al., 2005).

In the United States, textbook design is more difficult than that of Singapore. United

States textbook publishers cannot organize their textbooks for a single mathematical framework.

Instead they must accommodate the standards of fifty states. Ginsburg et al. (2005) stated,

“textbooks in the United States have been criticized for being thick in pages but thin in

mathematics content, but publishers have little choice because of the need to cover the

mathematical topics from standards in a multistate market” (p. 40). Overall, the United States

textbooks do a considerably much worse job than the Singapore textbooks in explaining the

mathematical concepts that students need to learn. Since the mathematical concepts in these

textbooks are often weak, the presentation becomes more mechanical than is ideal.

Unlike Singapore, the United States has a great deal of testing. However, the testing is at

the state level rather than the national level. Therefore, United States assessments serve as a

high-stakes accountability function. No Child Left Behind (NCLB) accountability provisions set

national conditions that drive the states’ accountability provisions. However, NCLB’s method to

accountability is considerably different than Singapore’s. Ginsburg et al. (2005) stated, “NCLB

provisions focus on holding schools accountable for student performance; in contrast,

Singapore Math 13

Singapore’s assessment system places greater emphasis on student performance for purposes of

placement”(p.67).

Supporters of Singapore Math

Supporters of Singapore math feel that it addresses one of the difficulties in teaching

math, in that all children learn differently. In comparison to the most common math programs in

the United States, Singapore math allocates more time to fewer topics, ensuring that children

master the material through detailed instruction, questions, problem solving, and manipulatives.

In 1998, the amount of content covered by the national Singapore syllabi was cut by 10 to 30%

to allow for more project work and independent learning (Tsuneyoshi, 2005). Supporters of

Singapore math like that ideally students do not move on to a new topic until they have

thoroughly learned a topic. Educators express that slowing down the learning process gives

students a solid math foundation on which they can build increasingly complex skills, and it

makes it less likely that they will forget and have to be re-taught the same thing in later years.

Additionally, educators have observed with Singapore math that the pace can accelerate by

fourth and fifth grades, putting students as much as a year ahead of students in other math

programs as they grasp complex problems more quickly (Ginsburg et al., 2005).

As stated above, one of the principles teachers like about Singapore math is the ideas of

teaching to mastery, “teach it and if they don’t get it they will get a chance again next year”

(Ginsburg et al., 2005, p. 150). However, some teachers feel pressure to move on at a faster pace

and not achieve the mastery Singapore math requires before moving on. Another added appeal

to Singapore math is that it has largely skirted the math wars of recent decades over whether to

teach traditional math or reform math. Singapore math has often been defined by educators and

parents as a more balanced methodology between the two, blending old-fashioned algorithms

Singapore Math 14

with visual representations and critical thinking. Hammond (2010) stated in regards to

Singapore education, “this spirit of creativity and innovation is visible throughout the schools,

which are encouraged to engage both students and teachers in experiential and cooperative

learning, action research, scientific investigations, entrepreneurial activities, and discussion and

debate (p. 6)”.

Teachers like Singapore math because it provides higher level mathematical content and

higher level thinking (Ginsburg et al., 2005). Additionally, Singapore math text clearly presents

concepts using pictures, numbers, and words through multi-step, multi-concept, and multi-strand

problems. Furthermore teachers liked how the challenging word problems empower students to

become critical thinkers and that algebraic concepts are introduced at an earlier age than with

United States mathematics.

In the North Middlesex Regional School District of Massachusetts, a study implementing

Singapore math into public classrooms, teachers noticed that the Singapore textbooks:

offer a deeper treatment of mathematical topics that returns to a topic only to teach it with

more depth. The teachers also like the books’ visual explanations that concretely

explained abstract concepts and the numerous multistep problems, differences we also

noted between Singapore and United States textbooks. (Ginsburg et al., 2005, p. 152)

From this study, teachers in the United States feel they will need specially tailored professional

development to successfully use the Singapore textbooks as other research indicates.

Additionally, teachers feel:

The difficulties of students with weak mathematics preparation or those who have not

been exposed to Singapore’s curriculum in prior grades have to be addressed, as do the

lack of real-world examples in the books, the lack of alignment between the Singapore

Singapore Math 15

textbooks and state frameworks, and the unfamiliar language and phrases used in the

textbooks. (Ginsburg et al., 2005, p. 152)

School Improvement

School improvement is a data-driven, research based framework that defines goals and

objectives to improve student learning and for selecting and implementing strategies to improve

the instructional and organizational effectiveness of a school. The most effective school

improvement plans are not unyielding prescriptions for day-to-day action, but rather are guides

for ongoing improvement in critical areas. A successful plan implements action steps,

establishes timelines, and indentifies outcome measures to monitor and evaluate success.

As stated by Schmoker (1999):

School improvement is not a mystery. Incremental, even dramatic, improvement is not

only possible but probable under the right conditions. We have to acknowledge that

people work more effectively, efficiently, and persistently when they work collectively,

while gauging their efforts against results. (pp. 1-2).

If a plan is to become a significant resource and guide for school improvement, then it must be

built and owned by all stakeholders. These include teachers, support staff, school leaders,

students, families, district officials, community members, and business organizations.

Implementing Change

The research of Elbousty and Bratt (2010) has shown that resistance to school

improvement and the change process comes in two forms. One active form is when the teacher

rejects the very idea of working collaboratively, and one passive form is when the teacher

chooses to work only with one or two colleagues while excluding others. Elbousty and Bratt

stated:

Singapore Math 16

Teachers who resist actively express a sense of frustration about fairness and equity,

stating that collaboration with colleagues causes more work for them and does not

necessarily remedy difficulties. Such feelings of unfairness, no matter how large or

small, pose significant threats to the development of the learning community. (p. 7)

Therefore, in a democratic institution, as a public school must be, teachers must truly accept

plurality and differing opinions and seek consensus opportunities among those with whom they

disagree (Elbousty & Bratt, 2010).

Although resistance does occur during school improvement and the change process, when

teachers work together, they share different perspectives and practices that make a collaborative

environment useful and productive. To translate school improvement plans into results, school

leaders must understand the power of shared leadership, the implications of change, and how to

ensure that everyone takes responsibility for implementing improvement plans. Some of the

improvement plans can be to look at how to manage personal transitions of change, the keys to

creating cultures committed to continuous improvement, and how to ensure all stakeholders play

a role in school improvement efforts.

Summary of Literature Review

By acquiring an in-depth knowledge base of one or more topics, one can provide the

opportunity for others to learn what is already known about that topic or topics. Within this

chapter specific research-based knowledge that pertains to each of the study’s focus questions

were discussed to benefit others in gaining knowledge of this content matter. In conclusion, this

research provided the most current and relevant information to understand my research project

and the components of it.

Singapore Math 17

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY

Research Design

In my research project I used a combination of action research design and evaluation

research design. Hopkins (2008) stated, “action research combines a substantive act with a

research procedure; it is action disciplined by enquiry, a personal attempt at understanding while

engaged in a process of improvement and reform” (p. 47). Evaluation research is completed to

determine the effectiveness of a program or curriculum. Action research develops something

new, whereas evaluation research appraises the quality of the innovation. The action research

process was used for this project to identify a need, collect information and resources, prepare

the project, and to introduce and implement the project. Additionally, the evaluation research

process was used to monitor procedures and reactions, identify strengths and shortcomings of the

project, and appraise the project’s ongoing and long-term results (Charles & Mertler, 2002).

Setting

The study took place in a rural elementary Title I Distinguished School in Troup County.

Students attending this school came from diverse communities including both rural and urban

populations. This school comprised of 298 students in Pre K through fifth grade. The student

body included 48% Caucasian, 37% African American, 3% Hispanic, 5% Asian, and 5%

Interracial. Three percent of the student body received instruction in a class for the gifted, 6%

received special education instruction, and 6% were English Language Learners. Sixty-five

percent of the students at this school participated in the free and reduced lunch program. This

study site was selected because it was where I taught. Permission to conduct the study was

granted by the school’s principal, the county school system, and LaGrange College’s

Institutional Review Board.

Singapore Math 18

Subjects and Participants

The subjects in my pilot study were fifth grade math students, divided into an

experimental group and a control group. The experimental group consisted of one White female,

four White males, three African American females, and four African American males. The

control group consisted of six White females, two White males, five African American females,

and four African American males. The students in the experimental group were chosen because

they were fifth grade students who scored level one on their Mathematics CRCT in fourth grade.

The students in the control group were chosen because they were fifth grade students who scored

level two on their Mathematics CRCT in fourth grade.

The participants in the pilot study were the school’s principal and two fifth grade

teachers. The principal was chosen because she was in charge of the curriculum and data. She

has been the principal at this school for three years. One of the fifth grade math teachers was

chosen because she co-taught in my experimental math group. She has taught fifth grade for

seven years. The other fifth grade math teacher was chosen because she was the teacher for the

control group. She has taught fifth grade for four years.

Procedures and Data Collection Methods

Throughout this paper, I will be referring to the data shell in Table 3.1 below and the

three focus questions used to guide the research. Various methods were used in this research

project to answer the three focus questions and to analyze the data. The data for this research

were collected by CRCT assessment, student surveys, a reflective journal, and an interview.

Singapore Math 19

Table 3.1 Data Shell

FocusQuestion

LiteratureSources

Type: Method, Data, Validity

How are these data analyzed?

Rationale

Did the International Singapore Math approach positively affect fifth grade math student achievement?

Ginsburg, A., Leinwand, S., Anstrom, T., & Pollock, E., (2005)Hammond, L., (2010)Tsuneyoshi, R., (2005)

Method:AssessmentCRCT

Data:Interval

Type of Validity:Content

Quantitative:Pre and post tests using dependent t-tests.Effect Size r

Quantitative:Determine if there are significant differences

How do learners feel about the International Singapore Math approach?

Ginsburg, A., Leinwand, S., Anstrom, T., & Pollock, E., (2005)Hammond, L., (2010)Schmoker, M., (1999)

Method:Survey

Data:Nominal

Type of Validity:Construct

Quantitative:Chi square test

Cronbach’s alpha

Quantitative:Determine if there are significant differences

How well did the International Singapore Math change process work in relation to fifth grade math achievement?

Elbousty, Y., & Bratt, K., (2010)Ginsburg, A., Leinwand, S., Anstrom, T., & Pollock, E., (2005)Schmoker, M., (1999)

Method:InterviewReflective JournalData:Qualitative

Type of Validity:Nominal

Qualitative:Coded for themes

Qualitative:Look for categorical and repeating data

I used Singapore math methods with my experimental group to teach measurement as

required by the Georgia State Performance Standards over a two week period. Implementing

Singapore math methods involved students solving problems, thinking deeply, sharing ideas, and

learning from one another. Student conceptual, procedural, and factual understandings were

acquired through problem solving and carefully structured practice. As a result, students learned

Singapore Math 20

how to think deeply and appreciate mathematics. The following are the Singapore math

strategies that were used for the pilot study:

Model drawing and an emphasis on the concept of part-whole that precedes the

teaching of model drawing

Mental Math: Techniques encourage understanding of mathematical properties

and promote numerical fluency

Daily activities to build on teacher-directed lessons

“Look and talks” to build understanding of mathematical language

Number bonds, ten frames, and place value charts

The connection of pictures, words, and numbers

Each subject’s fourth grade CRCT math test results were compared with the results of the fifth

grade CRCT math test to determine if there was a significant difference between the scores

between the fourth grade results and fifth grade results in the domain of measurement. Student

surveys (see Appendix A) were administered after the completion of the pilot study. Using a

three choice response scale, the student surveys asked questions regarding how the students felt

about the Singapore math approach and how successful the students felt in math after the

implementation of the Singapore math method. A reflective journal was used on a daily basis

after implementing the Singapore math methods in class. For the reflective journal, a set prompt

of questions (see Appendix B) were used to provide consistency. The journal provided

qualitative data which increased the dependability of the research through consistent data

collection and a controlled setting. The validity and reliability was maximized through

consistent data gathering and daily entries based on answers to prompt questions. An interview

with the school’s principal was conducted on the change process (see Appendix C). These

Singapore Math 21

results were coded for themes aligned with whether Singapore math methods positively affected

student performance on the Math CRCT from his or her fourth grade math CRCT results to his

or her fifth grade Math CRCT results in the domain of measurement.

Validity/Reliability/Dependability/Bias/Equity

The validity, reliability, dependability, and bias of an action research project are crucial.

As a researcher, there are certain procedures that take place to ensure the validity, reliability, and

dependability of data as well as the minimization of bias and the concern for equity. Focus

question one stated “Did the International Singapore Math approach positively affect fifth grade

math achievement?” For this focus question, quantitative interval data was used to determine if

there were significant differences in academic achievement in the domain of measurement.

CRCT math scores were used to show content validity and it was assured by using CRCT pre

and post – tests. CRCT results were deemed appropriate by the Troup County School System to

provide reliable and valid data, because it encompasses all areas of fifth grade Georgia

performance standards. The parallel correlation of the test scores showed reliability. The test-

retest reliability provided by the correlation of scores from different time periods spoke to the

reliability of my research. It was the assumption of the researcher that state-mandated

assessments were designed to eliminate unfairness, offensiveness, and disparate impact.

Focus question two, “How do learners feel about the International Singapore Math

approach?” quantitative data were used to determine if there were significant differences.

Ordinal data were gathered using student surveys to show construct validity. To show reliability,

a Cronbach’s alpha was calculated for the survey’s internal consistency. Dependability of the

data was ensured by consistently collecting the data and a controlled setting for the survey was

Singapore Math 22

provided. The student survey questions were reviewed for bias by the county school system as

well as the IRB. The analysis of the data showed no disparate impact from the innovation.

Focus question three, which is “How well did the International Singapore Math change

process work in relation to fifth grade math achievement?” qualitative data were gathered

through an interview with the principal of the school and through a reflective journal. The

journal provided qualitative data which increased the dependability of the research through

consistent data collection and a controlled setting. The validity and reliability were maximized

through consistent data gathering and weekly entries based on answers to prompt questions.

Content related validity was shown through the interview questions and the questions were

controlled for bias. Dependability of data were ensured by recording the interview with an

audiotape. The bias in the qualitative data was minimized through the review of items by peer

fifth grade teachers. There was attention given to the review of items for offensiveness,

unfairness, and disparate impact. With a thorough item per item review, bias was eliminated.

The data were analyzed by coding for themes to determine if there were any emerging, recurring,

or dominant themes that occurred.

Equity was assured during the research study through an equity audit. Skrla, McKenzie,

and Scheurich (2009) stated, “equity audits are a systematic way for school leaders-principals,

superintendents, curriculum directors, teacher leaders-to assess the degree of equity or inequity

present in three key areas of their schools or districts: programs, teacher quality, and

achievement” (p.3). The school that provided a home for this research endeavor was privileged

to have several systems in place that promoted educational equity. Instruction was dictated by

curriculum pacing guides set forth by the district and aligned to state standards. Professional

development was focused on best practices for quality teaching as well as differentiated

Singapore Math 23

instruction. The fifth grade team collaborated daily to create common instruction, materials, and

assessment. All teachers in the on the team were highly qualified. There was much focus at the

district level on moving toward county-wide assessments to ensure equity.

Analysis of Data

Interval data were collected to determine if the Singapore Math approach positively affect

fifth grade math student achievement by comparing the experimental group’s fourth grade CRCT

scores to the group’s fifth grade CRCT scores in the domain of measurement. A dependent t-test

was used to analyze the data to determine if there was a significant difference between the means

from one group tested twice. The decision to reject the null hypotheses was set at p<.05.

Additionally, the effect size was measured using an Effect Size r. A small effect size ranged

from 0.1 to 0.23; a medium effect size ranged from 0.24 to 0.36; and a large effect size was set

for any value 0.37 or higher.

To determine how learners felt about the Singapore Math approach, ordinal data was

collected using student survey. A Chi-square test was used to analyze the student survey to show

significance. Salkind (2010) defines a Chi-square as “an interesting nonparametric test that

allows you to determine if what you observe in a distribution of frequencies would be what you

would expect to occur by chance” (p. 312). The rationale was to determine which questions

were significant and which questions were not significant. The significance level is reported at

the p < .05, p < .01 and the p < .001 levels. To determine reliability a Cronbach’s alpha was also

computed.

To assess how well the Singapore Math change process worked in relation to fifth grade

math achievement qualitative data was used. After an interview with the principal from the

school where the study took place, interview responses were coded for themes to look for

Singapore Math 24

categorical and repeating data that would show recurring, dominant, or emerging themes. The

reflective journal was analyzed by coding as well.

In order to assess the validation, credibility, transferability, and transformational concepts

for this entire study, a holistic approach of analysis was under taken. Two types of validity are

consensual validity and epistemological validity. Consensual validity was confirmed with

faculty approval. Eisner (1991) calls the faculty review process ‘Consensual Validation,’ an

agreement among competent others that the description, interpretation, evaluation and thematic

are right. Epistemological validity occurred when the results were compared to the literature.

Denzin and Lincoln (1998) describe the cycling back to your literature review as

‘Epistemological Validation,’ a place where you convince the reader that you have remained

consistent with the theoretical perspectives you used in the review of the literature.

Credibility is a concept defined as triangulation. Credibility was ensured in this study

through the use of multiple data sources. Eisner (1991) calls this process ‘structural

corroboration,’ where a confluence of evidence comes together to form a compelling whole.

Embedded within Eisner’s definition are the concepts of fairness and precision. To be fair, one

must state that one plans to present alternative (opposing) perspectives with which one may not

particularly agree. This was done by presenting alternative perspectives in the literature review

as well as selecting participants in the data collection process who have opposing views. To be

precise, one must state how one will present a tight argument, a coherent case, and have strong

evidence to assert judgments. Eisner refers to precision as ‘rightness of fit.’

Once credibility was established, this study had transferability. Transferability makes the

claim that the study is useful for others to apply to different situations. Eisner (1991) calls this

process ‘referential adequacy’ where perception and understanding by others will increase

Singapore Math 25

because of this research. Transformational ability is also referred to as ‘catalytic validity’

(Lather as cited by Kinchloe & McLaren, 1998). Catalytic validity is the degree to which the

researcher anticipates his or her study to shape and transform the researchers’ participants,

subjects or school. The evidence of catalytic validity was seen when the results of the study

were examined to determine significance and meaningfulness.

Singapore Math 26

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS

Within this chapter, the results and findings of the research on the efficacy of the

Singapore math approach will be presented and organized by focus question. The first focus

question states, “did the International Singapore Math approach positively affect fifth grade math

achievement?” The quantitative results for the first focus question were gained through the use

of a dependent t-test using students’ math CRCT scores from fourth grade and students’ math

CRCT scores from fifth grade in the measurement domain. The null hypothesis for the test was

that there would be no significant difference between the fourth grade CRCT math scores and the

fifth grade CRCT math scores in the domain of measurement. Additionally, to determine the

magnitude of the difference, the effect size was measured for each t-test using an Effect Size r.

Where a small effect size ranges from 0.1 to 0.23; a medium effect size ranges from 0.24 to 0.36;

and a large effect size is set for any value 0.37 or higher.

Table 4.1 Dependent t-test: 2010 and 2011 CRCT Scores in the domain of measurement

t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means

2010 CRCT Measurement 2011 CRCT Measurement

Mean 50.41 46.33

Variance 147.54 177.88

Observations 12 12

Pearson Correlation -0.70Hypothesized Mean Difference 0

Df 11

t Stat 0.60

P(T<=t) one-tail 0.28

Singapore Math 27

t Critical one-tail 1.80

P(T<=t) two-tail 0.56

t Critical two-tail 2.20

t(11) = 0.60, p < .05

As shown in Table 4.1, the CRCT scores in the domain of measurement did not show a

significant difference during the fifth grade year as compared with the CRCT scores in the

domain of measurement during the fourth grade year. The statistical dependent t-test does not

show significance with the obtained value of 0.60 not exceeding the critical value of 2.20, and,

therefore, the null is accepted. An Effect Size r value of 0.16 indicates a small effect size in the

difference.

The second focus question states, “how do learners feel about the International Singapore

Math approach?” The quantitative results for the second focus question were gained from

student surveys. These quantitative results were analyzed using a Chi-square test and Cronbach’s

alpha. The Chi-square test was used to determine if the observed distribution of frequencies was

what was expected to occur by chance. The rationale was to determine which questions were

significant and which questions were not significant. The significance level is reported at the p

< .05, p < .01 and the p < .001 levels.

Table 4.2: Chi-Square Statistic for Student Math Survey

Survey Itemsn=12

Survey Question Χ

Item 1 Did you like math when using Singapore math methods?

10.5**

Item 2 Do you feel better about math after using the Singapore math methods?

10.5**

Item 3 Would you like to use the Singapore math methods again when learning math?

13.5**

Item 4 Did you like the hands-on activities that were 24 ***

Singapore Math 28

used to teach measurement?Item 5 Do you still feel like you need more help with

measurement?3.5

* p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001

The results of the Chi-square statistic for the Student Math Survey in Table 4.2 also

highlighted several significant items. Questionnaire items 1, 2, 3, and 4 were all found to be

highly significant when p < .05, .01, and .001, meaning that there were a high percentage of

students that answered a certain way on these questions. However, item 5 was not significant at

all, which means that there was no significant difference on these questions between what was

observed in the answers and what would have been expected to occur by chance.

To determine the internal consistency reliability of the items on the Student Math Survey,

the Cronbach’s alpha test was conducted using the survey responses. According to Salkind

(2010), “[internal consistency reliability] is used when you want to know whether the items on a

test are consistent with one another in that they represent one, and only one, dimension,

construct, or area of interest” (p. 147). For the Student Math Survey, the computations gave a

Cronbach’s alpha of 0.28. Therefore, this survey showed a moderate level of internal

consistency reliability using the results of the Cronbach’s alpha test which may indicate that the

trends were different among the questions.

The third focus question states, “how well did the International Singapore Math change

process work in relation to fifth grade math achievement?” The qualitative results for the third

focus question were gained from the reflective journal kept by me, and an interview with the

principal. These results were coded for themes aligned with whether Singapore math methods

positively affected student performance on the Math CRCT from the student’s math CRCT

results to the student’s fifth grade Math CRCT results in the domain of measurement.

Singapore Math 29

Through the coding of the daily journal sheet, there was a recurring theme of student

behavior and discipline interfering with instructional delivery. Additionally from the journal,

when possible, small group instruction was the most valuable form of Singapore math delivery.

The small groups’ ratio consisted of no more than four students per teacher. A positive student

comment documented in the journal in regards to the Singapore Math methods was that the

students enjoyed using manipulatives. Additionally, the students liked that greater and longer

use of time was spent on mastering the concepts of measurement.

The following are responses from my principal when I interviewed her. In response to

the question about the observation of the implementation of the Singapore math methods in

regards to instruction and student learning, the principal stated, “I saw numerous use of

manipulatives and the implementation of writing in mathematics. Even though there was not a

significant difference in the students’ measurement scores, I was very happy to see the

improvement in the overall math CRCT scores.” In response to the question about would these

methods be beneficial in other grade levels, the principal stated, “I think the methods of using

manipulatives, writing, spiraling and reviewing would be very beneficial in other grade levels.”

In response to the question were there any negatives during the implementation of the Singapore

math methods, the principal stated, “I saw no negatives. However, I wish our curriculum was

designed to allow more time to be spent on a topic, especially those topics of recurring difficulty

through the grade levels.” In response to the question about the change process, the principal

stated, “If we were to integrate some of these methods into other grade levels, I think others

would feel positive about this change process as long as these methods were delivered in a

beneficial, understanding lesson.”

Singapore Math 30

The results of all quantitative data were determined through a dependent t-test and a chi

square test. The results of these two tests were shown in table format for the ease of the reader

and to display the findings of significance. The results from the quantitative data were coded for

themes. In Chapter 5, the results of these findings will be analyzed and discussed in detail.

There will also be implications and recommendations for future research in the Singapore Math

Method.

Singapore Math 31

CHAPTER 5: ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

Analysis

Within this chapter, the results of the research project are further analyzed to give an in-

depth look at the outcomes attained. The data will then be disaggregated in a discussion of the

meaning as related to answering the three focus questions, and a discussion of the implications of

the results. The impact on school improvement will follow as well as recommendations for

further research.

For the first focus question, “did the International Singapore Math approach positively

affect fifth grade math achievement?”, quantitative data were used. The results for the first focus

question were gained through the use of a dependent t-test using students’ math CRCT scores

from fourth grade and students’ math CRCT scores from fifth grade in the measurement domain.

The purpose for this focus question was to see if there would be a significant difference between

the students’ fourth grade math CRCT scores from the students’ fifth grade math CRCT scores in

the measurement domain after the implementation of the Singapore Math methods. As stated by

Ginsburg et al. (2005) in a previous chapter, Singaporean students are “more successful in math

than their U.S. counterparts because Singapore has a world-class mathematics system with

quality components aligned to produce students who learn mathematics to mastery” (p. 13).

The data, as measured by a dependent t-test, looked for a significant difference between

the students’ fourth grade math CRCT scores from the students’ fifth grade math CRCT scores in

the measurement domain and showed no significance. From the dependent t-test the obtained

value of 0.60 did not exceed the critical value of 2.20, and, therefore, the null was accepted.

Additionally, with an Effect Size r value of 0.165141 indicated a small effect size in the

difference. Even though no significance was shown in the measurement domain between the

Singapore Math 32

fourth grade math CRCT scores and the fifth grade math CRCT scores, there was a gain in

overall achievement from the students’ fifth grade math CRCT scores compared to the fourth

grade math CRCT scores. Within my experimental group, I had 83% of those twelve students

(ten out of twelve) coming to me from fourth grade with a Level 1 math CRCT score which

shows they did not meet. After their fifth grade overall math CRCT were obtained, I had 25% of

those same twelve students score Level 1. Therefore, my experimental group at the beginning of

year came to me with a 17% success rate as determined by their fourth grade math CRCT scores,

with only two of those twelve students scoring a Level 2 (meets) on their fourth grade math

CRCT scores. At the end of their fifth grade school year, the same group of students had a 75%

success rate determined by their fifth grade math CRCT scores, with nine of those twelve

students scoring a Level 2 (meets) on their fifth math CRCT scores.

As stated previously in this paper, Ginsburg et al. (2005) stated Singapore math “…

covers a relatively small number of topics in-depth and carefully sequenced grade-by-grade,

following a spiral organization in which topics presented at one grade are covered in later grades,

but only at a more advanced level” (p. 15). The success of the students’ overall fifth grade math

CRCT scores was because of the sequencing and spiraling of the math standards throughout the

school year, however, this did not show success within the measurement domain. Additionally,

the statement by Ginsberg et al. (2005) stated Singaporean students are “more successful in math

than their U.S. counterparts because Singapore has a world-class mathematics system with

quality Components aligned to produce students who learn mathematics to mastery” (p. 13)

substantiated the results of the study.

For the analysis of the second focus question, “how do learners feel about the

International Singapore Math approach?”, quantitative results were gained from student surveys.

Singapore Math 33

These quantitative results were analyzed using a Chi-square test and Cronbach’s alpha. The Chi-

square test was used to determine if the observed distribution of frequencies was what was

expected to occur by chance. The rationale was to determine which questions were significant

and which questions were not significant. The significance level was reported at the p < .05, p

< .01 and the p < .001 levels. To determine reliability a Cronbach’s alpha was also computed.

The student survey consisted of five questions pertaining to the Singapore math methods and

measurement. Item 1 had a Chi-square result of χ²(2) = 10.5, p. < .05. This means the student

responses were significant. The raw data revealed that most students agreed with the belief that

they liked math when using the Singapore math methods. Item 2 had a Chi-square result of χ²(2)

= 10.5, p. < .05. This means the student responses were significant. The raw data revealed that

most students agreed with the belief that they felt better about math after using the Singapore

math methods. Item 3 had a Chi-square result of χ²(2) = 13.5, p. < .05. This means the student

responses were significant. The raw data revealed that the majority of the students agreed with

the belief that they would like to use the Singapore math methods again when learning math.

Item 4 had a Chi-square result of χ²(2) = 24, p. < .05. This means the student responses were

highly significant. The raw data revealed that all the students agreed with the belief that they

liked the hands-on activities that were used to teach measurement. Item 5 had a Chi-square

result of χ²(2) = 3.5, p. > .05. This means the student responses were not significant. The raw data

revealed that student responses were mixed between all possible categories as far as the belief

that they still feel like they need more help with measurement.

To determine the internal consistency reliability of the items on the survey given to the

students, a Cronbach’s alpha test was conducted using the survey responses. The purpose of this

test was to correlate the score for each item with the total score for each student in order to make

Singapore Math 34

sure the survey items measured only what they were intended to measure. The Cronbach’s alpha

of a = 0.28 showed a moderate level of internal consistency reliability using the results of the

Cronbach’s alpha test which may indicate that the trends were different among the questions.

Through the review of the raw data, there was significance in that the students liked the

Singapore math methods and would like to use them again. However, the one item that showed

no significance was the in regards to students still not feeling confident about their understanding

of measurement. This correlated with previous literature in regards to Singapore math in that if

more time could have been given to the teaching of measurement, there could have been a higher

level of success. However, in the United States our curriculum is very broad and not very deep.

We are held accountable to teach many math standards in a short amount of time whereas,

supporters of Singapore math, like that ideally students do not move on to a new topic until they

have thoroughly learned a topic. As previously discussed, educators express that slowing down

the learning process gives students a solid math foundation on which they can build increasingly

complex skills, and it makes it less likely that they will forget and have to be re-taught the same

thing in later years (Ginsburg et al., 2005). Additionally, this cycles back to Singapore in 1998,

when the amount of content covered by the national Singapore syllabi was cut by 10 to 30% to

allow for more time (Tsuneyoshi, (2005).

For focus question three, “how well did the International Singapore Math change process

work in relation to fifth grade math achievement?”, qualitative data were used. Results for the

third focus question were gained from a reflective journal kept by the teacher and an interview

with the principal. These results were coded for themes aligned with whether Singapore math

methods positively affected student performance on the Math CRCT from his or her fourth grade

math CRCT results to his or her fifth grade Math CRCT results in the domain of measurement.

Singapore Math 35

Additionally, focus question three relates to school improvement and the change process. As

previously discussed, the most effective school improvement plans are not unyielding

prescriptions for day-to-day action, but rather are guides for ongoing improvement in critical

areas. A successful plan implements action steps, establishes timelines, and identifies outcome

measures to monitor and evaluate success. This is supported by Schmoker (1999) who stated,

“we have to acknowledge that people work more effectively, efficiently, and persistently when

they work collectively, while gauging their efforts against results” (pp. 1-2).

Common themes discovered from the interview with the principal were mental math

techniques, manipulatives, and the connection of pictures, words, and numbers through “Writing

to Win.” The following are responses from my principal when I interviewed her. In response to

the question about the observation of the implementation of the Singapore math methods in

regards to instruction and student learning, the principal stated, “I saw numerous use of

manipulatives and the implementation of writing in mathematics. Even though there was not a

significant difference in the students’ measurement scores, I was very happy to see the

improvement in the overall math CRCT scores.” In response to the question about would these

methods be beneficial in other grade levels, the principal stated, “I think the methods of using,

manipulatives, writing, spiraling and reviewing would be very beneficial in other grade levels.”

In response to the question were there any negatives during the implementation of the Singapore

math methods, the principal stated, “I saw no negatives. However, I wish our curriculum was

designed to allow more time to be spent on a topic, especially those topics of recurring difficulty

through the grade levels.” In response to the question about the change process, the principal

stated, “If we were to integrate some of these methods into other grade levels, I think others

would feel positive about this change process as long as these methods were delivered in a

Singapore Math 36

beneficial, understanding lesson.” This statement did not correlate with Elbousty and Bratt

(2010), in that with the change process teachers express a sense of frustration about fairness and

equity which pose significant threats to the development of the learning community.

Through the coding of the daily journal sheet, there was a recurring theme of student

behavior and discipline interfering with instructional delivery. Additionally from the journal,

when possible, small group instruction was the most valuable form of Singapore math delivery.

The small groups’ ratio consisted of no more than four students per teacher. A positive student

comment documented in the journal in regards to the Singapore Math methods was that the

students enjoyed using manipulatives. Additionally, the students liked that greater and longer

use of time was spent on mastering the concepts of measurement. However, another recurring

theme was the students’ resistance to writing about math.

Discussion

The results of this study showed that the implementation of the Singapore math methods

in the teaching of measurement made no significant differences in the students’ fourth grade

CRCT results in the domain of measurement to the students’ fifth grade CRCT results in the

domain of measurement. However, as I stated previously in this chapter, there was a gain in

overall achievement from the students’ fifth grade math CRCT scores compared to the fourth

grade math CRCT scores. There are several reasons why I think there was not a significant

difference in the students’ fourth grade CRCT results in the domain of measurement to the

students’ fifth grade CRCT results in the domain of measurement. First, in Singapore math, the

curriculum covers fewer standards but goes deeper into each standard. Whereas, here in the

United States, our curriculum covers many standards within a year and therefore the depth of

knowledge of each standard is difficult to achieve. Second, knowing how low mathematically

Singapore Math 37

the students in the experimental group entered fifth grade, a large amount of instructional time

was spent on re-teaching previous years’ standards. Additionally, the confidence level was low

for these students and I think that contributed to their concentration level. Many times I

observed the students shutting down because the measurement problems required higher order

thinking skills and were multiple step problems. I observed them becoming overwhelmed with

this and because they were not confident, would easily give up.

The results of the student surveys showed there was significance in that the students liked

the Singapore math methods and would like to use them again. Additionally, the students like

using manipulatives. However, the one item that showed no significance was the in regards to

students still not feeling confident about their understanding of measurement. This item showed

that 50% of the students felt confident about their understanding of measurement, 42% did not

feel confident about their understanding of measurement, and 8% reported I don’t know.

This study ensured credibility through the use of multiple data sources. These data

sources included CRCT scores, student surveys, a reflective journal, and an interview with my

principal. By using the CRCT scores, I feel my argument was more credible because the CRCT

is a state wide test consisting of only multiple choice questions that were scored by a non-bias

agency. Therefore my outcome was not biased in any way. I was successful in finding opposing

views by presenting alternative perspectives in the literature review as well as selecting

participants in the data collection process who had opposing views. Additionally, the interview

with my principal re-affirmed the reliability, relevance, and unsuccessful/successful attributes of

this study. However, because there was no significance after the implementation of the

Singapore math methods in relation to the students’ achievement in the domain of measurement,

the evidence is not sufficiently strong to assert judgments.

Singapore Math 38

Implications

In reference to the quantitative results, it was proven through the dependent t-test that

there was no significance between the students’ fourth grade math CRCT scores and the

students’ fifth grade math CRCT scores in the measurement domain. Therefore, I do not feel

confident that my results can be generalized to the larger population. However, since there was a

gain in overall achievement from the students’ fifth grade math CRCT scores compared to the

fourth grade math CRCT scores, I think this research could be transferred into other areas of

math. This is further supported by the qualitative results. Through the surveys, interview, and

reflective journal there was a recurring theme of students and educators finding the Singapore

math methods beneficial and enjoyable. As a teacher, I realized through this study and the

research pertaining to the study, how beneficial it is to have a curriculum that covers fewer

standards. Covering fewer standards, allows our students to gain deeper knowledge and create

higher order thinking skills.

Impact on School Improvement

The impact that the research has made on school improvement is just a small part of the

bigger picture. One of the differences mentioned between Singapore and the United States math

curriculum is the larger number of standards to be covered in the United States than that of

Singapore. One of the reasons Singapore is successful is because there curriculum covers less

standards, therefore allowing a standard to be taught deeply and not just skimmed on the surface.

The state of Georgia, where this study took place, is currently rolling out a new math curriculum

which will have fewer standards taught in a given amount of time. This presents a positive

aspect on the future of this study and on school improvement.

Singapore Math 39

Recommendations for Future Research

Though the study did not show significant differences between the students’ fourth grade

math CRCT scores and the students’ fifth grade math CRCT scores in the measurement domain,

there was a gain in overall achievement from the students’ fifth grade math CRCT scores

compared to the fourth grade math CRCT scores. Therefore, I feel that future research could be

expanded over a greater length of time, maybe up to a year, especially with the new curriculum

being introduced. The next step would be to extend the study to include all the standards instead

of just the measurement domain. Additionally, in future research I would perform a pre-test and

post-test in addition to CRCT scores to obtain more statistical data. Furthermore, I would

implement the student surveys before and after each standard taught to see if there would be

significant differences in student responses. In conclusion, through the research, I have learned

the vast differences in our educational system compared to that of Singapore and why Singapore

is successful. As a result, this study has transformed how I view the implementation of math

standards to be taught using effective strategies I have learned from Singapore.

Singapore Math 40

REFERENCES

Ballard, A., Palmieri, S., & Winkler, A. (2008). Education Olympics 2008: The game in review.

Washington D.C.: Thomas B. Fordham Institute.

Charles, C., & Mertler, C. (2002). Introduction to educational research. Boston, MA: Allyn and

Bacon.

Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (1998). The fifth moment. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), The

landscape of qualitative research: Theories and issues (pp. 407-430).

Eisner, E. (1991). The enlightened eye. New York: MacMillan.

Elbousty, Y., & Bratt, K. (2010). Team strategies for school improvement: The ongoing

development of the professional learning community. ERIC Online Submission

(ED510034).

Ginsburg, A., Leinwand, S., Anstrom, T., & Pollock, E. (2005). What the United States can

learn from Singapore’s world-class mathematics system (and what Singapore can learn

from the United States): An exploration study. Washington D.C.: American Institutes for

Research.

Hammond, L. (2010). The flat world and education: How America’s commitment to equity will

determine our future. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Hopkins, D. (2008). Teacher's guide to classroom research. Berkshire, GB: Open University

Press.

Kinchloe, J., & McLaren, P. (1998). Rethinking critical theory and qualitative research. In N.

Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), The landscape of qualitative research: Theories and issues

(pp. 260 – 299). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Singapore Math 41

Kubow, P., & Fossum, P. (2007). Comparative education: Exploring issues in international

context. Upper Saddle River, NJ. Pearson, Merrill Prentice Hall.

LaGrange College Education Department (2008). The conceptual framework undergirding

professional education programs. LaGrange, GA : LaGrange College.

Larochelle, M., Bednarz, N., & Garrison, J. (1998). Constructivism and education. Cambridge,

NY. Cambridge University Press.

Little, E. (2009). Teaching mathematics: Issues and solutions. Teaching Exceptional Children

Plus, 6(1), 6-8.

Pass, S. (2004). Parallel paths to constructivism: Jean Piaget and Lev Vygotsky. Greenwich,

CT: Information Age Publishing.

Phillips, M., Crouse, J., & Ralph, J. (1998). Does the Black-White test score gap widen after

children enter school? In C. Jencks & M. Phillips (Eds.), The Black-White test score gap

(pp. 229-272). Washington, DC: Brookings Institute.

Powell, K., & Kalina, C. (2009). Cognitive and social constructivism: Developing tools for an

effective classroom. Education, 130(2), 241-250.

Proctor, B., Floyd, R., & Shaver, R. (2005). Cattell-horn-carroll broad cognitive ability profiles

of low math achievers. Psychology in the Schools, 42(1), 1-12.Salkind, N. J. (2010).

Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics (Excel 2nd Ed.).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Schmoker, M. (1999). Results: The key to continuous school improvement. Alexandria, VA:

Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Skrla, L., McKenzie, K., Scheurich, J. (2009). Using equity audits to create equitable

and excellent schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Singapore Math 42

Tsuneyoshi, R. (2005). Teaching for “thinking” in four nations: Singapore, China, the United

States, and Japan. Tokyo: University of Tokyo, Center for Research of Core Academic

Competences.

Welsh, J., Nix, R., Blair, C., Bierman, K., & Nelson, K. (2010). The development of cognitive

skills and gains in academic school readiness for children from low-income families.

Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(1), 43-53.

Wilson, D. (2003). The future of comparative and international education in a globalized world.

International Review of Education, 49(1-2), 15-33.

Yueng, W. J., & Conley, D. (2008). Black-White achievement gap and family wealth. Child

Development Journal, 79(2), 303-324.

Singapore Math 43

Appendix A

Student Math Survey

Circle your response for each question.

1. Did you like math when using Singapore math methods? Yes No I don’t know

2. Do you feel better about math after using the Singapore math methods?

Yes No I don’t know

3. Would you like to use the Singapore math methods again when learning math?

Yes No I don’t know

4. Did you like the hands-on activities that were used to teach measurement?

Yes No I don’t know

5. Do you still feel like you need more help with measurement?

Yes No I don’t know

Singapore Math 44

Appendix B

Daily Reflective Journal

Three main things Ilearned from thislesson.

1.

2.

3.

Did we finish everythingin the lesson?If not, why?

Were there anysurprises?

Is there somethingI will do differentlynext time?

What do I like anddislike most from thislesson?

Like:

Dislike:

Singapore Math 45

Appendix C

Interview with Principal aboutSingapore Math

1. What did you observe with the implementation of the Singapore math methods in regards to instruction?

2. What did you observe with the implementation of the Singapore math methods in regards to student learning?

3. As principal, do you think these methods would be beneficial in other grade levels?

4. Did you observe any negatives during the implementation of the Singapore math methods?

5. If our school decided to integrate some of the Singapore math methods within math instruction, how do think others would feel about the change process?

6. In conclusion, are there any other questions or comments you would like to share?