Article · January 013 citations reads 5,355 author

Years of Experience (All Teachers) – 2008
1-3
27%
4-6
16%
7-9
15%
10-12
11%
Over 12
31%
Years of Experience (All Teachers) – 2009
1-3
24%
4-6
15%
7-9
14%
10-12
11%
Over 12
36%
Series1, 
1-3, 
16.6%, 
17% 
Series1, 
4-6, 
18.5%, 
19% 
Series1, 
7-9, 
11.2%, 
11% 
Series1, 
10-12, 
10.2%, 
10% 
Series1, 
Over 12, 
43.4%, 
43% 
Years of Experience (All Teachers) – 2010 

---

GATEways to Teacher Education 
A journal of the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators 
VOLUME 14, ISSUE 1 
PAGE 29 
implementation as essential for their 
understanding and instruction of the new 
curriculum. Findings from the survey data 
revealed that the Singapore Math curriculum did 
not significantly impact elementary educators’ 
knowledge of mathematics. While lingering 
questions remain from the survey data 
concerning elementary teachers’ reported low 
levels of mathematical understanding, 
conceptualizing elementary teachers’ receptive 
attitudes toward mathematics through 
O’Donnell’s curriculum profile and curriculum-
in-use indicate the potential for fidelity of 
implementation that was moderately strong. 
Teacher Journals
Teachers’ journals, which were submitted 
each quarter of the school year, reflected 
benefits and challenges associated with 
delivering the new mathematics curriculum. 
Coding of the journal data identified a number 
of themes. In the first year of implementation, 
entries by teachers identified the utility of 
manipulatives, place-value disks, and number 
bonds as effective tools to communicate 
mathematical concepts, especially for learners 
who required more time to process mathematical 
ideas. The use of manipulatives occupied a 
central role in both the instruction and learning 
of a mathematical concept. Reflecting after a 
taught class or unit of instruction, teachers noted 
that interactive, hands-on activities were 
important for facilitating students’ learning of 
demanding mathematical concepts, and that the 
same engagement stimulated the learners’ 
interest and cultivated their interpersonal social 
skills. Elementary educators also valued the 
curriculum’s problems and questions that 
connected mathematical concepts to real-life 
examples.
While elementary teachers claimed that 
mathematical problems and discovery activities 
instilled more engagement and interest in 
students, others expressed a desire for an even 
greater number of real-life examples in the 
curriculum and struggled to identify strategies to 
accommodate students with special needs. Still 
other educators identified a poor alignment of 
the curriculum, at times, with state standards. 
During the first year of implementation, 
educators expressed frustration that the county’s 
pacing guide curtailed instruction and reduced 
some students’ deeper understanding of a 
concept. Elementary educators expressed a 
desire for a more flexible pacing guide to allow 
for longer instruction time to facilitate learning 
in all students. 
A second theme that emerged from the 
journal data was the teachers’ observations of a 
vocabulary-rich curriculum that also contained 
challenging assessment instruments. In schools 
with a majority of English language learners, 
elementary educators reflected on strategies to 
effectively differentiate the new curriculum not 
only for English language learners but also 
advanced students who “got bored easily once 
the concept was clear,” wrote one teacher. 
Teachers noted that additional instruction was 
needed to describe a term or phrase found to be 
confusing for students. One example was the 
difference between the “value of the digit” and 
the “place of the digit” in the Grade 4 
curriculum. These and other content-specific 
nomenclatures were particularly troublesome for 
English language learners. One teacher claimed 
that if students had been exposed to the 
Singapore Math vocabulary and bar-modeling 
strategies in Kindergarten, the terminology 
might be less confusing, thereby providing 
more time for teachers in upper grade levels to 
scaffold conceptual problems.
A third theme that arose from the journal 
data was an observation that concrete exercises 
progressed too quickly to pictorial examples, 
and the same rapid progression outlined in the 
student textbook and teacher guide occurred 
when presenting material in pictorial 
representations that moved to complicated 
abstract concepts. In response, teachers claimed 
they supplemented the curriculum with 
additional problems at each stage to facilitate 
students’ learning. A related challenge was the 
observation that the Singapore Math assessments 
tended to “add questions containing problems 
that have never been taught,” according to one 
teacher. The inclusion of such problems may 
reflect the focus on problem solving and 
applying concepts, challenging learners to be 
creative and discover solutions by using and 
extending what students learned in a unit rather 

---

GATEways to Teacher Education 
A journal of the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators 
VOLUME 14, ISSUE 1 
PAGE 30 
than memorizing specific algorithms to be 
applied to all questions.  
While some issues in the second year 
overlapped with the first, journal narratives in 
the second year were more nuanced, reflecting, 
in part, teachers’ growing familiarity with the 
curriculum and students’ knowledge of 
Singapore Math from the previous year of study. 
Lessons and activities that integrated 
manipulatives, number bonds, and number disks 
continued to be perceived as effective mediums 
to develop students’ conceptual understanding of 
mathematics. Teachers valued problems that 
connected concepts to real-life examples for 
instilling student interest and fostering discovery 
and experiential learning. The outcomes from 
adopting these approaches positively impacted 
student learning and confidence, as noted by a 
Grade 2 teacher: “My favorite part of this unit is 
when I see those struggling students look at me 
and say, ‘Look, Miss. I did it right!’” In the 
second year, educators claimed they had higher 
expectations of students and could plan lessons 
more effectively.
The teachers’ written narratives revealed a 
perspective of the new curriculum that was 
perceived by some as being poorly aligned with 
state standards, presenting linguistic challenges 
for English language learners, and using 
assessment instruments that did not reflect a 
stronger connection to a taught unit. Alongside 
these observations, however, were equally 
detailed observations underscoring students’ 
interest in mathematics and the rich source of 
interactive activities. Teachers highlighted the 
value of number bonds, place value, and 
manipulatives that fostered students’ deeper 
understanding of mathematics. As reflected 
through journal data, teachers’ implementation 
of the new mathematics curriculum 
conceptualized through O’Donnell’s concepts of 
curriculum profile and adaptation intimated a 
marginally strong fidelity.