Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A rich interpretation of numeracy for the 21st century: a survey of the state of the field

  • Survey Paper
  • Published:
ZDM Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article is a state-of-the-art synthesis of literature concerned with the concept of Numeracy (also known internationally by other terms such as mathematical literacy), and the teaching, learning and assessment practices associated with this construct. Numeracy is a concept used to identify the knowledge and capabilities required to accommodate the mathematical demands of private and public life, and to participate in society as informed, reflective, and contributing citizens. While there is an increasing focus on numeracy internationally, there is not yet a widely accepted definition for this construct or of how to best promote the development of numeracy capabilities. In this article, we first outline the development of the concept of numeracy internationally. Second, research on numeracy practice is presented through a number of distinct facets: a critical view; the workplace; the role of technology; and statistical and financial literacy. Third, studies that explore the teaching and learning of numeracy are examined. Fourth, we scrutinise the role played by national and international assessment regimes in providing information about the numeracy capabilities of a nation’s citizenry and the consequences of making such data public. Finally, we reflect on the future directions of numeracy research across the spectrum of contexts to which it is relevant.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Askew, M. (2015). Numeracy for the 21st century: a commentary. ZDM Mathematics Education, 47(4). doi:10.1007/s11858-015-0709-0.

  • Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) (2014). The Australian curriculum: mathematics v 6.0. http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/Download/F10. Accessed 25 June 2015.

  • Bakker, A. (2014). Characterising and developing vocational mathematical knowledge. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 86(2), 151–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bakker, A., & Gravemeijer, K. P. E. (2004). Learning to reason about distribution. In D. Ben-Zvi & J. Gar fi eld (Eds.), The challenge of developing statistical literacy, reasoning, and thinking (pp. 147–168). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

  • Bakker, A., Hoyles, C., Kent, P., & Noss, R. (2006). Improving work processes by making the invisible visible. Journal of Education and Work, 19(4), 343–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benner, P. (1984). From novice to expert: power and excellence in clinical nursing practice. Menlo Park: Addison Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennison, A. (2015). Supporting teachers to embed numeracy across the curriculum: a sociocultural approach. ZDM Mathematics Education, 47(4). doi:10.1007/s11858-015-0706-3.

  • Ben-Zvi, D., & Garfield, J. (2004). Statistical literacy, reasoning, and thinking: goals, definitions, and challenges. In D. Ben-Zvi & J. Garfield (Eds.), The challenge of developing statistical literacy, reasoning, and thinking (pp. 3–16). New York: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Breakspear, S. (2012). The policy impact of PISA: an exploration of the normative effects of international benchmarking in school system performance, OECD education working papers, No. 71, OECD Publishing. http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/the-policy-impact-of-pisa_5k9fdfqffr28-en.  Accessed 25 June 2015.

  • Bynner, J., & Parsons, S. (2006). New light on literacy and numeracy. London: National Research and Development Centre for Adult Literacy and Numeracy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Callingham, R., Beswick, K., & Ferme, E. (2015). An initial exploration of teachers’ numeracy in the context of professional capital. ZDM Mathematics Education, 47(4). doi:10.1007/s11858-015-0666-7.

  • Cockcroft, W. (1982). Mathematics counts. London: HMSO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Council of Australian Governments (COAG) (2008). National numeracy review report. http://www.coag.gov.au/sites/default/files/national_numeracy_review.pdf. Accessed 25 June 2015.

  • Crowe, A. R. (2010). “What’s math got to do with it?”: numeracy and social studies education. The Social Studies, 101(3), 105–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D’Ambrosio, U. (1999). Literacy, matheracy, and technoracy: a trivium for today. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 1(2), 131–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D’Ambrosio, U. (2001). General remarks on ethnomathematics. ZDM, 33(3), 67–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D’Ambrosio, U., & D’Ambrosio, B. S. (2013). The role of ethnomathematics in curricular leadership in mathematics education. Journal of Mathematics Education at Teachers College, 4, 19–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • D’Ambrosio, U. (2003) The role of mathematics in building a democratic society. In B. L. Madison & L. A. Steen (Eds.) Quantitative literacy: why numeracy matters for schools and colleges (pp. 235–238). New Jersey, Princeton: National Council on Education and the Disciplines.

  • Department of Education, Science and Training [DEST]. (2003). Numeracy: families working it out together, the opportunities are everywhere. Canberra: DEST.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diezmann, C., & Lowrie, T. (2012). Learning to think spatially: what do students ‘see’ in numeracy test items? International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10(6), 1469–1490.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dole, S., Clarke, D., Wright, T., & Hilton, G. (2012). Students’ proportional reasoning in mathematics and science. In Tso,T. Y. (Ed.). Proceedings of the 36th conference of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education (vol. 2, pp. 195–202). Taipei, Taiwan: PME.

  • Dole, S., Wright, T., Clarke, D., & Hilton, G. (2007). Making connections science and mathematics: The MCSAM Project. In U. Cheah, Y. Wahyudi, R. Devadason, K. Ng, J. Chavez, & D. Mangao (Eds.), Redefining learning culture for sustainability (pp. 184–194). Second international conference on science and mathematics education, Penang, 13–16 November 2007.

  • Ernest, P. (2002). Empowerment in mathematics education. Philosophy of Mathematics Journal. http://www.ex.ac.uk/~PErnest/pome15/contents.htm. Accessed 15 June 2015.

  • European Commission (2011). Mathematics education in Europe: common challenges and national policies. http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/documents/thematic_reports/132EN.pdf. Accessed 27 May 2015.

  • Evans, J. (2000). Mathematical knowledge in school and at work. In A. Bessot, & J. Ridgway (Eds.), Education for mathematics in the workplace, pp. 3–4 (vol. 24). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

  • Ferrara, F., Pratt, D., & Robutta, O. (2006). The role and uses of technologies for the teaching of algebra and calculus. In A. Gutiérrez & P. Boero (Eds.), Handbook of research on the psychology of mathematics education: past, present and future (pp. 237–273). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • FitzSimons, G. (2014). Commentary on vocational mathematics education: where mathematics education confronts the realities of people’s work. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 86(2), 291–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fox, J. J., Bartholomae, S., & Lee, J. (2005). Building the case for financial education. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 39 (Summer), 195–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frankenstein, M. (1990). Incorporating race, gender, and class issues into a critical mathematical literacy curriculum. The Journal of Negro Education, 59(3), 336–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frankenstein, M. (2001, January). 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.

  • Frankenstein, M. (2010). Developing criticalmathematical numeracy through real real-life word problems. In U. Gellert, E. Jablonka, & C. Morgan (Eds.), Proceedings of the sixth international mathematics education and society conference (pp. 248–257). Berlin: Freie Universität Berlin.

  • Freire, P. (1968). Pedagogy of the oppressed (M. B. Ramos, Trans. 1990 ed.). London: Penguin.

  • Gal, I. (2002). Adults’ statistical literacy: Meanings, components, responsibilities. International Statistical Review, 70, 1–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gal, I. and Tout, D. (2014). Comparison of PIAAC and PISA frameworks for numeracy and mathematical literacy. OECD education working papers, No. 102. Paris: OECD Publishing. doi:10.1787/5jz3wl63cs6f-en.

  • Geiger, V., Forgasz, H., & Goos, M. (2015). A critical orientation to numeracy across the curriculum. ZDM Mathematics Education, 47(4). doi:10.1007/s11858-014-0648-1.

  • Geiger, V., Goos, M., & Dole (2011). Trajectories into professional learning in numeracy teaching. In J. Clarke, B. Kissane, J.Mousely, T. Spencer, & S. Thornton (Eds.), Traditions and (new) practices (Proceedings of the 34th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, Alice Springs, NT, pp. 297–305). Alice Springs: MERGA.

  • Geiger, V., Goos, M., & Dole, S. (2014a). Students’ perspectives on their numeracy development across the learning areas. In Y. Li & G. Lappan (Eds.), Mathematics curriculum in school education (pp. 473–492). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Geiger, V., Goos, M., & Dole, S. (2014b). The role of digital technologies in numeracy teaching and learning. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. Advanced online publication. doi:10.1007/s10763-014-9530-4.

  • Geiger, V., Goos, M., Dole, S., Forgasz, H., & Bennison, A. (2013). Exploring the demands and opportunities for numeracy in the Australian Curriculum: English. In V. Steinle, L. Ball, & C. Bardini (Eds.), Mathematics education: Yesterday, today and tomorrow (Proceedings of the 36th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, vol. 1, pp. 330–337). Melbourne: MERGA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goos, M., & Askin, C. (2005). Towards numeracy across the curriculum: Integrating mathematics and science in the middle years. In R. Zevenbergen (Ed.), Innovations in numeracy teaching in the middle years. Canberra, ACT: Australian Curriculum Studies Association.

  • Goos, M., Geiger, V., & Dole, S. (2011). Teachers’ personal conceptions of numeracy. In B. Ubuz (Ed.), Proceedings of the 35th conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (vol. 2, pp. 457–464). Ankara, Turkey: PME.

  • Goos, M., Geiger, V., & Dole, S. (2012). Auditing the numeracy demands of the middle years’ curriculum. PNA, 6(4), 147–158.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goos, M., Geiger, V., & Dole, S. (2014). Transforming professional practice in numeracy teaching. In Y. Li, E. Silver, & S. Li (Eds.), Transforming mathematics instruction: multiple approaches and practices (pp. 81–102). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (1972). Knowledge and human interests IJ. Shapiro, trans.). London: Heinemann.

  • Hilton, A., Hilton, G., Dole, S., & Goos, M. (2013a). Development and application of a two-tier diagnostic instrument to assess middle-years students’ proportional reasoning. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 25(4), 523–545.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hilton, A., Hilton, G., Dole, S., Goos, M., & O’Brien, M. (2013b). Kitchen gardens: contexts for developing proportional reasoning. Australian Primary School Mathematics Classroom, 18(2), 21–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hogan, J., & Morony, W. (2000). Classroom teachers doing research in the workplace. In A. Bessot & J. Ridgeway (Eds.), Education for mathematics in the workplace (pp. 101–114). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hogan, J., Van Wyke, J., & Murcia, K. (2004). Numeracy across the curriculum. Canberra: Department of Education Science and Training.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoyles, C., Noss, R., Kent, P., & Bakker, A. (2010). Improving mathematics at work: the need for technomathematical literacies. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoyles, C., Noss, R., & Pozzi, S. (2001). Proportional reasoning in nursing practice. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 32, 4–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoyles, C., Wolf, A., Molyneux-Hodgson, S., & Kent, P. (2002). Mathematical skills in the workplace. London: The Science Technology And Mathematics Council. www.lkl.ac.uk/research/technomaths/skills2002. Accessed 25 June 2015.

  • Huston, S. (2009). The concept and measurement of financial literacy: preliminary results from a new survey on financial literacy assessment. Conference Presentation, Academy of Financial Services Annual Conference. Anaheim, CA, October 9.

  • Huston, S. (2010). Measuring financial literacy. The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 44(2), 296–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jablonka, E. (2003). Mathematical literacy. In A. Bishop, M. A. Clements, C. Keitel, J. Kilpatrick, & F. S. K. Leung FSK (Eds.), Second international handbook of mathematics education (pp. 75–102). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

  • Jablonka, E. (2015). The evolvement of numeracy and mathematical literacy curricula and the construction of hierarchies of numerate or mathematically literate subjects. ZDM Mathematics Education, 47(4). doi:10.1007/s11858-015-0691-6.

  • Jorgensen, R. (2011). Young workers and their dispositions towards mathematics: tensions of a mathematical habitus in the retail industry. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 76, 87–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kanes, C. (1996). Investigating the use of language and mathematics in the workplace settings. In P. Clarkson (Ed.), Technology in mathematics education (pp. 314–321). Melbourne: MERGA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kent, P., & Noss, R. (2002). The mathematical components of engineering expertise: final project report to the economic and social research council. http://www.lkl.ac.uk/research/MCEE. Accessed 25 June 2015.

  • Kent, P., Noss, R., Guile, D., Hoyles, C., & Bakker, A. (2007). Characterizing the use of mathematical knowledge in boundary-crossing situations at work. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 14, 64–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kieran, C. (2005). Some results from the PISA 2003 international assessment of mathematics learning: What makes items difficult for students? In H. L. Chick & J. L. Vincent (Eds.), Proceedings of the 29th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (vol. 1, pp. 83–86). Melbourne: PME.

  • Kieran, C., & Guzma’n, J. (2005). Five steps to zero: students developing elementary number theory concepts when using calculators. In W. J. Masalski & P. C. Elliott (Eds.), Technology-supported mathematics learning environments (pp. 35–50). Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kissane, B. (2012). Numeracy: connecting mathematics. In B. Kaur & T. L. Toh (Eds.), Reasoning, communication and connections in mathematics: yearbook 2012 (pp. 261–287). Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Co.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kreiner, S. (2011). Is the foundation under PISA solid? A critical look at the scaling model underlying international comparisons of student attainment. Copenhagen: University of Copenhagen, Department of Biostatistics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laborde, C., Kynigos, C., Hollebrands, K., & Straesser, R. (2006). Teaching and learning geometry with technology. In A. Gutiérrez & P. Boero (Eds.), Handbook of research on the psychology of mathematics education: past, present and future (pp. 275–304). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lake, D. (2002). Critical social numeracy. The Social Studies, 93(1), 4–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice: mind, mathematics and culture in everyday life. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lave, J., Murtaugh, M., & de la Rocha, O. (1984). The dialectic of arithmetic in grocery shopping. In B. Rogoff & J. Lave (Eds.), Everyday cognition: its development in social context (pp. 67–94). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, A. (2009). Art education and the national review of visual education. Australian Journal of Education, 53(3), 217–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liljedahl, P. (2015). Numeracy task design: a case of changing mathematics teaching practice. ZDM Mathematics Education, 47(4). doi:10.1007/s11858-015-0703-6.

  • Lingard, B., Ladwig, J., Luke, A., Mills, M., Hayes, D., & Gore, J. (2001). Queensland school reform longitudinal study: final report. Brisbane: Education Queensland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lowrie, T., & Diezmann, C. M. (2009). National numeracy tests: a graphic tells a thousand words. Australian Journal of Education, 53(2), 141–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maass, K., Garcia, J., Mousoulides, N., & Wake, G. (2013). Designing interdisciplinary tasks in an international design community. In C. Margolinas (Ed.), Task design in mathematics education (22nd ICME study conference) (pp. 367–376). Oxford: ICME.

    Google Scholar 

  • Madison, B.L., and Steen, L.A. (Eds.) (2003). Quantitative literacy: why numeracy matters for schools and colleges. Princeton: National Council on Education and the Disciplines. http://www.maa.org/ql/qltoc.html. Accessed 27 May 2015.

  • Miller, J. E. (2010). Quantitative literacy across the curriculum: integrating skills from English composition, mathematics, and the substantive disciplines. The Educational Forum, 74(4), 334–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Education. (1959). 15 to 18: a report of the central advisory council for education. London: HMSO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mulligan, J. (2015). Moving beyond basic numeracy: data modeling in the early years of schooling. ZDM Mathematics Education, 47(4). doi:10.1007/s11858-015-0687-2.

  • Neubrand, M. (2005). The PISA study: Challenge and impetus to research in mathematics education. In H. L. Chick & J. L. Vincent (Eds.). Proceedings of the 29th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (vol. 1, pp. 79-82). Melbourne: PME.

  • New South Wales Department of Education and Training (2009). Financial literacy in low socio-economic status school communities. http://www.makingcents.com.au/_assets/Financial_Literacy_Action_Learning_Project_2009.pdf. Accessed 25 June 2015.

  • Nicol, C. (2002). Where’s the math? Prospective teachers visit the workplace. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 50, 289–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nikitina, S. (2006). Three strategies for interdisciplinary teaching: contextualising, conceptualizing, and problem-centring. Journal of curriculum studies, 38(3), 251–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Niss, M., & Jablonka, E. (2014). Mathematical literacy. In S. Lerman, B. Sriraman, E. Jablonka, Y. Shimizu, M. Artigue, R. Even, R. Jorgensen, & M. Graven (Eds.), Encyclopedia of mathematics education (pp. 391–396). Dordrecht: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-4978-8_100.

  • Noss, R. (1998). New numeracies for a technological culture. For the Learning of Mathematics, 18(2), 2–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Noss, R., Bakker, A., Hoyles, C., & Kent, P. (2007). Situating graphs as workplace knowledge. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 65(3), 367–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noss, R., & Hoyles, C. (1996). The visibility of meanings: modelling the mathematics of banking. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 1(1), 3–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noss, R., Hoyles, C., & Pozzi, S. (2002). Abstraction in expertise: a study of nurses’ conceptions of concentration. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 33(3), 204–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OECD (2000). Measuring student knowledge and skills: the PISA 2000 assessment of reading, mathematical and scientific literacy. www.oecd.org/education/school/programmeforinternationalstudentassessmentpisa/33692793.pdf. Accessed 25 June 2015.

  • OECD. (2003). The PISA 2003 assessment framework: mathematics, reading, science and problem solving problems and skills. Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2004). Learning for tomorrow’s world: first results from PISA 2003. Paris: OECD.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2006). Assessing scientific, reading and mathematical literacy: a framework for PISA 2006. Paris: OECD.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2009). Assessment framework: key competencies in reading, mathematics and science. Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD (2010). PISA 2012 mathematics framework. Paris: OECD Publishing. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/8/38/46961598.pdf.  Accessed 25 June 2015.

  • OECD. (2012). Literacy, numeracy and problem solving in technology- rich environments: framework for the OECD survey of adult skills. Paris: OECD Publishing. doi:10.1787/9789264128859-en.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2013a). PISA 2012 assessment and analytical framework: mathematics, reading, science, problem solving and financial literacy. Paris: OECD Publishing. doi:10.1787/9789264190511-en.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2013b). OECD skills outlook 2013: first results from the survey of adult skills. Paris: OECD Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD and Statistics Canada. (2000). Literacy for life: further results from the adult literacy and lifeskills survey. Paris: OECD Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Neill, P. B., & Flynn, D. T. (2013). Another curriculum requirement? quantitative reasoning in economics: Some first steps. American Journal of Business Education (Online), 6(3), 339–346. http://journals.cluteonline.com/index.php/AJBE/article/view/7814/7876. Accessed 12 Sep 2013.

  • Paulos, J. A. (2000). Innumeracy: mathematical illiteracy and its consequences. London: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, I. (2002). History and mathematics or history with mathematics: does it add up? Teaching History, 107, 35–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quinnell, R., Thompson, R., & LeBard, R. (2013). It’s not maths; it’s science: exploring thinking dispositions, learning thresholds and mindfulness in science learning. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 44(6), 808–816. doi:10.1080/0020739X.2013.800598.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosa, M., & Orey, D. C. (2015). A trivium curriculum for mathematics based on literacy, matheracy, and technoracy: an ethnomathematics perspective. ZDM Mathematics Education, 47(4). doi:10.1007/s11858-015-0688-1.

  • 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.

  • Sawatzki, K. (2013). What financial dilemmas reveal about students’ social and mathematical understanding. In V. Steinle, L. Ball, & C. Bardini (Eds.), Mathematics Education: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow (Proceedings of the 36th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, vol. 2, pp. 602–609). Melbourne: MERGA.

  • Skovsmose, O. (1994). Towards a philosophy of critical mathematics education. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publisher.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Skovsmose, O., & Nielsen, L. (1996). Critical mathematics education. In A. Bishop, K. Clements, C. Keitel, J., Kilpatrick & C. Laborde (Eds.) International Handbook of Mathematics Education (pp. 1257–1288). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publisher.

  • Soygenis, S., & Erktin, E. (2010). Juxtaposition of architecture and mathematics for elementary school students. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 20(4), 403–415. doi:10.1007/s10798-009-9100-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steen, L. (Ed.). (1997). Why numbers count: quantitative literacy for tomorrow’s America. New York: College Entrance Examination Board.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steen, L. (1999). Numeracy: the new literacy for a data-drenched society. Educational Leadership, pp. 8–13.

  • Steen, L. (2001). The case for quantitative literacy. In L. Steen (Ed.), Mathematics and democracy: the case for quantitative literacy (pp. 1–22). Princeton: National Council on Education and the Disciplines.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steen, L. (2007). How mathematics counts. Educational Leadership, 65(3), 8–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Straesser, R. (2000). Mathematical means and models from vocational contexts: a German perspective. In A. Bessot & J. Ridgway (Eds.), Education for mathematics in the workplace (Vol. 24, pp. 65–80). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Straesser, R. (2007). Didactics of mathematics: more than mathematics and school! ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 39(1), 165–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Straesser, R. (2015). “Numeracy at work”: a discussion of terms and results from empirical studies. ZDM Mathematics Education, 47(4). doi:10.1007/s11858-015-0689-0.

  • Strobel, J., & Pan, R. (2011). Compound problem solving: insights from the workplace for engineering education. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, 137(4), 215–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tout, D., & Gal, I. (2015). Perspectives on numeracy: reflections from international assessments. ZDM Mathematics Education, 47(4). doi:10.1007/s11858-015-0672-9.

  • Tsamir, P., Tirosh, D., Levenson, E., Tabach, M., & Barkai, R. (2015). Analyzing number composition and decomposition activities in kindergarten from a numeracy perspective. ZDM Mathematics Education, 47(4). doi:10.1007/s11858-015-0668-5.

  • Venkat, H., & Winter, M. (2015). Boundary objects and boundary crossing for numeracy teaching. ZDM Mathematics Education, 47(4). doi:10.1007/s11858-015-0683-6.

  • Venkatakrishnan, H., & Graven, M. (2006). Mathematical literacy in South Africa and functional mathematics in England: a consideration of overlaps and contrasts. Pythagoras, 64, 14–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Venville, G. J., Wallace, J., Rennie, L. J., & Malone, J. A. (2002). Curriculum integration: eroding the high ground of science as a school subject? Studies in Science Education, 37, 43–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wake, G. (2015). Preparing for workplace numeracy: a modelling perspective. ZDM Mathematics Education, 47(4). doi:10.1007/s11858-015-0704-5.

  • Wake, G., & Williams, J. (2000). Developing a new mathematics curriculum for post-compulsory education. In A. Bessot & J. Ridgway (Eds.), Education for mathematics in the workplace (Vol. 24, pp. 167–180). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Wake, G., & Williams, J. (2001). Using college mathematics to understand workplace practice: final report to the Leverhulme Trust. Manchester: University of Manchester.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallace, J., Sheffield, R., Rennie, L., & Venville, G. (2007). Looking back, looking forward: re-searching the conditions for curriculum integration in the middle years of schooling. The Australian Educational Researcher, 34(2), 29–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ward, R. A. (2005). Using children’s literature to inspire K-8 preservice teachers’ future mathematics pedagogy. The Reading Teacher, 59(2), 132–143. doi:10.1598/RT.59.2.3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watson, J., & Callingham, R. (2003). Statistical literacy: a complex hierarchical construct. Statistics Education Research Journal, 2(2), 3–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, J. (2005). The foundation and spectacle of (the leaning Tower of) PISA. In Chick, H. L. & Vincent, J. L. (Eds.). Proceedings of the 29th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (vol. 1, pp. 87-90). Melbourne: PME.

  • Wood, L. (2012). Practice and conceptions: communicating mathematics in the workplace. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 79(1), 109–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zevenbergen, R. (1995). Towards a socially critical numeracy. Critical Forum, 4(1), 82–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zevenbergen, R. (2004). Technologizing numeracy: intergenerational differences in working mathematically in new times. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 56(1), 97–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zevenbergen, R., & Zevenbergen, K. (2009). The numeracies of boatbuilding: new numeracies shaped by workplace technologies. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 7(1), 183–206. doi:10.1007/s10763-007-9104-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Australian Catholic University, Brisbane, QLD, Australia

    Vince Geiger

  2. The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia

    Merrilyn Goos

  3. Monash University, Melbourne, Australia

    Helen Forgasz

Authors
  1. Vince Geiger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Merrilyn Goos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Helen Forgasz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vince Geiger.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Geiger, V., Goos, M. & Forgasz, H. A rich interpretation of numeracy for the 21st century: a survey of the state of the field. ZDM Mathematics Education 47, 531–548 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-015-0708-1

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-015-0708-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation