ZDM Mathematics Education (2007) 39:491–501
DOI 10.1007/s11858-007-0044-1
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
From convergence to divergence: the development
of mathematical problem solving in research, curriculum,
and classroom practice in Singapore
Lianghuo Fan Æ Yan Zhu
Accepted: 7 June 2007 / Published online: 28 July 2007

FIZ Karlsruhe 2007
Abstract Following the movement of problem solving in
the US and other parts of the world in the 1980s, problem
solving became the central focus of Singapore’s national
school mathematics curriculum in 1990 and thereafter the
key theme in research and practice. Different from some
other countries, this situation has largely not changed in
Singapore mathematics education since then. However,
within the domain of problem solving, mathematics edu-
cators in Singapore focused more on the fundamental
knowledge, basic skills, and heuristics for problem solving
till the mid 1990s. In particular, problem solving heuristics,
especially the so-called ‘‘model method’’, a term most
widely used for problem solving, received much attention
in syllabus, research, and classroom instruction. Since the
late 1990s, following the national vision of ‘‘Thinking
Schools, Learning Nation’’ and nurturing modern citizens
with independent, critical, and creative thinking, Singapore
mathematics educators’ attention has greatly expanded to
the development of students’ higher-order thinking, self-
reflection and self-regulation, alternative ways of assess-
ment and instruction, among other aspects concerning
problem solving. Researchers have also looked into the
advantages and disadvantages of Singapore’s textbooks in
representing problem solving, and the findings of these
investigations have influenced the development of the lat-
est school mathematics textbooks.
L. Fan (&)
Y. Zhu
Nanyang Technological University, 1 Nanyang Walk,
Singapore, Singapore 637616
e-mail: lianghuo.fan@nie.edu.sg
1 Introduction
As a globalized city state and well developed country,
Singapore is to a great degree open to and hence heavily
influenced by the outside world in many areas. Mathematics
education is no exception. Following the movement of
problem solving in mathematics education, which was first
seen in the US as most evident in the landmark publication,
An Agenda for Action (National Council of Teachers of
Mathematics, 1980) but also observed in other countries
such as UK in its influential official report, Mathematics
Counts (Cockcroft, 1982), problem solving has also grad-
ually occupied the central place in mathematics education
in Singapore over the last two decades or so.
In this paper, we shall examine the development of
problem solving in mathematics education research, cur-
riculum, and classroom practice (including assessment) in
Singapore, identify some key practices of the development,
and discuss the possible underlying reasons with the con-
text of Singapore educational settings.
2 Some historical background about mathematics
education in Singapore
Singapore is a small country with an area of nearly
700 km2 and a population of about 4.5 million1, with the
majority (about 80%) being Chinese and the remaining
mainly being Malay and Indian people. In history, it was a
British colony for a long time. In early days, Singapore’s
education system largely followed Chinese system for
Chinese schools and British system for English schools.
1
Retrieved 28 March, 2007, from http://www.singstat.gov.sg/key-
stats/annual/indicators.html
123
492
In 1959, Singapore gained complete internal self-gov-
ernment and an Educational Advisory Council was set up,
under which a Textbooks and Syllabuses Committee was
formed to draw up syllabuses with a common content in all
the four language media (i.e., Chinese, English, Malay, and
Tamil) for all schools. In the same year, the first Singapore
local mathematics syllabus was published, known as Syl-
labus B (Lee & Fan, 2004). In that syllabus, mathematics
was treated as an international language and a unified
subject, that is, there was no distinction between Chinese
mathematics, English mathematics, and Malayan mathe-
matics in terms of the contents, although there were Chi-
nese version2 and English version. It adopted a spiral
approach in the arrangement of the mathematical topics.
Unlike the earlier syllabuses mathematics was not sepa-
rated in Syllabus B into arithmetic, algebra, geometry, etc.
Singapore became an independent country in 1965.
After its independence, Singapore has maintained a highly
centralized educational system, compared to many other
countries such as the US. In mathematics curriculum, re-
vised syllabuses were issued for primary schools and sec-
ondary schools in 1971 and 1973, respectively. Their
appearance was in response to the movement of new
mathematics in the US or modern mathematics as it is
called in the UK in the 1960s. Influenced by the outside
movement, the major changes in the new syllabuses,
known as Syllabus C, took place in the content of mathe-
matics, such as introducing approximation at the primary
level and replacing logarithmic tables by scientific calcu-
lators at the secondary level.
Along with the introduction of the new educational
policy of streaming students in primary and secondary
education, new school mathematics syllabuses, called
Syllabus D, for the two levels were issued by the govern-
ment to replace the previous mathematics syllabuses pro-
gressively since 1981. The syllabus for the lower primary
level, which is from Primary Grade 1 to Primary Grade 3 or
simply P1 to P3, was common to all pupils. For the upper
primary level, most students were expected to follow the
syllabus for the Normal course (P4N–P6N), and the
remaining students, who were relatively underachievers
and expected to spend 2 more years than others in com-
pleting primary education, followed the syllabus for the
Extended course (P4E–P8E), which was almost identical to
the syllabus for the Normal course, except that some
important topics covered at the lower primary level were
repeated in the Extended course.
There are three courses at the secondary level, which are
Special course, Express course, and Normal course. There
was no difference in contents among the three courses.
2
Chinese version existed until 1980, after which only English was
used as the medium of instruction in all schools.
123
L. Fan, Y. Zhu
However, all the contents would be completed in four years
by Special/Express course students but in five years by
Normal course students. Up to the mid 1980s, problem
solving in Singapore mathematics education did not play a
prominent role in curriculum, as well as research and
practice.
A milestone in the development of problem solving
was the syllabus, which was revised in the late 1980s and
released in 1990. It was the first time that to develop
students’ ability in mathematical problem solving was set
as the primary aim of the mathematics curriculum and
problem solving was also placed at the core of the
framework of mathematical curriculum (see more dis-
cussion later).
Since then, there have been largely no significant
changes to the Singapore mathematics curriculum except
the contents were reduced in 1994. In addition, Normal
course at the secondary level was further separated into
Normal (Academic) course and Normal (Technical) course.
The aim of the latter course was to prepare students for post
secondary technical-vocational courses, and it adopted the
same framework as that of mathematics syllabus for the
other three courses. In 1995, the streaming policy at the
primary level was reformed. In particular, 6-year primary
education was offered to all the students, and they were
only streamed at the end of the grade level P4 into three
courses, known as EM1, EM2, and EM3, for the study in
P5 and P6. The streaming was conducted mainly according
to students’ academic abilities and interest. In mathematics
learning, the only difference between the EM1 and EM2
streams was that EM2 stream was requested to spend half
an hour more per week on mathematics, while EM3 stream
emphasized more on the foundation in basic mathematical
concepts. EM1 and EM2 were merged in 2004.
In 1997, the vision of Thinking Schools, Learning Na-
tion (TSLN) was launched by the Singapore government
(Goh, 1997) with the other two initiatives, National Edu-
cation (NE) and Information Technology (IT) Masterplan.
In order to provide more room for teachers to implement
these new initiatives, Singapore’s Ministry of Education
(MOE) decided to further reduce the content in the cur-
riculum by up to 30% for most school subjects. Although a
certain amount of topics were removed from the 1998
syllabuses compared to the 1990 version, mathematical
problem solving remained the focus of mathematics
learning and further became an independent topic.
The newest mathematics syllabus, which was released in
2006 and started to be implemented in 2007, continued to
maintain problem solving as the central focus and listed
one of the general aims for mathematics education as ‘‘ [to]
develop the mathematical thinking and problem solving
skills and apply these skills to formulate and solve prob-
lems’’ (MOE, 2007a, b).
Development of mathematical problem solving in research, curriculum, and classroom practice in Singapore
3 Research on problem solving in Singapore
Compared to the practice of mathematics education, the
research in mathematics education in Singapore has a rel-
atively short history (Foong, 2007). An earlier so-called
‘‘state-of-the-art’’ review was conducted by Chong, Khoo,
Foong, Kaur, and Lim-Teo (1991) on the local mathe-
matics education research from the late 1970s to the early
1990s. This review provides us with a most important
source for observing the research in mathematics education
in that period.
In that comprehensive review, Chong et al. located only
42 studies from documented research reports, dissertations,
journal articles, and proceedings of conferences, though
they noted there was a large increase in the number of
studies from about 1983. Moreover, these reviewers found
that of the selected studies, slightly over one-third were
master or doctoral dissertations. The details are given in
Table 1 below.
All the reviewed studies were classified into five strands
including ‘‘teaching and learning of mathematics’’,
‘‘assessment and examination in mathematics’’, ‘‘teacher
education in mathematics’’, ‘‘development project in
mathematics’’, and ‘‘mathematics curriculum development,
implementation and evaluation’’. Among these studies,
there were very few studies particularly about problem
solving. In fact, there were only two (4.8%) such studies
located in the review under the strand of ‘‘teaching and
learning of mathematics’’, and as Chong et al. (1991) no-
ted, these studies were the ‘‘beginnings of [more] research
on problem solving’’ (p. 50) in Singapore.
It is worth mentioning that both of the studies were
mainly around the metacognitive processes of problem
solving, an indicator of Singapore researchers’ interest in
problem solving. Using a think-aloud methodology,
Foong’s (1990) study examined the problem solving pro-
cess through observing the process of solving non-routine
mathematics problems by 57 pre-service primary and sec-
ondary school teachers, and furthermore using a teaching
experiment with eight non-successful problem solvers, she
found that teaching heuristics and metacognitive behaviors
explicitly was useful in helping them develop problem
solving abilities. In comparison, Wong (1989) surveyed the
metacognitive processes demonstrated by secondary
Table 1 Number of studies in mathematics education by year of publication
1979–1980 1981–1985
Number of studies 2 10
M.Ed./Ph.D. studies 2 5
Source: A state-of-the-art review on mathematics education in Singapore (Chong, Khoo, Foong, Kaur, & Lim-Teo, 1991)
493
students of different streams/courses in problem solving,
and revealed that, among other findings, there was a high
frequency of students reporting the practice of checking the
workings or the accuracy of the answer to a problem.
In a large sense, a most important avenue to observe the
development of mathematics education research in Singa-
pore after the early 1990s is The Mathematics Educator,
which is the only research journal in the area of mathe-
matics education published in Singapore. It was published
by the Association of Mathematics Educators of Singapore
and widely regarded as a primary source of the information
about mathematics education research conducted in Sin-
gapore (Fan, 2007). The first issue was published in 1996
and so far 19 issues (including special issues but excluding
a monograph) have been published in 10 volumes.
In preparing this paper, we examined all the articles
published in these 19 issues, and found that out of the 143
articles published, 28 (nearly 20%) were explicitly around
the theme of problem solving, which is undoubtedly a
dramatic increase compared to the number of studies
identified in the 1980s in this area, as mentioned earlier.
Figure 1 shows the distribution of these articles pub-
lished in the journal in terms of topics they dealt with
within the area of problem solving.
In the figure, the others include articles of review of
research, textbook representation, and teacher knowledge
about problem solving. By the way, there is no dramatic
change in the number of the papers around problem solving
per volume over these years.
Foong (2007) looked at another important source of
mathematics education research conducted in Singapore
over the last few decades, that is, research done for higher
degrees (Master and Ph.D.) in the National Institute of
Education, the sole teacher education institute in Singa-
pore. Given the nature and status of Master and Doctoral
degree theses, they can be to a certain extent viewed as a
reflection of the general trend or development of research
in various aspects including topics, conceptualizations, and
methods in a larger researchers’ community.
Foong identified a total of 101 relevant studies (94
M.Ed. and 7 Ph.D.) in the period of 1991–2005, a signifi-
cant increase from 16 such studies (15 M.Ed. and 1 Ph.D.)
in the 1980s (see Table 1). Among the 101 studies, about
27% were about problem solving, which took the highest
1986–1987 1988–1991 Total
15 15 42
6 3 16
123
494
12
10
No. of Articles
8
6
4
2 majority of the dissertation studies adopted the first defi-
0
Nature and methods Students behavior Teaching and
of problem solving and performance in assessment for
problem solving problems Solving
Topics in Problem Solving
Fig. 1 Distribution of articles about problem solving published in
The Mathematics Educator in terms of topics
percentage in various research areas, which clearly indi-
cated the status of problem solving in mathematics edu-
cation research. Given the international waned trend of
research on problem solving, Foong suggested that the
large number of local degree studies on problem solving
could be due to the fact that problem solving has been the
central theme of Singapore school mathematics curriculum
since 1990, as mentioned earlier (see more details in next
section), which we largely agree.
There are a variety of research topics in these degree
studies related to mathematical problem solving. For
example, a number of studies investigated the effects of
using new teaching approaches in promoting students’
abilities in problem solving, including alternative assess-
ment (e.g., journal writing, problem-posing, open-ended
problems), cooperative learning, heuristic instruction, and
sense-making (e.g., see Chang, 2004; Chow, 2004; Ho,
1997; Wong, 2002), and some examined factors that had
potential influence on students’ performance in problem
solving, including attitude, anxiety level, cognitive char-
acteristics, gender, and language proficiency (e.g., see
Chan, 2003; Loo, 1996; Yeap, 2004; Yeo, 2004). Two
studies analyzed the representations of problem solving in
local school mathematics textbooks, one at the primary
level (Ng, 2002) and the other at the lower secondary level
(Zhu, 2003). There are also studies examining competency
and strategies used by students in problem solving as well
as errors made by students during the problem solving
processes (e.g., see Ying, 2005).
It is well known that there are two different definitions
of ‘‘problems’’ used in research literature in this area. The
first emphasized that a problem should be a situation in
which a goal is to be attained but there is no readily
accessible solutions for problem solvers to obtain the an-
swer to the problem (e.g., Charles & Lester, 1984; Lester,
1980; Pólya, 1980). The other is in a broader sense, that is,
123
L. Fan, Y. Zhu
a situation is a problem as long as it requires an answer or
solution, no matter it is readily available or not (e.g.,
Kantowski, 1981; LeBlanc, 1982; Stiff, 1988). In a sense,
the former definition is only applicable to non-routine
problems, while the problems under the latter definition
include both routine and non-routine problems.
Such different understandings were also reflected in the
Singapore mathematics education studies. In particular, the
nition and non-routine, open-ended, or performance tasks
Others were often included in the test instruments. For example,
Liu (2003) separated students’ problem solving abilities
from their academic mathematics achievement. She used
students’ performance in the mid-year standard paper-and-
pencil semestral assessment test as the indicator for
mathematics achievement and assessed their problem
solving ability by solving questions such that there are no
obvious procedures to solve them. On the other hand, the
two textbook analysis studies (Ng, 2002; Zhu, 2003; also
see Fan & Zhu, 2000) used the other broader definition.
They argued that the former definition is of a subjective
nature, as according to that definition whether or not a
situation is a problem would depend on the solver’s
background. Therefore, being a ‘problem’ is not a property
inherent in a task but a particular relationship between the
individual and the task, which is not operational in study
like textbook analysis because the textbook users are not
exactly known. In addition, solving routine problems also
plays an important role in developing learners’ ability in
problem solving (Lester, 1982).
Methodologically, Foong’s (2007) review found that
the 101 mathematics education dissertation studies used a
limited number of research methods in their data collec-
tion. In particular, around two-thirds of the studies were
based on task assessment of students’ performance.
Similarly, for those related to problem solving, in
assessing students’ capability in solving non-routine
problems, using test papers is the predominant approach.
In investigating influences of certain factors (e.g., atti-
tudes) on students’ ability in problem solving, researchers
often employed questionnaire survey as a main instru-
ment. Only a few studies involved interview and/or
classroom observation as part of their research methods.
In general, most of these dissertation studies were carried
out in a quantitative way.
For the studies on the effects of using new teaching
methods, quasi-experiment including pre-test, intervention,
and post-test appears to be the standard procedure for this
type of studies. Moreover, it seems that because all the
studies were meant for higher degrees, intervention usually
only took place in a short period of time. For instance,
Wong’s (2002) heuristics intervention programme was
introduced through 12 lessons spread over 4 weeks. Soeh’s
Development of mathematical problem solving in research, curriculum, and classroom practice in Singapore
(2002) open-ended problem-solving intervention consisted
of eight sessions in 8 weeks.
Document analysis was used in the textbook analysis
studies and strategy/error analysis studies. In those studies,
establishing a coding scheme based on literature review
and conceptual framework and then carrying out the coding
were the common practices.
In terms of the scale and/or sample size of studies, it is
most common to include one or two classes of students,
especially for those involving intervention programs. For
the studies largely based on task assessment, the number of
participants could be up to a few hundreds. For example,
Wong’s (2002) study involved one intact primary six class,
39 students, to participate in the heuristics intervention
programme. Soeh’s (2002) study had 2 Secondary Five
classes, 52 students, to take part in the open-ended prob-
lem-solving intervention. Yeo’s (2004) exploration of the
relationship between students’ mathematics anxiety and
problem solving invited 621 Secondary Two students to sit
for paper-and-pencil tests and 56 of them further for
interviews.
Although the snapshot provided above about the fea-
tures of Master and Ph.D. thesis studies, that is, a variety of
topics, a limited number of research methods, different
understanding/definitions of problems, and relatively small
scales, were largely applicable to other studies conducted
by general researchers in the area of problem solving, it
should be mentioned that in recent years many researchers
have conducted relatively large-scale studies and expanded
their research domains in this area, particularly under the
Centre for Research in Pedagogy and Practice (CRPP) at
the National Institute of Education since its inception in
2003 (e.g., see Fan & Quek, 2005).
4 Problem solving in Singapore mathematics
curriculum
As mentioned before, problem solving has been the central
theme in Singapore mathematics curriculum for both pri-
mary and secondary levels since 1990. However, devel-
oping students’ ability in problem solving started to be one
of the mathematics learning objectives in the curriculum in
the 1970s. The fourth learning objective in the 1971-syl-
labus was ‘‘to develop an ability to solve problems con-
cerning the physical world, or the world of the imagination,
by constructing mathematical models of situations, events
or thoughts, solving the problems in their mathematical
form and then translating the solutions into ordinary lan-
guage’’ (MOE, 1971, p. 4). Similarly, the 1980-syllabus
listed ‘‘to enable the pupil to develop the ability to solve
problems in mathematics’’ and ‘‘to enable the pupil to
develop a practical approach to problems encountered in
495
his daily life’’ as two out of eight general learning aims
(MOE, 1980, p. 2).
In 1990, to develop the ability in problem solving is fur-
ther promoted to be the ‘‘primary aim of the mathematics
curriculum’’. Compared to the 1971- and 1980-syllabi, the
1990 version gave a clear description to ‘‘problem solving’’.
It stated that ‘‘the word ‘problem’ covers a wide range of
situations from routine mathematical problems to open-
ended investigations that make use of relevant mathematics’’
(MOE, 1990, p. 6). Moreover, problem solving was explic-
itly placed in the centre of the mathematics curriculum.
This new development, according to T. H. Kho (personal
communication, 18 March 2007), who has been mainly
responsible for the national mathematics curriculum in
Singapore for the last two decades, was due to the inter-
national trend in mathematics education taking place in the
1980s. In particular, in reply to our inquiry about this issue
for preparing this article, Kho pointed out that the curricu-
lum developers studied carefully and hence were influenced
by the landmark publications, An Agenda for Action
(NCTM, 1980) in the US, and the Cockcroft Report (i.e.,
Mathematics Counts; see Cockcroft, 1982) in the UK about
the importance of problem solving in school mathematics. It
was well known that in the 1980s, there were numerous
publications, conferences (e.g., ICME-5) and other events
devoted to the theme of problem solving. There seems no
doubt that given the tradition and background of Singa-
pore’s society as well as its educational system, the so-
called ‘‘problem-solving era’’ in the 1980s in the US and
other countries (Lester & Kroll, 1990) had significant in-
fluence in the development of Singapore mathematics cur-
riculum about problem solving (also see Kho, 1989).
Figure 2 presents the framework of the mathematics
curriculum (i.e., pentagon framework) with five inter-re-
lated components surrounding the center, mathematical
problem solving.
As part of processes, heuristics for problem solving were
first explicitly listed in the syllabus. The primary level
Fig. 2 Framework of mathematics curriculum (MOE, 1990)
123
496 L. Fan, Y. Zhu

syllabus listed 11 problem solving heuristics, including

such as ‘‘acting it out’’, ‘‘using a diagram/model’’, and
‘‘solving part of the problem’’. The secondary level sylla-
bus listed 13 heuristics with 2 not included at the primary
level, that is, ‘‘using equation’’ and ‘‘thinking of a related
problem’’. To facilitate the teaching of problem solving
heuristics, each syllabus provided samples to illustrate the
use of various heuristics in its appendix.
Among these heuristics, ‘‘using a diagram/model’’, or
simply called ‘‘model method’’ started to become a label
for Singapore school mathematics, after it was introduced
into Singapore mathematics curriculum (Kho, 1987). Many
researchers from the western are curious about the model
method and called it ‘‘bar modeling’’. An example is shown
below. It was believed that such a technique, through
drawing a diagram, helped students to make sense of the
problems first and then organize information and lead them
toward solutions. Some researchers argued that the ‘‘bar-
modeling’’ method not only provided a powerful method
for solving problems, but also served as a link to algebra.
With such a powerful visual learning method, primary
school students are able to solve challenging and complex
mathematics problems (Garelick, 2006).
Problem: A teacher brought a box of 39 computer
diskettes to the computer laboratory. The diskettes were Fig. 3 A model for problem solving (MOE, 1990)
of either Brand A or Brand B. Later, she discovered to
her horror that one quarter of the Brand A and one third pupils to develop the mathematical thinking that would
of the Brand B diskettes were defective and there were a enable them to become better problem solvers and to learn
total of 11 defective diskettes. How many of the Brand A mathematics more effectively’’ (MOE, 1990, p. 7).
diskettes were defective? In the 1990 primary and secondary school mathematics
syllabuses, pupils were required to be able to solve a
variety of problems from routine problems to non-routine
Solution: Use a model ones, and in the 2000 syllabuses, pupils were more
Number of x x x x Total number of
Brand A defective diskettes
explicitly encouraged to ‘‘seek alternative solutions to
diskettes (shaded parts) = 11 problems and to create, formulate or extend problems’’
(MOE, 2000, p. 16), which indicated an increased emphasis
Number of Brand B y y y Total number of non-
diskettes defective diskettes on the last phase in the Pólya’s model, developing pupils’
(unshaded parts) reflective, critical and creative thinking skills. It should be
= 39 – 11 = 28
x x x x also pointed out that, in the 2000 secondary school math-
Rearranging the ematics syllabus, problem solving was also treated as an
parts, we have
y y y
independent content for teaching, just as other common
topics, such as arithmetic and geometry.
Figure 4 shows the new pentagonal structure of mathe-
matics curriculum in the newest 2007 syllabus (MOE,
2007a, b). Compared to Fig. 2, this new framework con-
Hence, x = 39 – 3 · 11 = 6. Therefore, 6 of Brand A
tinues to keep mathematical problem solving as its core
diskettes are defective (MOE, 2000, p. 97).
with some changes in the inter-related components, such as
In addition, adopting the Pólya’s problem-solving ‘‘reasoning, communication and connections’’ and ‘‘appli-
model, the syllabus articulated the problem-solving cations and modeling’’ being part of processes.
framework as shown in Figure. 3. Moreover, the syllabus Problem solving was no longer treated as an indepen-
emphasized the importance of integrating problem solving dent topic in the latest syllabus, which we think reflects a
in mathematics teaching to ‘‘provide opportunities for new understanding about the role of problem solving in

123
Development of mathematical problem solving in research, curriculum, and classroom practice in Singapore
Fig. 4 Framework of mathematics curriculum (MOE, 2007a, b)
curriculum, that is, the teaching of problem solving should
be integrated into general mathematics instruction when-
ever appropriate (also see Fan & Zhu, 2007).
Different from simply providing a heuristics list with
illustrating samples, the latest syllabus classified the re-
quired heuristics into four different categories, including
giving a representation (e.g., drawing a diagram), making a
calculated guess (e.g., looking for patterns), going through
the process (e.g., working backwards), and changing the
problem (e.g., restating the problem) so as to facilitate
teachers’ instruction of heuristics in problem solving.
In terms of mathematics textbooks, as all local school
textbooks must get approval from the MOE before they can
be adopted by schools, the development of textbooks is in
accordance with the curriculum syllabuses laid by the
ministry (a list of approved textbooks by MOE can be
found at http://nsinte1.moe.edu.sg/project/db/atl/db_pu-
atl.nsf).
The results from the two above mentioned dissertation
studies on the representation of problem solving in the
local mathematics textbooks provide a picture of the
problem solving experience that was designed for textbook
users. Ng (2002) analyzed the only primary series used in
the period from 1981–2000 and found that the textbook
series provided a high portion of routine, close-ended
problems, and problems with exactly sufficient informa-
tion. Nearly 90% of the worked examples modeled the first
two phases in the Pólya’s problem-solving model, 64% of
the examples modeled the first three phases, and none on
the final phase, ‘‘looking back’’. Moreover, not all the
heuristics suggested in the syllabus were introduced in the
textbooks and three were predominantly modeled in the
problem-solving processes of the worked examples.
Similar findings were obtained in Zhu’s (2003) study
which analyzed two textbooks used by Secondary One and
Secondary Two Special/Express pupils (also see Fan &
Zhu, 2000). The study revealed that the majority of prob-
lems provided in the textbooks were routine, traditional,
and close-ended, and most of them were not contextualized
497
in real world situations. The solutions to the worked
examples mostly only demonstrated ‘‘carrying out the
plan’’ and the four problem solving phases were often
modeled in an inexplicit way (i.e., no explicit labels). The
secondary textbooks explicitly illustrated most of the
heuristics listed in the syllabus but missed out one. In
addition, the study also found that the lower secondary
series devoted one whole chapter to the introduction of
problem solving and in 11 out of 27 chapters, there were
text sections entitled ‘‘problem solving’’, which to a certain
extent implies that the textbook authors treated ‘‘problem
solving’’ as an independent topic, just like other mathe-
matics topics.
Both studies suggested that Singapore mathematics
textbooks should introduce more open-ended problems,
non-routine problems, authentic problems, and problems
with insufficient or extraneous information, among other
non-traditional problems.
It is worth mentioning that the findings of these inves-
tigations have influenced the development of the latest
school mathematics textbooks in Singapore. For example,
the latest textbook series, New Express Mathematics, has
introduced many new types of mathematics problems as
examples as well as exercise questions. In particular, at the
end of almost all chapters of the two available textbooks in
that series there are one to three exploration and project
tasks (see more in Lee & Fan, 2007a, b)
5 Teaching of problem solving in Singapore classrooms
Studies on teaching of problem solving in mathematics
classrooms are relatively few in Singapore. The Centre for
Research in Pedagogy and Practice (CRPP), National
Institute of Education (NIE) carried out a core program3,
mainly targeting classroom practices across various sub-
jects including mathematics at both primary and secondary
levels through classroom observations. Yeo and Zhu
(2005) used the data from 118 coded mathematics lessons
from 18 Primary Five classes and 19 Secondary Three
classes by using the Singapore Pedagogy Coding Scheme
designed by the CRPP to explore the occurrence of higher-
order thinking in mathematics classrooms. Although the
study was not directly targeted on teaching of problem
solving, readers could get useful information from their
report given the close relationship between problem solv-
ing and higher-order thinking skills. In that study, the
researchers mainly looked into types of classroom activi-
ties, source of authoritative knowledge, student produced
work, depth of knowledge, knowledge criticism, and
knowledge manipulation.
3
See http://www.crpp.nie.edu.sg/course/view.php?id=313
123
498
The data showed that ‘‘whole class answer-checking’’,
‘‘whole class lecture’’, and ‘‘individual seatwork’’ were the
three major discourse structures in school mathematics
classrooms, which indicated that the mathematics class-
rooms were mainly teacher-centered with low-level tea-
cher–student or student–student interaction. The
observation revealed that a typical mathematics lesson
started with teacher’s lecture-style talking followed by
students individually working on exercises assigned by the
teacher and later the teacher would provide answer-
checking and/or feedback. All these classroom activities
simply involved transmitting knowledge and practicing
procedural routines, which is only at a lower-order thinking
level (Education Queensland, 2002).
It was found that the classroom teacher was the major
source of knowledge and played an authoritative role
concerning knowledge. Although there was tight control by
teachers, very little resistance was found from students and
they appeared to be comfortable with such a teacher-di-
rected learning environment. Teachers seemed to hold the
authority to decide what to teach, how to teach, how stu-
dents should go about learning, and what to be achieved. It
was seldom observed that teachers encouraged students to
question or offer their own thinking or opinions. Even
when students were occasionally invited to voice them-
selves, most students were not responsive, which somehow
enforced teachers to return to ‘‘feed’’ students with answers
and solutions.
Related to the fact that ‘‘whole class answer-checking’’
was the dominant classroom activity, ‘‘short oral response’’
became most frequently observed ‘‘student produced
work’’. However, most of such oral responses only con-
sisted of one single syllable, ‘‘yes’’ or ‘‘no’’, or simply a
numerical answer without giving any substantial explana-
tions. As in oral responses, there was also little emphasis
on engaging students in sustained writing, such as giving
justifications. Instead, students often worked on pre-de-
signed worksheets which contained a large number of re-
peated exercises which were meant for drill and rote
practice. Similar to the oral cases, although nowadays
school teachers started to encourage students to write in a
more substantial way, many students did not seem to have
corresponding abilities but only produced one or two short
phrases or incomplete sentences.
In terms of the depth of knowledge, the classroom
observations found that knowledge transfer in mathematics
classrooms most often dealt with ‘‘procedural/how to’’
followed by ‘‘factual/rote/basic’’ knowledge. Such results
seemed to suggest that the mathematics teaching in local
classrooms emphasized a lot on rote and procedural
knowledge acquisition, which is often mechanical-oriented.
Students under such situations only need to memorize and
drill practice without much understanding of concepts.
123
L. Fan, Y. Zhu
Such knowledge, however, could be easily forgotten if no
frequent practice was followed.
About knowledge criticism, little knowledge compari-
son or knowledge critique was observed in the mathematics
classrooms. It seems related to the fact that the classroom
teachers are regarded as the major and authoritative source
of knowledge, and knowledge is often transmitted by them,
students therefore are at the receiving end and simply ac-
cept whatever the teachers provide as ‘‘truth’’ without
doubts and questions. In this sense, students here in most
cases fell into the mode of passive learning, which kept
them at the lower-order thinking level.
Lastly, ‘‘reproduction’’ (repeating of knowledge that is
taught) was observed as the most prevalent form of
knowledge manipulation in the mathematics classrooms.
Although ‘‘application/problem solving’’ was found to be
the next highest coded form of knowledge manipulation, it
only occurred in about one-fifth of primary lessons and
two-fifths of secondary lessons.
From these observations, it seems clear that there is
much room for improvement in creating a more effective
and efficient learning environment for developing students’
spirit and skills of problem solving in Singapore mathe-
matics classrooms. In particular, more attention should be
paid to developing students’ higher-order thinking in Sin-
gapore mathematics classrooms. To develop higher-order
thinking, classroom teachers shall try to establish a com-
municating environment for students’ effective interaction,
encourage students to verify, question, criticize, and assess
others’ arguments, and engage students in constructing/
generating knowledge through self-exploration, while stu-
dents also need to be self-aware that they must be active
learners to take initiatives and responsibilities in their own
learning (Yeo & Zhu, 2005).
As mentioned, a number of dissertation studies also
looked into the effects of using new teaching strategies on
students’ development of problem solving. In general,
significant improvement for the experimental group was
observed (e.g., Ho, 1997). However, many of the studies
were done on a small scale and the intervention was usually
in a short period. Therefore, some changes may not be able
to be observed or even occur. Moreover, although the
immediate assessment showed the positive effects of the
new teaching strategies on students’ learning, how long the
effects could last is another important issue to be investi-
gated in future.
Finally, let us turn to issues concerning assessment. It
has been widely believed that classroom assessment is an
integral part of teaching and learning process (MOE,
2000). As the purpose of using assessment is to improve
the quality of teaching and learning, it is also importantly
related to the development of problem solving in mathe-
matics. In fact, problem solving has been listed as one key
Development of mathematical problem solving in research, curriculum, and classroom practice in Singapore
component of mathematics assessment in the syllabus
(MOE, 2000). The syllabus recommended various assess-
ment modes, such as classroom observations and oral
communications for classroom teachers, traditional paper-
and-pencil tests were nevertheless still the most common
practice in Singapore schools. Although traditional
assessment is powerful in assessing students’ factual
knowledge, it often receives criticism for being less
effective in assessing students’ conceptual understanding,
higher-order thinking skills, problem solving abilities, as
well as communication skills, which are recognized to be
more and more important nowadays.
With respect to the disadvantage of traditional assess-
ment, a 2-year project focusing on integrating new
assessment strategies into teachers’ daily mathematics
teaching and students’ learning has been conducted within
Singapore educational settings since December 2003 (Fan
& Quek, 2005). The new assessment strategies under
investigation are project assessment, performance tasks,
written and oral presentations, and self-assessment. More
than 1,200 students from 8 primary and 8 secondary
schools received around 18 month intervention on one of
the new assessment modes, with around 1,100 students as
an intact comparison group. By using questionnaire sur-
veys, new assessment tasks, students’ school-based exams,
as well as interviews with teachers and students, the
researchers investigated the impact of using the new
assessment strategies on the experimental students’ math-
ematics learning in both academic and affect aspects.
Regarding students’ academic achievement, the project
looked into students’ performance in both conventional
assessment (school exams) and unconventional assessment
(i.e., new assessment modes). In general, the results in
school-based exams showed that the changes in students’
performance across continuous school semester tests were
significantly preferable in the experimental classes. Al-
though it is hard to attribute the positive results solely to
students’ experience with new assessment strategies, it
appears clear that the students from the experimental
classes did benefit from being exposed to the new strate-
gies.
In the new assessment strategy tests, the students from
both the experimental and comparison classes had
improvement from the pre- to post-test. Although in some
cases, students from the experimental classes did not seem
to have advantage in solving unconventional tasks, it is
clear that overall no negative effect of using the new
assessment strategies was found on students’ performance.
The researchers also realized that developing students’
ability in a higher level in solving challenging mathematics
problems could take a longer time than expected.
Other studies also reported positively about the use of
new assessment strategies in Singapore schools (e.g., Seto,
499
2002; Yazilah & Fan, 2002). It appears clear that new
assessment strategies, such as those based on project work,
portfolio, performance tasks, oral presentation, journal
writing, and student self-assessment, have been increas-
ingly used in Singapore mathematics classrooms over the
last few years. It seems to us that this trend has just started
and will continue for the next few years ahead.
6 Concluding remarks
In this article, we examined how problem solving has
evolved in Singapore mathematics education research,
curriculum, and teaching practices. Overall, although
problem solving was introduced into Singapore mathe-
matics curriculum in the 1970s, it started to occupy the
central place only in 1990, following the movement of
problem solving in the US and other parts of the world in
the 1980s.
Because of the influence of national curriculum on the
teaching and learning, problem solving also became the
central theme in research and practice. Both the number
and the scope of research on problem solving over the last
decade have significantly increased compared to the 1980s
and early 1990s, though there seemed an international
waned trend in such research. Besides studying the meth-
ods, teaching, learning, and assessment around problem
solving, researchers have also looked into the representa-
tion of problem solving in Singapore’s mathematics text-
books, and the findings of these investigations have
influenced the development of the latest school mathe-
matics textbooks.
In the area of problem solving, mathematics educators
in Singapore focused more on the fundamental knowl-
edge, basic skills, and heuristics for problem solving till
the mid 1990s. In particular, problem solving heuristics,
especially the so-called ‘‘model method’’, a term most
widely used for problem solving, received much attention
in syllabus, research, and classroom instruction. Never-
theless, since the late 1990s, consistent with the national
vision of ‘‘Thinking Schools, Learning Nation’’ and nur-
turing modern citizens with independent, critical, and
creative thinking, Singapore mathematics educators’
attention has greatly expanded to the development of
students’ higher-order thinking, self-reflection and self-
regulation, alternative ways of assessment and instruction,
among other aspects concerning problem solving. On the
other hand, traditional teaching is still dominant in
mathematics classrooms. Investigations on the effects of
using new teaching and assessment strategies were at an
early stage in Singapore. There is still a long way to go
and many different or divergent issues to address con-
cerning problem solving.
123
500
References
Chan, C. M. (2003). English language proficiency and the effects of
rewording semantic structures on P5 pupils’ mathematical word
problem solving. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Institute
of Education, Singapore.
Chang, S. H. (2004). Sense-making in solving arithmetic word
problems among Singapore primary school students. Unpub-
lished master’s thesis, National Institute of Education, Singa-
pore.
Charles, R., & Lester, F. K., Jr. (1984). Teaching problem solving.
London: Edward Arnold.
Chong, T. H., Khoo, P. S., Foong, P. Y., Kaur, B., & Lim-Teo, S. K.
(1991). A status-of-the-art review on mathematics education in
Singapore. Singapore: Southeast Asian Review and Advisory
Group (SEARRAG).
Chow, Y. P. (2004). Impact of open-ended problem solving as an
alternative assessment on Secondary One mathematics students.
Unpublished master’s thesis, National Institute of Education,
Singapore.
Cockcroft, W. H. (1982). Mathematic counts. London: HMSO.
Education Queensland (2002). Productive pedagogies classroom
reflection manual. Queensland, Aystralia: The State of Queens-
land (Department of Education).
Fan, L. (2007). Editorial: Some matters about The Mathematics
Educator. The Mathematics Educator, 10(1), 1–2.
Fan, L., & Quek, K. S. (2005). Integrating new assessment strategies
into mathematics classrooms: What have we learned from a
CRPP mathematics assessment project? Proceedings of the
international conference on education: Redesigning pedagogy:
Research, policy, practice. Singapore: Centre for Research in
Pedagogy and Practice, National Institute of Education.
Fan, L., & Zhu, Y. (2000). Problem solving in Singaporean secondary
mathematics textbooks. The Mathematics Educator, 5(1/2), 117–
141.
Fan, L., & Zhu Y. (2007). Representation of problem-solving
procedures: A comparative look at China, Singapore, and US
mathematics textbooks. Educational Studies in Mathematics.
The Netherlands (in press).
Foong, P. Y. (1990). A metacognitive-heuristic approach to
mathematical problem solving. Unpublished doctoral disserta-
tion, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Foong, P. Y. (2007). Teacher as researcher—a review on mathematics
education research of Singapore teachers. The Mathematics
Educator, 10(1), 3–20.
Garelick, B. (2006). Miracle math: A successful program from
Singapore tests the limits of school reform in the suburbs.
Education Next, 4. Retrieved on 25 March, 2007 from http://
www.hoover.org/publications/ednext/3853357.html.
Goh, C. T. (1997). Shaping our future: Thinking Schools, Learning
Nation. Opening Speech at the 7th International Conference on
Thinking, Singapore. Retrieved on 15 April, 2007 from http://
www.moe.gov.sg/speeches/1997/020697.htm.
Ho, G. L. (1997). A Cooperative Mathematical Problem Solving
(CMPS) programme to enhance mathematical problem solving
performance among secondary three female students. Unpub-
lished master’s thesis, National Institute of Education, Singa-
pore.
Kantowski, M. G. (1981). Problem solving. In: E. Fennema (Ed.),
Mathematics education research: Implications for the 80’s (pp.
111–126). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of
Mathematics.
Kho, T. H. (1987). Mathematical models for solving arithmetic
problems. Proceedings of the Fourth Southeast Asian
123
L. Fan, Y. Zhu
Conference on Mathematics Education (ICMI-SEAMS)
(pp. 345–351). Singapore: Institute of Education.
Kho, T. H. (1989). Teaching thinking in mathematics. In: M. H. Kuok
& N. P. Das (Eds.), Trends in science education (pp. 54–59).
Singapore: Singapore National Academy of Science.
LeBlanc, J. F. (1982). Teaching textbook story problems. Arithmetic
Teacher, 29(6), 52–54.
Lee, P. Y., & Fan, L. (2004). The development of Singapore
mathematics curriculum—understanding the changes in syllabus,
textbooks and approaches. In: P. Y. Lee, D. Zhang, & N. Song
(Eds.), Proceedings of the ICM 2002 Satellite Conference on the
Reform of Mathematics Curriculum and its Education in the 21st
Century (pp. 31–36). Chongqing, China: Chongqing Publishing
House.
Lee, P. Y., & Fan, L (Eds.), (2007a). New express mathematics 1.
Singapore: Multimedia Communications.
Lee, P. Y., & Fan, L (Eds.), (2007b). New express mathematics 3.
Singapore: Multimedia Communications.
Lester, F. K. Jr. (1980). Research on problem solving. In: R. J.
Shumway (Ed.), Research in mathematics education (pp. 286–
323). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Lester, F. K. Jr. (1982). Issues in teaching mathematics problem
solving in the elementary grades. School Science and Mathe-
matics, 82(2), 93–98.
Lester, F., & Kroll, D. (1990). Assessing student growth in
mathematical problem solving. In: G. Kulm (Ed.), Assessing
higher order thinking in mathematics (pp. 53–70). Washington,
DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Liu, Y. M. (2003). Primary school students’ academic mathematics
achievement and problem solving abilities. Unpublished mas-
ter’s thesis, National Institute of Education, Singapore.
Loo, C. F. (1996). Gender differences in mathematical problem
solving among secondary four students. Unpublished master’s
thesis, National Institute of Education, Singapore.
Ministry of Education. (1971). Revised syllabus for Primary 1 and 2:
Mathematics. Singapore: Ministry of Education.
Ministry of Education. (1980). Mathematics syllabus for the new
education system. Singapore: Ministry of Education.
Ministry of Education. (1990). Mathematics syllabus (Lower
Secondary). Singapore: Curriculum Planning Division.
Ministry of Education. (2000). Mathematics syllabus (Lower
Secondary). Singapore: Curriculum Planning Division.
Ministry of Education. (2007a). Primary mathematics syllabus.
Singapore: Curriculum Planning and Development Division.
Ministry of Education. (2007b). Secondary mathematics syllabus.
Singapore: Curriculum Planning and Development Division.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1980). An agenda for
action: Recommendations for school mathematics in the 1980s.
Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Ng, L. E. (2002). Representation of problem solving in Singaporean
primary mathematics textbooks with respect to types, Polya’s
model and heuristics. Unpublished master’s thesis, National
Institute of Education, Singapore.
Pólya, G. (1980). On solving mathematical problems in high school.
In: S. Krulik & R. E. Reys (Eds.), Problem solving in school
mathematics, 1980 Yearbook (pp. 1–2). Reston, VA: National
Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Seto, C. (2002). Oral presentation as alternative assessment in
primary mathematics in Singapore classroom. In: D. Edge & B.
H. Yeap (Eds.), Mathematics education for a knowledge-based
era (Proceedings of EARCOME-2) (Vol. 2) (pp. 33–39).
Singapore: Association of Mathematics Educators.
Soeh, B. H. (2002). An open-ended approach to enhance critical
thinking skill in mathematics among secondary five normal
Development of mathematical problem solving in research, curriculum, and classroom practice in Singapore
(academic) pupils. Unpublished master’s thesis, National
Institute of Education, Singapore.
Stiff, L. V. (1988). Problem solving by example. School Science and
Mathematics, 88(8), 666–675.
Wong, P. S. K. (1989). The effects of academic settings on students’
metacognition in mathematical problem solving. Paper presented
at the Australian Association for Research in Education Annual
Conference, Australia.
Wong, S. O. (2002). Effect of heuristics instruction on pupils’
achievement in solving non-routine problems. Unpublished
master’s thesis, National Institute of Education, Singapore.
Yazilah, B. A., & Fan, L. (2002). Exploring how to implement journal
writing effectively in primary mathematics in Singapore. In: D.
Edge, & B. H. Yap (Eds.), Mathematics education for a
knowledge-based era (Proceedings of EARCOME-2) (Vol. 2)
(pp. 56–62). Singapore: Association of Mathematics Educators.
Yeap, B. H. (2004). Relationship between children’s mathematical
word problem posing and grade level, problem-solving ability
501
and task type. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, National
Institute of Education, Singapore.
Yeo, J. K. K. (2004). An exploratory study of secondary two students’
mathematics anxiety and mathematical problem solving. Un-
published doctoral dissertation, National Institute of Education,
Singapore.
Yeo, S. M., & Zhu, Y. (2005). Higher-order thinking in Singapore
mathematics classrooms. Proceedings of the international
conference on education: Redesigning pedagogy: Research,
policy, practice. Singapore: Centre for Research in Pedagogy
and Practice, National Institute of Education.
Ying, Y. J. (2005). Lower secondary school students’ competency in
solving algebra word problems. Unpublished master’s thesis,
National Institute of Education, Singapore.
Zhu, Y. (2003). Problem solving in China, Singapore and US
mathematics textbooks: A comparative study. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, National Institute of Education, Singapore.
123