Abstract
In this paper, we share analysis of an episode of a pre-service teacher’s handling of a map artefact within his practicum teaching of ‘Mathematical Literacy’ in South Africa. Mathematical Literacy, as a post-compulsory phase subject in the South African curriculum, shares many of the aims of numeracy as described in the international literature—including approaches based on the inclusion of real-life contexts and a trajectory geared towards work, life and citizenship. Our attention in this paper is focused specifically on artefacts at the boundary of mathematical and contextual activities. We use analysis of the empirical handling of artefacts cast as ‘boundary objects’ to argue the need for ‘boundary crossing’ between mathematical and contextual activities as a critical feature of numeracy teaching. We pay particular attention to the differing conventions and extents of applicability of rules associated with boundary artefacts when working with mathematical or contextual perspectives. Our findings suggest the need to consider boundary objects more seriously within numeracy teacher education, with specific attention to the ways in which they are configured on both sides of the boundary in order to deal effectively with explanations and interactions in classrooms aiming to promote numeracy.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Akkerman, S. F., & Bakker, A. (2011). Boundary crossing and boundary objects. Review of Educational Research, 81(2), 132–169.
Balacheff, N. (1993). Artificial intelligence and real teaching. In C. Keitel & K. Ruthven (Eds.), Learning from computers: Mathematics education and technology (pp. 131–158). Berlin: Springer.
Christiansen, I. M. (2006). Mathematical Literacy as a school subject: Failing the progressive vision? Pythagoras, 64, 6–13.
Clarke, M. et al. (2006). Keeping it Simple: Math Lit for the new curriculum-grade 10 (p. 286). Cape Town: Macmillan publishers.
Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit.
Engeström, Y. (1993). Developmental studies of work as a testbench of activity theory: The case of primary care medical practice. In S. Chaiklin & J. Lave (Eds.), Understanding practice: Perspectives on activity and context (pp. 64–103). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Engeström, Y., Engeström, R., & Kärkkäinen, M. (1995). Polycontextuality and boundary crossing in expert cognition: Learning and problem solving in complex work activities. Learning and Instruction, 5, 319–336.
Frankenstein, M. (2001). Reading the world with math: Goals for a critical mathematical literacy curriculum. Keynote address delivered at the 18th biennial conference of the Australian Association of Mathematics Teachers, Canberra.
Fuglestad, A. B., Healy, L., Kynigos, C., & Monaghan, J. (2010). Working with teachers: Context and culture. In C. Hoyles & J.-B. Lagrange (Eds.), Mathematics, education and technology—Rethinking the terrain: The 17th ICMI study (pp. 293–310). Dordrecht: Springer.
Goldenberg, P., & Mason, J. (2008). Shedding light on and with example spaces. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 69, 183–194.
Goos, M. (2007). Developing numeracy in the learning areas (middle years). Keynote address delivered at the South Australian Literacy and Numeracy Expo, Adelaide.
Goos, M., Geiger, V., & Dole, S. (2012). Auditing the numeracy demands of the middle years curriculum. In L. Sparrow, B. Kissane, & C. Hurst (Eds.), Shaping the future of mathematics education: Proceedings of the 33rd annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia. MERGA: Fremantle.
Graven, M., & Venkat, H. (2007). Emerging pedagogic agendas in the teaching of mathematical literacy. African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 11(2), 67–86.
Hoyles, C., Noss, R., & Kent, P. (2004). On the integration of digital technologies into mathematics classrooms. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 9(3), 309–326.
Hoyles, C., Noss, R., Kent, P., & Bakker, A. (2010). Improving mathematics at work: The need for techno-mathematical literacies. Oxford: Routledge.
Jablonka, E. (2003). Mathematical Literacy. In A. J. Bishop, M. A. Clements, C. Keitel, J. Kilpatrick, & F. K. S. Leung (Eds.), Second International Handbook of Mathematics Education (pp. 75–102). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lofthouse, R., & Wright, D. (2012). Teacher education lesson observation as boundary crossing. International Journal of Mentoring and Coaching in Education, 1(2), 89–103.
Mitchell, J. (1984). Typicality and the case study. In R. F. Ellen (Ed.), Ethnographic research: A guide to conduct (pp. 238–241). New York: Academic Press.
Noss, R. (2002). Mathematical epistemologies at work. For the Learning of Mathematics, 22(2), 2–13.
OECD (2010). Draft 2012 PISA Mathematics Framework. Copenhagen: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. http://www.oecd.org. Accessed 10 February 2015.
OECD (2013). Mathematics Framework. PISA 2012 Assessment and Analytical Framework: Mathematics, Reading, Science, Problem Solving and Financial Literacy (pp. 23–58). Paris: OECD Publishing.
Parsons, S., & Bynner, J. (2007). Illuminating disadvantage: Profiling the experiences of adults with entry level literacy or numeracy over the lifecourse. London: National Research and Development Centre for Adult Literacy and Numeracy.
Paulos, J. A. (1988). Innumeracy: Mathematical illiteracy and its consequences. New York: Hill and Wang.
Perry, H. (2004). Mathematics and Physical Science performance in the senior certificate examinations, 1991–2003. Johannesburg: Centre for Development and Enterprise.
Pimm, D. (2009). Method, certainty and trust across disciplinary boundaries. ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 41, 155–159. doi:10.1007/s11858-008-0164-2.
SA DBE (2011). Curriculum and Assessment Policy Statement: Grades 10–12, Mathematical Literacy. Pretoria: Department of Basic Education.
SA DoE (2003). National Curriculum Statement Grades 10–12 (General): Mathematical Literacy. Pretoria: Department of Education.
SAIRR (2014). Fast facts. Johannesburg: South African Institute for Race Relations. Retrieved 20 March, 2014, from http://www.sairr.org.za/services/publications/fast-facts/fast-facts-2014.
Scribner, S. (1986). Thinking in action: Some characteristics of practical thought. In R. J. Sternberg & R. K. Wagner (Eds.), Practical intelligence: Nature and origins of competence in the everyday world (pp. 13–30). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Skovsmose, O., & Yasukawa, K. (2009). Formatting power of ‘mathematics in a package’: A challenge for social theorising. In P. Ernest, B. Greer, & B. Sriraman (Eds.), Critical issues in mathematics education (pp. 255–281). Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.
Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. (1989). Institutional ecology, ‘translations’ and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s museum of vertebrate zoology, 1907–1939. Social Studies of Science, 19, 387–420.
Steen, L. A. (2001). The case for quantitative literacy. In L. A. Steen (Ed.), National Council on Education and the Disciplines. Mathematics and Democracy (pp. 1–22). Washington, DC: The Mathematical Association of America.
Suchman, L. (1994). Working relations of technology production and use. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 2, 21–39.
Venkat, H. (2014). Mathematical Literacy: What is it? And is it important? In H. Mendick & D. Leslie (Eds.), Debates in mathematics education (pp. 163–174). London: Routledge.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Winter, M. (2014). Pre-service teacher learning and practice for Mathematical Literacy, University of Witwatersrand (unpublished doctoral dissertation).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Venkat, H., Winter, M. Boundary objects and boundary crossing for numeracy teaching. ZDM Mathematics Education 47, 575–586 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-015-0683-6
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-015-0683-6