origin of common core; one young man's perspective
Common core was developed as a result of Singapore (a young country, founded in 1965 and at an estimated of 5 million people) needing to give students a good foundation in understanding mathematics. It was designed by top educators in Singapore through trial and error.
By the way, scholars who have outstanding performance in university contribute significantly to policy in all parts of the Singapore government. Education policy is one such area.
The thoughts below were a response on facebook to a good friend (who is a teacher in kansas). The teacher in question teaches common core math at the fifth grade level I think.
By the way, scholars who have outstanding performance in university contribute significantly to policy in all parts of the Singapore government. Education policy is one such area.
The thoughts below were a response on facebook to a good friend (who is a teacher in kansas). The teacher in question teaches common core math at the fifth grade level I think.
Common core math first piqued my interest because of its "Singapore math" label, I think I heard about it during my time in college, by chance, during a big brother big sister lunch hour.
Growing up with a number line and drawing rectangle blocks as a model to assist learning simple arithmetic, was a good foundation to help primary school students visualize a problem and check for understanding. Now this is done in preparation for the PSLE (primary school leaving examination) where 12 year olds are placed in secondary schools based on how well they perform on this standardized test. The pressure to perform is immense.
This usage of understanding checks was essential for singaporean students in secondary schools (age 12 to 16), especially since rote learning was common place in confucian learning traditions, where the ancient method was "don't ask why, just memorize".
At the end of secondary school, two math subjects, the E-maths and A-maths are tested as part of a marathon 2 weeks of examinations, where each subject is typically 3-4 hours with a short breather in between. Now students are allowed to take a minimum of 6 subjects and a maximum of 10 i think, special students areally allowed to take 11 or 12. I took 9, but i think the secondary school subjects choice selection may have changed a bit.
E Maths was short for elementary math, and covered just about every basic algebraic concept, geometry and word problems. A maths was short for advanced maths and included simple derivations and integrations, and briefly touched on applied physics concepts in maths. Without a strong foundation in common core principals, students would be hard pressed to succeed at the secondary school level. I recall teachers talking about misconceptions built up at the primary school level, and needing to tear down what the first year secondary one students knew before they could begin building the understanding requirements secondary students needed to know for maths and science.
The GCE "O" levels examinations (short for ordinary levels,.. I can't recall if I ever learnt what GCE stood for but I think it has something to do with the fact that all exam papers were sealed and shipped to Cambridge in England for grading) have a lot of pressure as they determine which prestigious or not so prestigious junior college a student in the "fast" stream gets tracked to.
Subsequently at the junior college level, there are again two commonly taken maths subjects in my time, if I remember right, they were c maths which was a combination of e maths and a maths, continuing in an exponentially increased difficulty, and the second one was f maths, which was basically a precursor to engineering maths (I didn't take f maths as I chose the science stream instead). In alicia's time (she is two years younger), the h2 system had replaced the pure science vs. pure arts system, so most junior college students now take a combination of arts and science subjects (I think, i'm not clear on how the h2 system functions, or even if I have the right acronym for it).
18 year olds sit for the GCE -levels as a pre-university admissions examinations, so once again the pressures are intense. Without a firm foundations built upon the principals learnt at the "common core" level, understandingin core principals can sometimes unravel during the very short period of examination time that determines whether admission to university is possible. Hence the basic foundation of fundamental theories learnt in common core can be comforting to hold the rest of the built upon principals, I think.
Then again I might just be rambling incoherently after a long 12 hr night shift, lol
Growing up with a number line and drawing rectangle blocks as a model to assist learning simple arithmetic, was a good foundation to help primary school students visualize a problem and check for understanding. Now this is done in preparation for the PSLE (primary school leaving examination) where 12 year olds are placed in secondary schools based on how well they perform on this standardized test. The pressure to perform is immense.
This usage of understanding checks was essential for singaporean students in secondary schools (age 12 to 16), especially since rote learning was common place in confucian learning traditions, where the ancient method was "don't ask why, just memorize".
At the end of secondary school, two math subjects, the E-maths and A-maths are tested as part of a marathon 2 weeks of examinations, where each subject is typically 3-4 hours with a short breather in between. Now students are allowed to take a minimum of 6 subjects and a maximum of 10 i think, special students areally allowed to take 11 or 12. I took 9, but i think the secondary school subjects choice selection may have changed a bit.
E Maths was short for elementary math, and covered just about every basic algebraic concept, geometry and word problems. A maths was short for advanced maths and included simple derivations and integrations, and briefly touched on applied physics concepts in maths. Without a strong foundation in common core principals, students would be hard pressed to succeed at the secondary school level. I recall teachers talking about misconceptions built up at the primary school level, and needing to tear down what the first year secondary one students knew before they could begin building the understanding requirements secondary students needed to know for maths and science.
The GCE "O" levels examinations (short for ordinary levels,.. I can't recall if I ever learnt what GCE stood for but I think it has something to do with the fact that all exam papers were sealed and shipped to Cambridge in England for grading) have a lot of pressure as they determine which prestigious or not so prestigious junior college a student in the "fast" stream gets tracked to.
Subsequently at the junior college level, there are again two commonly taken maths subjects in my time, if I remember right, they were c maths which was a combination of e maths and a maths, continuing in an exponentially increased difficulty, and the second one was f maths, which was basically a precursor to engineering maths (I didn't take f maths as I chose the science stream instead). In alicia's time (she is two years younger), the h2 system had replaced the pure science vs. pure arts system, so most junior college students now take a combination of arts and science subjects (I think, i'm not clear on how the h2 system functions, or even if I have the right acronym for it).
18 year olds sit for the GCE -levels as a pre-university admissions examinations, so once again the pressures are intense. Without a firm foundations built upon the principals learnt at the "common core" level, understandingin core principals can sometimes unravel during the very short period of examination time that determines whether admission to university is possible. Hence the basic foundation of fundamental theories learnt in common core can be comforting to hold the rest of the built upon principals, I think.
Then again I might just be rambling incoherently after a long 12 hr night shift, lol
Albert Ong II Second to last paragraph, *understanding typo.
Also, maths is pronounced "mats" back home.
One other thing to note is that Cambridge used to grade singaporean exam papers on a separate bell curve from all other countries, rumor being that singapore pushed down the bell curve of the other commonwealth countries who sat for the same examinations in the past.
Another possible reason is that the Ministry of Education in Singapore changes the 5-10% of the syllabus based on industry needs, feedback from teachers and parents,... or due to the repackaging of the syllabus during changeover of politically appointed ministry heads of education. Also, syllabus changes may not be politically motivated at all, but nonetheless, the syllabus is pretty dynamic from year to year.
Also, maths is pronounced "mats" back home.
One other thing to note is that Cambridge used to grade singaporean exam papers on a separate bell curve from all other countries, rumor being that singapore pushed down the bell curve of the other commonwealth countries who sat for the same examinations in the past.
Another possible reason is that the Ministry of Education in Singapore changes the 5-10% of the syllabus based on industry needs, feedback from teachers and parents,... or due to the repackaging of the syllabus during changeover of politically appointed ministry heads of education. Also, syllabus changes may not be politically motivated at all, but nonetheless, the syllabus is pretty dynamic from year to year.
- Get link
- X
- Other Apps
Comments
Post a Comment