Educational Studies in Mathematics

, Volume 83, Issue 2, pp 163–180 | Cite as

Learning mathematics—letting the pupils have their say



Pupil voice is an emerging force for change and improvement in many UK schools, but what is not fully understood is how best to access pupil voice within the specific context of secondary mathematics departments. This paper presents a research project designed to use pupils as co-researchers in increasing knowledge about how to improve learning in mathematics. Pupils within the school were selected and trained as “Ambassadors” to understand and disseminate innovative ways of learning mathematics into their school environment and to act to allow the voice of all the pupils in their year group to be heard. The project was intended both to raise the pupils’ awareness of how learning mathematics could be different and to enable them to voice their newly informed opinions about how best they learned mathematics. The pupils’ current feelings about the way that they were taught mathematics were explored, but the focus of the project was on enabling the pupils to make informed decisions about how they felt their learning could be improved. The pupils’ awareness of different ways of learning mathematics was raised by introducing them to alternative teaching approaches. The data generated were initially analysed by the pupils themselves in order to inform their teachers about their views and subsequently constant comparison analysis resulted in the outcomes reported here. The outcomes indicate that the students could have an important role in enabling schools to develop their teaching and improve their pupils’ mathematical learning when that voice is both informed and authorised.


Pupil voice Changing learning Mathematical resilience 


  1. Alexander, R. (2008). Towards dialogic teaching: Rethinking classroom talk (4th ed.). Cambridge: Dialogos.Google Scholar
  2. Arnot, M., McIntyre, D., Pedder, D., & Reay, D. (2004). Consultation in the classroom: Developing a dialogue about teaching and learning. Cambridge: Pearson.Google Scholar
  3. Ball, S. (2003). The teacher’s soul and the terrors of performativity. Journal of Education Policy, 18(2), 215–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.Google Scholar
  5. Bloomfield, A., & Vertes, B. (2005). People maths: Hidden depths. Derby: ATM.Google Scholar
  6. Clark, J., Dyson, A., Meagher, N., Robson, E., & Wootten, M. (2001). Young people as researchers: Possibilities, problems and politics. Leicester: Youth Work Press.Google Scholar
  7. Cook-Sather, A. (2002). Authorizing students’ perspectives: Toward trust, dialogue, and change in education. Educational Researcher, 31(4), 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dweck, C. (2000). Self theories: Their role in motivation, personality and development. Lillington: Psychology Press, Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  9. Esmonde, I., Brodie, K., Dookie, L., & Taleuchi, M. (2009). Social identities and opportunities to learn perspectives on group work. Journal of Urban Mathematics Education, 2(2), 18–45.Google Scholar
  10. Fennema, E., & Sherman, J. (1976). Fennema-Sherman mathematics attitudes scales: Instruments designed to measure attitudes toward the learning of mathematics by males and females. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 7(5), 324–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fielding, M. (2001). Students as radical agents of change. Journal of Educational Change, 2, 123–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Flutter, J. (2007). Teacher development and pupil voice. The Curriculum Journal, 18(3), 343–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Flutter, J., & Rudduck, J. (2004). Consulting pupils: What’s in it for schools? London: Routledge-Falmer.Google Scholar
  14. Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
  15. Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. Jansen, A. (2006). Seventh graders’ motivation for participating in two discussion oriented mathematics classrooms. The Elementary School Journal, 106(5), 409–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jaworski, B. (2010). The nature of mathematics. In S. Johnston-Wilder & C. Lee (Eds.), Leading practice and managing change in the mathematics department. St Albans: Tarquin Books.Google Scholar
  18. Johnston-Wilder, S., & Lee, C. (2010a). Mathematical resilience. MT, 218, 38–41.Google Scholar
  19. Johnston-Wilder, S. & Lee, C. (2010b). Developing mathemtical resilience, Paper presented at the BERA annual conference at Warwick UniversityGoogle Scholar
  20. Kirby, P. (1999). Involving young researchers. York: York Publishing Services.Google Scholar
  21. Kleanthous, I. & Williams, J. (2011). Students’ dispositions to study further mathematics in higher education: The effect of students’ mathematics self-efficacy, paper presented at CERME 7, ReszowGoogle Scholar
  22. Lee, C. (2006). Language for learning mathematics—Assessment for learning in practice. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Mason, J. (1988). Learning and doing mathematics. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  24. McIntyre, D., Pedder, D., & Rudduck, J. (2005). Pupil voice: Comfortable and uncomfortable learnings for teachers. Research Papers in Education, 20(2), 149–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mercer, N., & Littleton, K. (2007). Dialogue and the development of children’s thinking: A socio-cultural approach. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  26. Nardi, E., & Steward, S. (2003). Is Mathematics T.I.R.E.D.? A profile of quiet disaffection in the secondary mathematics classroom. British Educational Research Journal, 29(3), 345–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. NCSL. (2007). Leading personalised learning in schools. Nottingham: NCSL.Google Scholar
  28. Ofsted. (2008). Understanding the score. London: Ofsted.Google Scholar
  29. Ofsted. (2009). The framework for school inspection. London: Oftsed.Google Scholar
  30. Pampaka, M., Kleanthous, I., Hutcheson, G., & Wake, G. (2011). Measuring mathematics self-efficacy as a learning outcome. Research in Mathematics Education, 13(2), 169–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Quicke, J. (2003). Educating the pupil voice. Support for Learning, 18(2), 51–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Roberts, G. (2002). SET for Success: [online]. Available:
  33. Sfard, A. (2001). There is more to discourse than meets the ears. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 46, 13–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. SooHoo, S. (1993). Students as partners in research and restructuring schools. The Educational Forum, 57, 386–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Stigler, J., & Hiebert, J. (2009). The teaching gap. NY: Free Press.Google Scholar
  36. Swan, M. (2006). Collaborative learning in mathematics: A challenge to our beliefs and practices. Leicester: National Institute Of Adult Continuing Education.Google Scholar
  37. Vygotsky, L. S. (1981). The genesis of higher mental functions. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.), The concept of activity in Soviet psychology. Armonk: Sharpe.Google Scholar
  38. Wiliam, D. (2008). Changing classroom practice. Educational Leadership, 65(4), 36–42.Google Scholar
  39. Young-Loveridge, J., Taylor, M., Sharma, S. & Hawera, J. (2005). Students’ perspectives on the nature of mathematics in Findings from the New Zealand numeracy development projects New Zealand: Commissioned research report.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Education and Language StudiesThe Open UniversityMilton KeynesUK
  2. 2.The Institute of EducationThe University of WarwickCoventryUK

Personalised recommendations