Singapore Math ii 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 Appendices .....................................................................................................................................42 Singapore Math v 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 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 subgroups, 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 middleincome 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 Focus Question Literature Sources 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) 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) Elbousty, Y., & Bratt, K., (2010) Ginsburg, A., Leinwand, S., Anstrom, T., & Pollock, E., (2005) Schmoker, M., (1999) How well did the International Singapore Math change process work in relation to fifth grade math achievement? Type: Method, Data, Validity Method: Assessment CRCT How are these data analyzed? Rationale Quantitative: Pre and post tests using dependent ttests. Effect Size r Quantitative: Determine if there are significant differences Method: Survey Quantitative: Chi square test Data: Nominal Cronbach’s alpha Quantitative: Determine if there are significant differences Type of Validity: Construct Method: Interview Reflective Journal Data: Qualitative Qualitative: Coded for themes Data: Interval Type of Validity: Content Qualitative: Look for categorical and repeating data Type of Validity: Nominal 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 testretest 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 Mean Variance Observations Pearson Correlation Hypothesized Mean Difference Df t Stat P(T<=t) one-tail t Critical one-tail P(T<=t) two-tail t Critical two-tail t(11) = 0.60, p < .05 2010 CRCT Measurement 50.41 147.54 12 -0.70 0 11 0.60 0.28 1.80 0.56 2.20 2011 CRCT Measurement 46.33 177.88 12 Singapore Math 27 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 Items n=12 Item 1 Survey Question Did you like math when using Singapore math methods? Item 2 Do you feel better about math after using the Singapore math methods? Item 3 Would you like to use the Singapore math methods again when learning math? Item 4 Did you like the hands-on activities that were used to teach measurement? Item 5 Do you still feel like you need more help with measurement? * p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001 Χ 10.5** 10.5** 13.5** 24 *** 3.5 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 Singapore Math 28 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. 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 Singapore Math 29 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.” 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 30 CHAPTER 5: ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS Analysis Within this chapter, the results of the research project are further analyzed to give an indepth 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 31 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 32 These quantitative results were analyzed using a Chi-square test and Cronbach’s alpha. The Chisquare 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 33 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 34 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 35 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 36 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 37 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 38 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 39 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 40 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 41 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 42 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 43 Appendix B Daily Reflective Journal Three main things I learned from this lesson. 1. 2. 3. Did we finish everything in the lesson? If not, why? Were there any surprises? Is there something I will do differently next time? What do I like and dislike most from this lesson? Like: Dislike: Singapore Math 44 Appendix C Interview with Principal about Singapore 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?