Advertisement

Innovative Pedagogical Practices

  • Joseph B. W. YeoEmail author
  • Ban Heng Choy
  • Li Gek Pearlyn Lim
  • Lai Fong Wong
Chapter
Part of the Mathematics Education – An Asian Perspective book series (MATHEDUCASPER)

Abstract

This chapter describes some innovative pedagogical practices in Singapore. It is divided into two main sections: pedagogies that engage the minds, and those that engage the hearts, of mathematics learners. Examples of such classroom practices include the Singapore Model Method to solve word problems in primary schools, the Singapore AlgeDisc™ to teach algebra in secondary schools, and guided-discovery learning. The main principle that underlies all these pedagogies that engage the minds of mathematics students is the Concrete-Pictorial-Abstract (C-P-A) approach. We also describe a theoretical framework on engaging the hearts of mathematics learners and the use of various strategies to make lessons interesting. Examples of such strategies include the use of mathematics songs and videos, television shows and movies, mathematics storybooks, drama, magic tricks, and mathematics puzzles and games. Some of these practices are not unique to Singapore but many local teachers are using them in their classrooms. Finally, this chapter also reviews limited local research on these pedagogical practices, and where there is no local research, we suggest some directions for future research.

Keywords

Innovative pedagogical practices Engaging minds and hearts Model Method AlgeDiscTM Guided-discovery learning Investigation 

References

  1. Aiken, L. R. (1972). Research on attitudes toward mathematics. Arithmetic Teacher, 19, 229–234.Google Scholar
  2. Bruner, J. S. (1961). The act of discovery. Harvard Educational Review, 31, 21–32.Google Scholar
  3. Bruner, J. S. (1964). The course of cognitive growth. American Psychologist, 19, 1–15.Google Scholar
  4. Bruner, J. S. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bryk, A. S. (2015). Accelerating how we learn to improve. Educational Researcher, 44(9), 467–477.Google Scholar
  6. Burns, M. (2003). Using games in your math teaching. Connect Magazine, 17(2), 1–4.Google Scholar
  7. Chang, S. H., Lee, N. H., & Koay, P. L. (2017). Teaching and learning with concrete-pictorial-abstract sequence—A proposed model. The Mathematics Educator, 17(1), 1–28.Google Scholar
  8. Choy, B. H. (2013). Productive mathematical noticing: What it is and why it matters. In V. Steinle, L. Ball, & C. Bardini (Eds.), Proceedings of the 36th Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (pp. 186–193). Melbourne: MERGA.Google Scholar
  9. Chua, B. L. (2017). Empowering learning in an algebra class: The case of expansion and factorisation. In B. Kaur & N. H. Lee (Eds.), Empowering mathematics learners (Association of Mathematics Educators 2017 Yearbook, pp. 9–29). Singapore: World Scientific.Google Scholar
  10. Davies, B. (1995). The role of games in mathematics. Square One, 5(2), 7–17.Google Scholar
  11. Ernest, P. (1991). The philosophy of mathematics education. London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  12. Franke, M. L., Kazemi, E., & Battey, D. (2007). Understanding teaching and classroom practice in mathematics. In J. Frank & K. Lester (Eds.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 225–256). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  13. Gardner, H. (2006). Multiple intelligences: New horizons. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  14. Goh, S. P. (2009). Primary 5 pupils’ difficulties in using the Model Method for solving complex relational word problems (Unpublished master’s thesis). National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.Google Scholar
  15. Hart, L. E. (1989). Describing the affective domain: Saying what we mean. In D. B. McLeod & V. M. Adams (Eds.), Affect and mathematical problem solving: A new perspective (pp. 37–45). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  16. Hough, B. H., & Hough, S. (2012). The play was always the thing: Drama’s effect on brain function. Psychology, 3(6), 454–456.Google Scholar
  17. Huang, Y. (2016). Effects of crafted video lessons incorporating multi-modal representations on learning of factorization of quadratic expressions (Unpublished master’s thesis). National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.Google Scholar
  18. Hunter, R., Hunter, J., Jorgensen, R., & Choy, B. H. (2016). Innovative and powerful pedagogical practices in mathematics education. In K. Makar, S. Dole, J. Visnovska, M. Goos, A. Bennison, & K. Fry (Eds.), Research in mathematics education in Australasia 2012–2015 (pp. 213–234). Singapore: Springer.Google Scholar
  19. Jaworski, B. (1994). Investigating mathematics teaching: A constructivist enquiry. London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  20. Kho, T. H. (1987). Mathematical models for solving arithmetic problems. Paper presented at the 4th Southeast Asian Conference on Mathematics Education, Singapore.Google Scholar
  21. Kho, T. H., Yeo, S. M., & Fan, L. (2014). Model method in Singapore primary mathematics textbooks. In K. Jones, C. Bokhove, G. Howson, & L. Fan (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference on Mathematics Textbook Research and Development (ICMT-2014) (pp. 275–282). Southampton: University of Southampton.Google Scholar
  22. Kho, T. H., Yeo, S. M., & Lim, J. (2009). The Singapore Model Method for learning mathematics. Singapore: EPB Pan Pacific.Google Scholar
  23. Kintsch, W., & Greeno, J. G. (1985). Understanding and solving arithmetic word problems. Psychological Review, 92(1), 109–129.Google Scholar
  24. Koirala, H. P., & Goodwin, P. M. (2000). Teaching algebra in the middle grades using math magic. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 5(9), 562–566.Google Scholar
  25. Lang, P., Katz, Y. J., & Menezes, I. (Eds.). (1998). Affective education: A comparative view. London: Cassell.Google Scholar
  26. Langley, G. J., Moen, R. D., Nolan, K. M., Nolan, T. W., Norman, C. L., & Provost, L. P. (2009). The improvement guide: A practical approach to enhancing organizational performance. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  27. Leach, G., Hunter, R., & Hunter, J. (2014). Teachers repositioning culturally diverse students as doers and thinkers of mathematics. In J. Anderson, M. Cavanagh, & A. Prescott (Eds.), Proceedings of the 37th Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (pp. 381–388). Sydney: MERGA.Google Scholar
  28. Lemire, S., Christie, C. A., & Inkelas, M. (2017). The methods and tools of improvement science. In C. A. Christie, M. Inkelas, & S. Lemire (Eds.), Improvement science in evaluation: Methods and uses. new directions for evaluation (pp. 23–33).Google Scholar
  29. Leong, S. L. (2015). Effects of a mathematics instructional sequence on the conceptual and procedural understanding of algebraic expressions for secondary students with mathematics difficulties (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.Google Scholar
  30. Leong, Y. H., Ho, W. K., & Cheng, L. P. (2015). Concrete-Pictorial-Abstract: Surveying its origins and charting its future. The Mathematics Educator, 16(1), 1–18.Google Scholar
  31. Leong, Y. H., Yap, S. F., Teo, M. L., Thilagam, S., Karen, I., Quek, E. C., & Tan, K. L. K. (2010). Concretising factorisation of quadratic expressions. The Australian Mathematics Teacher, 66(3), 19–24.Google Scholar
  32. Lesser, L. M., & Glickman, M. E. (2009). Using magic in the teaching of probability and statistics. Model Assisted Statistics and Applications, 4, 265–274.Google Scholar
  33. Lewis, C. (2015). What is improvement science? Do we need it in education? Educational Researcher, 44(1), 54–61.Google Scholar
  34. Lim, P., Fu, S., & Foong, P. H. S. (2014). Magic tricks in the teaching of the arithmetic mean. In J. Vincent, G. FitzSimons, & J. Steinle (Eds.), Proceedings of the 51st Mathematical Association of Victoria Annual Conference: Maths Rocks (pp. 94–101). Victoria, Australia: MAV.Google Scholar
  35. Lowrie, T., & Jorgensen (Zevenbergen), R. (Eds.). (2015). Digital games and mathematics learning: Potential, promises and pitfalls. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  36. Marshman, M., & Brown, R. (2014). Coming to know and do mathematics with disengaged students. Mathematics Teacher Education and Development, 16(2), 71–88.Google Scholar
  37. McLeod, D. B. (1989). Beliefs, attitudes, and emotions: New views of affect in mathematics education. In D. B. McLeod & V. M. Adams (Eds.), Affect and mathematical problem solving: A new perspective (pp. 245–258). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  38. McLeod, D. B. (1992). Research on affect in mathematics education: A reconceptualization. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 575–596). New York: MacMillan.Google Scholar
  39. Ministry of Education of Singapore. (2007). Mathematics syllabus: Primary. Singapore: Curriculum Planning and Development Division.Google Scholar
  40. Ministry of Education of Singapore. (2012a). Mathematics syllabus: Primary. Singapore: Curriculum Planning and Development Division.Google Scholar
  41. Ministry of Education of Singapore. (2012b). Mathematics syllabus: Secondary. Singapore: Curriculum Planning and Development Division.Google Scholar
  42. Murphy, C. (2015). Changing teachers’ practices through exploratory talk in mathematics: A discursive pedagogical perspective. The Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 40(5), 61–84.Google Scholar
  43. National Arts Council. (2017). Teaching through the arts programme. Retrieved from https://aep.nac.gov.sg.
  44. Nesher, P., Greeno, J. G., & Riley, M. S. (1982). The development of semantic categories for addition and subtraction. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 13(4), 373–394.Google Scholar
  45. Ng, S. F. (2003). How Secondary Two Express stream students used algebra and the Model Method to solve problems. The Mathematics Educator, 7(1), 1–17.Google Scholar
  46. Ng, S. F., & Lee, K. (2005). How Primary Five pupils use the Model Method to solve word problems. The Mathematics Educator, 9(1), 60–83.Google Scholar
  47. Ng, S. F., & Lee, K. (2009). The Model Method: Singapore children’s tool for representing and solving algebraic word problems. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 40(3), 282–313.Google Scholar
  48. Pekrun, R. (Ed.) (2014). Emotions and learning (Vol. 24). Switzerland: UNESCO.Google Scholar
  49. Pirie, S. (1987). Mathematical investigations in your classroom: A guide for teachers. Basingstoke, England: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  50. Poh, B. K. (2007). Model method: Primary three pupils’ ability to use models for representing and solving word problems (Unpublished master’s thesis). National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.Google Scholar
  51. Shanmugaratnam, T. (2005). Teach less learn more (TLLM). Speech by Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam, Minister of Education, at the MOE Work Plan seminar 2005. Singapore: National Archives of Singapore.Google Scholar
  52. Sullivan, P., & Davidson, A. (2014). The role of challenging mathematical tasks in creating opportunities for student reasoning. In J. Anderson, M. Cavanagh, & A. Prescott (Eds.), Proceedings of the 37th Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (pp. 605–612). Sydney: MERGA.Google Scholar
  53. Wong, K. Y. (2015). Effective mathematics lessons through an eclectic Singapore approach (Association of Mathematics Educators 2017 Yearbook, pp. 219–248). Singapore: World Scientific.Google Scholar
  54. Yeo, J. B. W. (2013). The nature and development of processes in mathematical investigation (Unpublished doctoral thesis). National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.Google Scholar
  55. Yeo, J. B. W. (2018a). Engaging the hearts of mathematics learners. In P. C. Toh & B. L. Chua (Eds.), Mathematics instruction: Goals, tasks and activities (Association of Mathematics Educators 2018 Yearbook, pp. 115–132). Singapore: World Scientific.Google Scholar
  56. Yeo, J. B. W. (2018b). Maths songs, videos and games for secondary school maths. Retrieved from http://math.nie.edu.sg/bwjyeo/videos.
  57. Yeo, J. B. W., Teh, K. S., Loh, C. Y., & Chow, I. (2013a). New syllabus additional mathematics (9th ed.). Singapore: Shinglee.Google Scholar
  58. Yeo, J. B. W., Teh, K. S., Loh, C. Y., Chow, I., Neo, C. M., & Liew, J. (2013b). New syllabus mathematics 1 (7th ed.). Singapore: Shinglee.Google Scholar
  59. Yeo, J. B. W., Teh, K. S., Loh, C. Y., Chow, I., Ong, C. H., & Liew, J. (2015). New syllabus mathematics 3 (7th ed.). Singapore: Shinglee.Google Scholar
  60. Yeo, J. B. W., & Yeap, B. H. (2010). Characterising the cognitive processes in mathematical investigation. International Journal for Mathematics Teaching and Learning. Retrieved from http://www.cimt.org.uk/journal.
  61. Yeo, S. M., Thong, C. H., & Kho, T. H. (2008, July). Algebra discs: Digital manipulatives for learning algebra. Paper presented at the 11th International Congress on Mathematics Education, Monterrey, Mexico.Google Scholar
  62. Yuen, S. (2016, March 14). Drama-based teaching on the rise. The Straits Times. Retrieved from www.straitstimes.com.

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joseph B. W. Yeo
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ban Heng Choy
    • 1
  • Li Gek Pearlyn Lim
    • 1
  • Lai Fong Wong
    • 1
  1. 1.National Institute of EducationSingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations