Pros of Learning Concept Maths

Mathematics is one of those subjects which are tough and also have many advantages to offer in terms of learning in general. The world has progressed immensely over the past couple of years and all of this development has been done through maths, which is precisely why it is so important in the first place. The subject has become the core of many high end fields these days that people can eventually choose if they wish after becoming fully acquainted with maths. Concept mathematics is something allows people to get an insight about the subject and how it can be actually learnt later on.

Critical Thinking

One of the most prominent reasons for studying concept maths is the fact that it enables people to develop a good amount of critical thinking which helps them overcome a lot of obstacles in their daily lives and in the long run as well. With increased critical thinking, people can actually achieve a lot in their lives and this has been fully revealed through different surveys that have shed light on the fact that studying this kind of maths eventually does enhance the critical thinking power so many people wish to achieve in the present times.

Increased Career Choice

On another note, maths is important for anyone who wishes to have a bright future. This is due to the fact that more and more fields these have require maths and those who do not study it or cannot do well in the subject often stay behind as a result. Therefore, having exceptionally good mathematical skills is something that most people need to have if they wish to actually gain success and want to be someone big in a short period of time in the future. For that purpose, high end learning of the subject is required by all costs.

Analysis

Another common reason behind studying concept maths is the fact that it enables people to have enhanced analytical skills. With increased analytical skills, individuals can not only score well in mathematics, but they can also go on to score high in a lot of other subjects in the near future. This is something which cannot be acquired from any other subject and through maths solely can individuals go on to do analysis in different aspects of their lives. Analytical skills can be difficult to achieve but with proper learning and studying of maths, the process is most likely to become easy later on.

Logic & Reasoning

Individuals have also been highly recommended to learn maths due to the fact that it allows them to achieve a higher sense of logic as well as reasoning. These can come in handy in the process of discussing a wide range of different topics and discussions which are crucial in every day’s routine. Hence, mathematics has always been used for the purpose of providing proper base and evidence in matters such as debates and everything as such. With prominent figures that are facts, one can surely use the subject to their advantages at all times and that too, without facing any kind of trouble in the matter.

Concept Maths – Why is it a Requirement?

After all that this kind of mathematics has to offer to people, everyone surely needs to study it in order to enhance their chances of a bright future. Not only is the subject great for studying and increasing thinking skills, but it is also best for anyone who wishes to be able to enter fields that require maths. On the other hand, it gives individuals the ability to have increased reasoning and logic, which is another thing that makes this subject stand out from all the other ones that exist these days and have been since the past few decades.  

More interesting concept maths for your children - check out www.eimaths.com today

Preschool Mathematics – The Significance

Over the past few years, more and more children can be seen to be learning mathematics in preschool since the subject has a lot to offer in both the short as well as the long run. While children should always give an equal amount of attention to all subjects, they have been suggested to send more time in the process of learning maths as it can be challenging and often quite difficult to comprehend. However, qualified and experienced teachers from all over the world can be seen to be teaching maths to children in order to enhance their knowledge as well as information about the unique subject in the long run.

Learning to Save Time

Children should be taught maths at this stage also due to the fact that it teaches them to save a lot of time. Children are new to the concept of time and how it has to be managed when they are so young. Therefore, by teaching them mathematics, they are able to see how time works and what it actually is in the first place. With proper information about time, children can learn to use it to their advantage and go on to learn saving time for many important events and things, such as tests, in their lives.

Thinking Out of the Box

A major reason for teaching children maths at preschool level is the fact that it allows them to achieve out of the box thinking. While many children are creative right from the beginning, many others are not, which is why teaching them mathematics has been highly recommended since it allows them to think deeply on a day to day basis and that results in increased creativity and out of the box thinking. While there are many other subject that can be taught in order to achieve this, maths has been labeled to be the best one when it comes to enhancing creative and deep thinking process.

Developing Interest

Studying mathematics at preschool level also teaches children to be able to acquire an interest in the subject since they get to learn it for the very first time. When children are introduced to something, they may love and they may not, but with a passage of time, they can learn to adapt to it and in this case, it is highly important considering the significance of this subject for their futures. Therefore, as soon as they have been introduced to the subject, they are likely to acquire a growing fondness for it, which will help them study the subject in a much better way later on.

Mathematical Basics & Concepts

Teaching mathematics at this level allows children to be able to learn the basics of the subject. The basics are exceptionally important in order to have a good know-how of the subject within the long run. Therefore, teaching the subject so early in school enables teachers to teach mathematical basics as well as concepts to children who can later on use these for the purpose of acquiring good grades in the subject without having to face any issues in the process.

Is Preschool Maths really beneficial?

With all that mathematics has to offer to children, learning it right from the beginning tends to give them an opportunity to understand the subject efficiently and that too, without having to struggle too much later on in their lives. Maths is an exceptionally diverse subject and enables people to join a wide range of different fields in the near future. Therefore, giving the subject importance since this stage of school is something that all parents and teachers should take into thorough consideration as without it, surviving in today’s world has become rather impossible. Moreover, the subject at this level is also much more fun and interesting. 

Singapore Maths - A Look at the Current Content and Reform by Winston Hodge

Basic Education Curriculum Revisited:

A Look at the Current Content and Reform

Mr Winston Hodge

Director, Training and Development Division,

Ministry of Education

Singapore

1.    INTRODUCTION

The vision of the Ministry of Education (MOE) is “Thinking Schools, Learning Nation”. To prepare a generation of thinking and committed citizens who are capable of contributing towards Singapore’s continued growth and prosperity, the Ministry is constantly revisiting its curriculum to ensure that the skills and knowledge taught in schools meet the challenges of the 21^st century.

2. THE SINGAPORE EDUCATION SYSTEM

The Singapore education system aims to provide students with a holistic and broad-based education. Given the multi-cultural and multi-racial characteristics of Singapore, the bilingual policy is a key feature of the Singapore education system. Under the bilingual policy, every student learns English which is the common working language. Students also learn their mother tongue language (Chinese, Malay or Tamil), to help them retain their ethnic identity, culture, heritage and values.

2.1       Holistic Development of Students

The Desired Outcomes of Education (DOE) articulates the importance of holistically nurturing students to become well-rounded persons - morally, intellectually, physically, socially and aesthetically through a set of eight core skills and values.

The eight core skills and values are:

1.    Character Development

2.    Self Management Skills

3.    Social and Cooperative Skills

4.    Literacy and Numeracy

5.    Communication Skills

6.    Information Skills

7.    Thinking Skills and Creativity

8.    Knowledge Application Skills

It is envisioned that students at the end of primary education, secondary education and pre-university would have acquired these eight core skills and values. (Annex A).

2.2       Broad-based Curriculum

Singapore’s national curriculum aims to nurture each child to his full potential, to discover his talents and to develop in him a passion for life-long learning. Students go through a broad range of experiences to develop the skills and values that they will need for life. The broad-based curriculum imparts literacy, numeracy, bilingualism, the sciences, humanities, aesthetics, physical education, civics and moral education and National Education. 

Look at how creative Singapore Maths can be, click here.

Singapore Mathematical Society-Rules of the Singapore Maths Olympaid

SINGAPORE MATHEMATICAL SOCIETY

RULES OF THE SINGAPORE MATHEMATICAL OLYMPIAD 2014

(OPEN SECTION)

1.    Objective

The objective of the Singapore Mathematical Olympiad 2014 (SMO 2014) (Open Section) (hereafter called the “Competition”) organized by the Singapore Mathematical Society (hereafter called “SMS”) is to test the ingenuity and mathematical problem-solving ability of the participants, and to discover and encourage mathematical talents in secondary schools and junior colleges in Singapore.

2.    Eligibility
The Competition is open to all full time students who have never attended any tertiary level educational institution on a full time basis.

3.    First round

The first round of the Competition will be a two-and-a-half hour written paper consisting of short questions. All questions will carry equal weight. The language of the Competition will be English.

4.    Second round

Selected participants of the competition will be invited to participate in the Second Round, which will be a four-hour written paper consisting of questions requiring full-length solutions. The results of the Second Round of the Competition will be used as a key criterion for the selection of the Singapore National Training Team for the International Olympiad in the following year.

5.    Topics

The topics covered by the questions would normally be within the curriculum of a pre-university education. There will be a significant number of questions based on school mathematics syllabus.

6.    Registration Fee

The registration fee is $8.00 per participant (from SMS institutional member schools) per competition category; and $10.00 per participant (from non-institutional member schools) per competition category. The names of the participants, along with the fees, should be forwarded by the Head of Department of Mathematics (of the competing school) to the Chairman of the Competition Committee in the prescribed format before the announced closing date. Late applications will not be accepted. The receipt of all entries will be acknowledged. Individuals may also register directly with the SMS.

7.    Individual Awards

Participants will be ranked according to the total marks scored in the first and second* rounds of the Competition. Based on the first round results, silver/bronze/honourable mention certificates will be awarded to the students who meet the set criteria that are dependent on the level of difficulty of the competition. Only participants invited for the Second Round will be considered for the award of Gold certificates, which will take into consideration results of the first round and second round. Certificates of participation will be awarded to all other participants.

Only for participants invited to second round of competition.

8.    School Awards (New!)

The School Awards will no longer be divided into Junior, Senior and Open sections. Instead, there will be two categories based on the age cut-off. The new system will be criteria-based. Schools will be awarded points for the number of participants that registered and attempted the paper, as well as the number of Gold, Silver, Bronze awards and Honorable Mentions obtained by the students. The school will then be given an SMO School Award (Gold, Silver, Bronze and Participation) for each category based on the total number of points achieved. Please refer to SMS website for details of the new School Awards system.

9.    Prizes for Individual participants

Of the participants in the Second Round, the one with the highest total score (first and second rounds) will be the Winner of the Competition and will be awarded the Singapore Mathematical Society Prize (a cash prize). Cash prizes or book vouchers will also be awarded to participants whose total scores in both rounds are in the top thirty positions. When two or more participants tie for a position, the sum of the corresponding prizes will be shared equally among them.

10.  Challenge Shield

The school/Junior College with the highest aggregate of the best three total scores (first and second rounds) of its students will be awarded the Singapore Mathematical Society Challenge Shield, subject to a minimum cap of 75 participants in Open section from the school. The Shield will be kept by the school until the next competition. A Challenge Shield may be kept permanently by a school which has won three consecutive competitions.

11.  Results of the Competition

Results will be released within three months from the date of the Competition. Any query or dispute over the results may be raised through the school teacher-in-charge to SMS within one month after the release of the results. SMS reserves the right to maintain or change the results as deemed fit. The decision of SMS is final.

More Singapore maths coaching with amazing creative, visit here.

Teaching Primary and Preschool Maths Using Multiple Intelligences (PART 2)

Continue from part 1 over here

Achievement Tests

At the end of the first three-week intervention period, pupils took a 25-item short answer review test on “Fractions”. At the end of every sub-topic on “Decimals” within the second six-weeks’ intervention period, pupils sat for a 25-item short answer review test.

Qualitative Data

Pupils’ interviews and teachers’ observations and reflection journals were also used as instruments for the qualitative data collection.

Procedure

The study was quasi-experimental in design and equivalent group post-test only design was adopted. One teacher taught the comparison classes and another teacher taught the project classes from the low and average-ability groups.

All the pupils and teachers involved in the project underwent MI diagnostic testing. The teachers were briefed on the findings and how it can help them to improve the way they learn and the way they help the pupils to learn. The project group teacher was given her class’s MI profile which showed the detailed intelligence variability within the class. This would help her to design and customize her Mathematics lessons to cater to the dominant multiple intelligences of the pupils in her two project classes.

Table 3 shows the results from the MIDAS Questionnaire which summarizes the MI profile of all the pupils. It indicated that pupils have all the eight multiple intelligences in almost equivalent dominance. The naturalistic intelligence was the strongest intelligence overall. All of the pupils’ intelligences were above the 50^th percentile.

Scale	Natural	Musical	Spatial	Ling	Logical	Kin	Inter	Intra
Mean	55.9	54.1	53.8	53.8	53.1	52.9	52.0	50.8
SD	16.4	14.0	14.7	14.2	13.4	14.7	15.0	14.4

Table 3: Main Scale Means (N= 140)

Ability Group	Low-Ability Group		Average-Ability Group
Multiple Intelligence	Project (N=30)	Comparison (N=32)	Project (N=38)	Comparison (N=40)
Musical	56.4 (12.1)	56.9 (14.7)	54.4 (12.4)	55.7 (16.1)
Kinesthetic	56.8 (11.4)	50.1 (14.2)	52.2 (15.9)	57.5 (14.5)
Logical	56.2 (12.4)	44.6 (13.3)	54.5 (14.0)	56.2 (12.8)
Spatial	58.8 (12.3)	52.6 (15.3)	54.2 (16.2)	56.0 (15.1)
Linguistic	53.3 (13.7)	51.0 (17.0)	54.8 (15.1)	57.2 (13.3)
Interpersonal	54.5 (13.1)	49.4 (16.4)	52.4 (17.0)	54.0 (14.3)
Intrapersonal	52.4 (12.1)	45.0 (12.5)	51.2 (16.1)	54.4 (14.7)
Naturalist	56.4 (16.7)	52.1 (16.4)	58.3 (17.9)	57.3 (15.6)

Table 4: Mean Score and Standard Deviation of Class MI Profile

Table 4 shows the MI profile of each of the project and comparison classes. The comparison group teacher was not given the results of his class’s MI profile. He was to carry out his Mathematics lessons using the traditional method of teaching.

The instruction for the two groups during the three-week treatment, varied in the following ways. The comparison group was taught the traditional method of “drill and practice”. The project group was taught the MI lessons daily where pupils were engaged in activities that encompassed all the eight intelligences. Pupils were taught using colourful and attractive visuals on power-point slides and were engaged in some of the following activities:

·         logic problems, reciting rhymes, raps and jingles

·         singing songs on mathematical concepts, constructing models, posters and number lines,

·         playing board games, “Bingo” and “Uno”

·         handling real life authentic manipulatives

·         working in pairs and groups

·          brainstorming and presenting their project work

·         Reflections on the day’s lesson in their journals.

The MI infused lessons on “Fractions” were crafted by the project group teachers. The comparison group teacher was not involved in the crafting the MI lessons so as to reduce threats to internal validity of the research project. At the end of the three-week treatment sessions, both groups were administered a review test on “Fractions”. The results from this post assessment would determine if the project group achieves a higher mean score than the comparison group. Fifteen pupils were selected at random from the project group to be interviewed to get their feedback on their MI infused lessons.

In the second semester, both the project and comparison groups were taught “Decimals” through MI infused lessons. The comparison group teacher was given his class’s MI profile which showed the detailed intelligence variability within the class prior to the six-week MI intervention. This would help him to design and customize his Mathematics lessons on “Decimals” to cater to the dominant multiple intelligences of the pupils. The pilot group teacher and the comparison group teacher crafted sixteen MI infused lessons on “Decimals”. Both groups were administered a series of four review tests. The results from these review assessments would reveal if the project group achieve a higher mean score than the comparison group due to the longer exposure to MI. Five pupils were selected at random from each class to get their feedback on their MI infused lessons. A focus group discussion among the project teachers was also conducted to get their feedback on the whole project.

PETALS^TM was also administered before and after the intervention period. Post-test results of the project group would reveal if there is an increase in the level of engagement among pupils who are taught Mathematics using the MI strategies and if the longer exposure to MI has a positive impact on pupils’ engagement, motivation and attitude in the learning of Mathematics.

Results

Measure	Mean (SD)		Effect Size
	Pretest	Post-test
PETALSTM Scale
Pedagogy	69.6 (16.6)	76.1 (15.8)	0.39
Experience of Learning	64.0 (19.3)	68.8 (18.5)	0.25
Tone of Environment	70.7 (13.7)	70.8 (19.5)	0.01
Assessment for Learning	67.1 (15.6)	73.8 (17.7)	0.43
Learning Content	66.3 (19.2)	75.6 (17.7)	0.48
Engagement Scale
Affective Engagement	76.4 (17.7)	81.1 (15.0)	0.31
Behavioural Engagement	75.4 (15.1)	78.1 (18.2)	0.18
Cognitive Engagement	72.4 (16.9)	77.0 (15.8)	0.27

Table 5: Mean comparison on pretest and post-test survey of the project group (N=68)

Table 5 shows results of engagement level among the two project groups. The results revealed a small to moderate effect size for Pedagogy, Experience of Learning, Assessment for Learning and Learning Content. The intervention had a higher impact especially on Assessment for Learning, and Learning Content.

The following graph shows the results from the review test on “Fractions”. There is a difference of 12.0 in favour of the project group. Thus, it may be concluded, with some degree of reservation, the MI intervention has a significant impact on the higher achievement among the project group pupils. Results indicated that the MI intervention seemed to have a greater impact on the low-ability pupils.

 

  

The following graph shows the results from the review tests on “Decimals”. There is a difference of 15.0 in favour of the project group. Thus, it may be concluded that a longer exposure to the MI intervention has a positive impact on the higher achievement among the pupils who were taught through MI strategies for nine weeks as compared to the comparison group pupils who were taught through MI strategies for only six weeks. Results also indicated that the MI intervention has a greater impact on the low-ability pupils.

 

Table 7 shows the motivational and attitudinal levels of the comparison and project groups. For all the ten items, the project group scored higher than the comparison group. This suggests that a longer exposure to the MI intervention has a positive impact on the motivational and attitudinal levels of the project group pupils who were taught through MI strategies for nine weeks as compared to the comparison group pupils who were taught through MI strategies for only six weeks. Results also suggest that the pupils were more influenced by exciting, interesting and challenging lessons.

Table 7: Comparisons on motivational and attitudinal level means

No.	Item	Project group	Comparison group	Effect size
F1	I am excited about learning.	85.8 (17.4)	72.5 (22.1)	0.60
F2	I am interested in what is being taught.	84.1 (20.5)	69.6 (23.2)	0.61
F3	I like the subject.	83.1 (20.0)	74.1 (24.4)	0.37
F4	I like doing the activities.	83.2 (21.7)	75.9 (23.2)	0.31
F5	I want to learn more about this subject.	81.7 (18.0)	73.5 (24.7)	0.33
F6	I look forward to the lesson.	84.9 (22.2)	74.2 (21.1)	0.51
F7	I like learning because what I learn in class is useful.	79.0 (24.3)	70.0 (27.2)	0.33
F8	I will keep on trying even if the task is difficult.	79.8 (20.0)	69.7 (24.2)	0.42
F9	I like the challenging work given to us.	79.6 (22.5)	66.0 (27.5)	0.49
F10	I like learning because I can choose the task that I do best.	77.0 (22.6)	64.3 (25.8)	0.49

In addition to the quantitative data, feedback from the project group affirmed the improvement in attitude and the high motivation experienced by pupils from the MI infused lessons. Below is a blog entry by a pupil:

• “We sang a lot of songs about decimals and fractions. It is very fun and interesting learning decimals and fractions. Our teacher teaches us different types of methods and using [attractive] power point [slides] to teach our class. I love Maths! It is really fun to learn! All the questions [are] like solving mystery cases! We also played Maths games to learn. Our teacher teaches us Maths in very fun ways. I love to play more Maths games and learn more about Maths! The Problem Sums are really challenging! Maths is Fun!”

Feedback from the project teachers further affirmed the improvement in attitude and the high motivation observed in pupils through the MI infused lessons. Below is a teacher’s reflection:

• “I have seen for myself how planning a lesson that involves multiple intelligences actually makes the lessons more exciting for the pupils. Pupils can relate better, recall the learning points better, and on the whole, they are more motivated, even to do homework. By getting pupils involved through activities, songs, stories, and using powerpoint slides packed with cute pictures and animations, pupils actually looked forward to learning. This is true “Teach Less, Learn More” in action.”

Discussion and Conclusion

Based on the analysis of the data presented, it is seen that the MI intervention in the area of Mathematics has made positive contributions for the pupils’ engagement, motivation, attitude and achievement towards the learning of Mathematics. Pupils’ and teachers’ reflections support the statistical findings.

The findings obtained from this study, resembles other studies which evaluate MI instructional approach for the pupil success and attitudes. In a study by Cluck and Hess (2003), results showed improved assignment completion, class participation and engagement of learners using MI. Bednar, Coughlin, Evans and Sievers (2002) showed an increase in pupil motivation and positive attitude through the use of MI. In Douglas, Burton and Reese-Durham (2008), results showed considerable increase in academic performance on pupils taught through MI compared to those taught using the traditional method.   Three of the four improvements were observed: improved academic performance, greater impact on the low-ability pupils and behaviour improvements namely on pupils’ attitude and motivation in learning of Mathematics. Discipline problems tend to disappear, as reflected by the project teachers, when pupils are excited about learning in a fun filled lesson.

The success of the project led to a refinement of the prototype and an emergent model for “Teaching Mathematics through Multiple Intelligences” in West View. By 2010, all teachers were involved in infusing MI strategies in their Mathematics lessons. The significant improvement in the school’s Math PSLE results, an increase in percentage pass from 66.4% in 2009 to 81.1% in 2010, indicates that MI has positive impact in pupils’ academic performance. Pupils who were taught Mathematics through MI over three years (2008-2010) produced better PSLE scores than pupils who have not been taught through MI.

In closing, the most beneficial aspect of our research is that it takes into consideration human differences within the classroom and teaches the subject matter in a variety of ways appealing to all learners.

More preschool, Primary school maths experts on creative maths and Heuristics Maths, click here.

References

1.       Bednar, J., Coughlin, J., Evans, E., Sievers, T. May 2002. Improving student  

motivation and achievement in Mathematics through teaching to the multiple intelligences.

2.    Chapman, C. (1993). If the shoe fit…How to develop multiple intelligences in the

classroom. Arlington Heights, IL: IRI/Skylight Training and Publishing Inc.p.ix.

3.    Cluck, M., Hess, D., Improving Student Motivation Through the use of the Multiple         

             Intelligences. May 2003

4.    Douglas, O., Burton, K.S., Reese-Durham, N., The Effects of the Multiple Intelligence

Teaching Strategy on the Academic Achievement of Eighth Grade Math Students. Journal of Instructional Psychology; June 2008. Vol.35 Issue 2, p182-187, 6p

5.    Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential

of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74: 59 – 109.

6.   Gardner, H. (1991). The Unschooled  Mind: How children think and how schools should

teach.. New York: Basic Books.

7.  Gardner, H. (1993). The theory in practice. New York: Basic Books.

8.  Gardner, H. (1999). The disciplined mind: What all students should understand. New York: Simon and Schuster.

9.  Hoerr, T. (2002). Applying MI in Schools. Retrieved from

http://www.newhorizons.org/strategies/mi/hoerr2.htm

10.  Ministry of Education (2007), Mathematics Syllabus, Ministry of Education, Singapore.

11.  Pociask, A., Settles, J., Increasing Student Achievement through Brain-Based Strategies,

May 2007.

12.  Robinson, A., Silver, H.F., & Strong, R., (1995, September). What do students want and

what really motivates them? Educational leadership. [Online] Available

http://www.middleweb

13.  Soh, K.C., Tan, C., Workshop on Action Research:Transforming Teachers to Action

Researchers.Educational Leadership 21. Hong Kong. 2^nd edition 2008.