Elementary Math Boot Camp

When I go speak at a school’s Parent Night about Singapore Math, I get asked a lot of different questions. The most common one, however, is how can I help my child with his/her homework? To help out in Northern Colorado, my home base, I decided to take my Parent Boot Camps to another level. A monthly or bi-weekly level through Meetup.com. Each meetup, we’ll work through an elementary mathematical concept, review strategies, and learn a fun activity or game that supports the concept.

As we get going, I’ll post more about the meetups and the questions and issues that concern parents the most.

From the Read more about us page (where you can register to join, too):

Does your student struggle with his or her math homework? Are you arguing over who’s way of solving problems is right, yours or the teacher’s? Wouldn’t it be nice if your child thought math was FUN? It’s time for a math boot camp for parents! Each Meetup will engage parents with strategies to help their child as well as some time for home-enjoyment review. (Really, why should it be homeWORK?)

Who: Parents who want to help their elementary school students with mathematics.

Why: While math hasn’t changed much since we were in school… virtually everything else has, include teaching methods, curricula, homework, and expectations

How: Using math strategies from Singapore Math and other World-Class curricula, we’ll focus on understanding elementary math concepts. Why do we invert and multiply when dividing fractions? What are we doing when we “borrow” from a number? Why don’t kids memorize their multiplication tables anymore?

Bonus: At each Meetup, I’ll provide Math-Campers with some handpicked resources that engage students and strengthen their mastery of math facts. We’ll play games that focus on mathematics content and discuss your child’s homework assignment, so bring them along!

Share:

Seeking Singapore Math Assessments?

A recent visitor left this comment:

I am part of a team of first grade teachers at my school. We are piloting Singapore Math this year. We are creating assessments and were looking for ready-made assessments to genuinely fit the curriculum.

One of the challenges for a classroom teacher using the U.S Edition is that there aren’t any assessments ready-made. The Standards Edition of Primary Mathematics has assessments, however they won’t correspond directly to the U.S. Edition Materials.

Keep in mind that if you write the questions, you can tailor them to the objectives of your lessons. Are you assessing for basic competency? Are you assessing for deeper understanding? Additionally, for a teacher-created assessment, you need to create an answer key. I frequently hear from teachers who tell me, “Well, I gave this test, but all I have is the answer and I’m not sure how to work the problem.”

That being said, I know teachers’ time is valuable. Many teachers use questions from the Review sections of the textbook. Other basic questions from Intensive Practice books or practice problems from the Challenging Word Problems books could be used as well.

Be sure to save any well-written assessments for future use. After one year of working with the materials, you should have a good bank of assessments for future years.

One site that offers Singapore test paper problems for free (with registration) is Old School. At the first grade they have several mid-year and end-of-term papers available. Teachers can select the questions, either short answer or multiple choice, and create an assessment.  Additionally, you can choose problems from a list of topics. Topics for first grade are:

  • Addition and Subtraction
  • Combination Questions (3%)
  • Comparing and Ordering numbers (13%)
  • Division (1%)
  • General (1%)
  • Graphs (5%)
  • Measurements (7%)
  • Multiplication (3%)
  • Notation and Place values (9%)
  • Shapes and Patterns (12%)

Would you be interested in a test bank of questions? How about a place for sharing some teacher-made tests?

Share:

NCTM Session: Does Singapore Math Enhance Learning?

In late April, two mathematics conferences were held in San Diego: The NCSM (National Council of Supervisors of Mathematics) and the NCTM (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics). This is the final in a series of posts from those conferences.

NCTM Session:

  • Does Singapore Mathematics (SM) Enhance Students’ Learning in the United States? By Richard Askey, Patsy Wang- Iverson and Ban-Har Yeap

Here is the entire session description from the NCTM Program Handbook:

Many teachers want to use SM with their students, but they have been unable to provide data on its effectiveness in the United States. The speakers will report results of a longitudinal study of SM implementation, offer examples of concepts student learn and offer ways in which all students can learn math to high levels.

You can find the slides from Dr. Yeap on his website. After a quick review of the educational system in Singapore, he discussed the key components of their primary school mathematics program.

  • Emphasis on problem solving
  • Enrichment for all students
  • Parental expectations
  • System-wide interventions
  • Using a concrete – pictorial – abstract progression, especially the models
  • Teacher education, both pre-service and professional development

Dr. Yeap presented, then quickly left in order to get to his next session on solving Singapore Math Problems that was a ten minute walk away in another venue. Dr. Askey took over and reviewed some of the problems at greater depth.

Dr. Wang-Iverson provided everyone with a copy of the American Educator magazine containing a recent and very informative article she co-authored: Beyond Singapore’s Mathematics Textbooks -Focused and Flexible Supports for Teaching and Learning.

At the close of the session, I was not the only attendee wondering what had happened to that study. The success of Singapore Math in the United States tends to be based on anecdotal evidence. Teachers will say, “I could really tell my students were ‘getting it’ “or “our test scores soared”. Compelling, but hardly objective evidence of the curriculum’s efficacy here in the United States.

Typically, NCTM sessions are submitted over one year in advance and the presenters had hoped for valid research out of the promoted study. Due to some issues with the study cited in the NCTM session description, it will not be published. This longitudinal data on Singapore Math in the United States has been hard to come by. While hundreds of schools have adopted the curriculum, long-term information simply isn’t available from any of the larger implementations, yet.

The What Works Clearinghouse a department of the U.S. Department of Education Institute of Education Sciences, has looked at studies of Singapore Math at the middle school and elementary levels. At the elementary level, as of July 2007, the organization found that “no studies meet eligibility screens”. The WWC released a report in April 2009 regarding the middle school level material for Singapore Math (New Elementary Mathematics) which determined:

No studies of Singapore Math that fall within the scope of the Middle School Math review protocol meet What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) evidence standards. The lack of studies meeting WWC evidence standards means that, at this time, the WWC is unable to draw any conclusions based on research about the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of Singapore Math.

Note that the WWC simply didn’t find any studies among the twelve they reviewed that satisfy their protocol, so they can’t draw any conclusions as to the effectiveness of the Singapore Math Middle School Curriculum.

I’ve heard Patsy Wang-Iverson sum it up succinctly:

Without data, the chatta don’t matta.

Share:

NCSM Session: Singapore Teacher Training

In late April, two mathematics conferences were held in San Diego: The NCSM (National Council of Supervisors of Mathematics) and the NCTM (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics). This is the fourth in a series of posts from those conferences.

NCSM Session:

  • Integrating Curriculum, Assessment, and Teacher Professional Development: Singapore and the United States by Ban Har Yeap, Khoon Yoong Wong, Jeremy Roschelle and a colleague.

The final Singapore Math-related sessions at NCSM was the result of a joint research project between the National Institute of Education (NIE)  in Singapore and the Stanford Research Institute International Center for Technology in Learning in Menlo Park, California (SRI).

Dr. Wong spoke first about the teacher training provided in Singapore. The National Institute of Education is the sole teacher preparation facility in Singapore. This allows for standardized pre-service program. He shared the Pre-service Mathematics Teacher Education Framework that guides teacher training in Singapore:

(click to enlarge)

Teachers in Singapore take one of a couple of routes:

  1. Diploma in Education (Dip Ed): 2 years, full-time, Primary.
  2. Bachelor Degree: BA (Ed) or BSc (Ed): 4 years, full-time, Primary or Secondary.
  3. Postgraduate Diploma in Education (PGDE): 1 year, full-time, Primary or Secondary.

Most interestingly, Dr. Wong added the number of courses out of the total courses that each pre-service track requires:
SK = Subject Knowledge (math for school teaching)
CK = Curriculum Studies (math pedagogy)

  1. Diploma: SK =  6 /69    CK = 8 /69
  2. Degree: SK = 4/126    CK = 10/126
  3. PGDE (primary) SK = 4/44    CK =  8/44

Further reading on teacher preparation: Breaking the Cycle: An international comparison of U.S. mathematics teacher preparation.

Dr. Yeap then spoke about professional development for teachers in Singapore. Many people believe that Singaporean primary teachers are specialists, which they pointed out was simply not factual. From his presentation:

Regardless of where it is initiated, most professional development in Singapore has been workshop-style. One of the big challenges of this type of professional development is that there is no follow-up with the teachers on the material presented. Teachers attend the workshop, then go back to their classroom. (Sound familiar?) Singapore is now working on developing a professional learning culture through more reflective teacher practices. Newer avenues for professional development include Lesson Study, Action Research and Professional Learning Communities.

A major difference between United States and Singapore is the allotment of 100 hours of professional development each year for teachers. This statistic is commonly cited as something that could never be achieved in the United States. In actuality, 100 hours amounts to two and a half weeks of time. Additionally, in Singapore, these 100 hours can be spent on activities that enhance the teacher as a person. Calligraphy, school-based team meetings and pottery-making are among activities that might count for these 100 hours. When questioned, Dr. Yeap also qualified that teachers in Singapore might worry if one teacher was putting in more hours than they were. High expectations among the population dictate that the 100 hours is usually a minimum.

You can view Dr. Yeap’s entire presentation on his website, along with other presentations he has done around the world. Best quote from the session comes from him:

Mathematics is an excellent vehicle for the development and improvement of a person’s intellectual competence.

The researchers from SRI spoke next on the findings from their research project. In the NCSM Conference book, Integrating Curriculum, Assessment, and Teacher Professional Development: Singapore and the United States promised to go beyond the “popular but oversimplified views of Singapore’s successes.” The researchers at SRI repeated that merely adopting Singapore’s textbooks will not be enough to guarantee success here in the United States. It is a wide-spread, but mistaken belief, that a school can simply buy Singapore’s textbooks and duplicate their success in mathematics.

Specifically, they found that it wouldn’t be too challenging to duplicate parts of the Singapore Mathematics Syllabus in the United States, including:

  • Creating standards that align to a common assessment.
  • A guiding document like Singapore’s pentagon. Dr. Roschelle proposed that the U.S. could use Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. At over 450 pages, it doesn’t have quite the allure of the Singaporean document.
  • Visual models. Singapore uses a concrete-pictorial-abstract methodology incorporating the model method and the U.S. has the Geometer’s Sketchpad.

Dr. Roshelle listed several items that would be somewhat harder to bring to the United States:

  • A high level of professionalism among teachers.
  • Systemic rotations through positions (at NIE, Ministry of Education and classrooms).
  • Allowing teacher input at all levels of education.
  • Systemic leadership.
  • A culture of high expectations.

I’m starting with that culture of high expectations. Every school, every student.

Share:

NCSM Sessions: Singapore Math

In late April, two mathematics conferences were held in San Diego: The NCSM (National Council of Supervisors of Mathematics) and the NCTM (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics).  This is the third in a series of posts from those conferences.

NCSM Sessions

  • Singapore Math for the U.S. Classroom – Patsy Kanter, Andy Clark
  • Lessons from Singapore: The Professional Development Required to Implement a World-Class Curriculum  – Andy Clark
  • Developing a Singapore Math Curriculum: From Theory to Practice – Dr. Ho-Kheong Fong

These three sessions were all presented by authors of the Math in Focus (MIF) program published by Great Source, a division of Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. You can read about the product in my post about the NCTM exhibit hall.

The first session, Singapore Math for the U.S. Classroom covered the Math in Focus materials. This was a commercial showcase session…

provided by NCSM elite sponsor partners to share information about their products. – NCSM Conference Handbook

And the session went according to those parameters.  According to Kanter, the company took My Pals are Here, the program used by 86% of primary schools in Singapore and asked, “How do we bring engaging together with the standards?” Math in Focus is the result of that question.

Clark’s session, Lessons from Singapore: The Professional Development Required to Implement a World-Class covered challenges faced by schools that adopted Math in Focus this past school year, including schools in:

  • Old Bridge, NJ
  • Lexington, KY
  • other small districts in KY
  • Duluth, MN
  • New York City

From these adoptions, Clark listed four main challenges facing teachers and school adopting the MIF materials

  1. Teacher math knowledge
  2. Lack of embedded professional development
  3. Lack of a sense of the math trajectory
  4. The U.S. tends to have skill- based standards rather than organizing ideas

These needs should all be addressed when considering adopting a Singapore Math program. While Clark was using examples from Math in Focus, the truth is that the schools adopting the  Primary Mathematics series face similar challenges. Clark listed specific content knowledge deficits many teachers had when starting with Math in Focus and how the program helps teach the teachers the content.The topics that were most difficult included:

  • Teaching algorithms with understanding – Many teachers have mainly a procedural knowledge of mathematics.
  • Mental Math – Teachers lack strong mental math skills.
  • Modeling word problems – Teachers are not used to representing a word problem.
  • Fractions-  Teachers struggle to teach both concepts and operations of fractions.

Clark was challenged to get all of his material into the hour provided, but did provide this slide from the handouts that suggested some ways to meet the content knowledge challenges teachers have had:

Finally, in the session Developing a Singapore Math Curriculum: From Theory to Practice, Dr. Fong provided an overview of the philosophy and pedagogy that underlies the Math in Focus program. He showed several problems and demonstrated various philosophies applied. Here’s one to try!

Put the following numbers into the diagram so that each line of three numbers is equal:

1.2, 2.4, 3.6, 4.8, 6, 7.2

This problem applies overarching ideas from the Singapore Mathematics curriculum, specifically visualization and making connections.

Can you “see” the number bonds? How can you simplify the problem?

Share: