The Australian Educational Researcher

, Volume 43, Issue 4, pp 419–436 | Cite as

‘To be numerate is to be someone…’: Tracing the doings of students labelled ‘at risk’

Article

Abstract

Scores from the Australian National Assessment Program—Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) identify students ‘at risk’ of not meeting minimum standards deemed necessary for future success in school and employment. The NAPLAN tests include items related to numeracy but also mathematics content and skills. Research in the area of mathematics education examining the effectiveness of pedagogical interventions in improving student scores on NAPLAN and other international measures is not only shaped by the standardised testing regime, it also effectively corrals the problem within the school context. As such, it is unable to answer questions related to other factors implicated in the lives of those who continue to ‘fail’ in relation to numeracy outcomes. This paper critically examines the type of funded research being done in relation to numeracy and mathematics education, the ‘social’ turn and the disconnect between this research and the widening ‘gap’ in NAPLAN numeracy outcomes. It argues for a research approach informed by institutional ethnography that begins with the ‘doings’ of individual students labelled ‘at risk’.

Keywords

Numeracy At risk NAPLAN Sociological theory Institutional ethnography 

References

  1. ACARA. (2013). NAP: National Assessment Program. Retrieved December 22, 2014 from http://www.nap.edu.au/naplan/naplan.html.
  2. ACARA. (2014). NAPLAN Achievement in reading, persuasive writing, language conventions and numeracy: National Report for 2014. NAP: National Assessment Program. Retrieved February 04, 2015 from http://www.nap.edu.au/results-and-reports/national-reports.html.
  3. Anderson, J. (2016). Misconceptions about numeracy standards. Staff Bulletin. Retrieved from https://wordvine.sydney.edu.au/files/1336/12202/#!1yna6fa-in-the-media-misconceptions-about-numeracy-standards.
  4. ARC. (2015). Grants Data Set. Australian Research Council. Retrieved March 05, 2015 from http://www.arc.gov.au/grants-dataset.
  5. Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays (V. McGee, Trans.). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  7. COAG. (2008a). Closing the gap in indigenous disadvantage. Retrieved February 04, 2015 from https://www.coag.gov.au/closing_the_gap_in_indigenous_disadvantage.
  8. COAG. (2008b). National Numeracy Review Report. Australia: Australian Government Retrieved February 04, 2015 from https://www.coag.gov.au/sites/default/files/national_numeracy_review.pdf.
  9. Comber, B. (2012). Mandated literacy assessment and the reorganisation of teachers’ work: federal policy, local effects. Critical Studies in Education, 53(2), 119–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Connell, R. W., Ashendon, D. J., Kessler, S., & Dowsett, G. W. (1982). Making the difference: Schools, families and social division. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  11. Daniel, Y. (2004). The discursive effects of policy texts: An institutional ethnography of funding special education in Ontario. (PhD thesis), Toronto, ON: York University.Google Scholar
  12. DEETYA. (1997). Numeracy = Everyone’s Business, The Report of the Numeracy Education Strategy Development Conference May 1997. Adelaide, SA: Australian Association of Mathematics Teachers.Google Scholar
  13. DEWA. (2001). Students at Educational Risk. Perth, WA: The Government of Western Australia.Google Scholar
  14. Doig, B. (2001). Summing up: Australian numeracy performances, practices, programs and possibilities. Retrieved February 04, 2015 from http://research.acer.edu.au/literacy_numeracy_reviews/2.
  15. Donovan, M. (2015). Aboriginal student stories, the missing voice to guide us towards change. Australian Educational Researcher, 42, 613–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. English, L. (2012). Data modelling with first-grade students. Educational Studies in Mathematics: An International Journal, 81(1), 15–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. English, L. (2013). Reconceptualizing statistical learning in the early years, reconceptualizing early mathematics learning. Advances in mathematics education, 1463–6441(5), 67. (British Society for Research into Learning Mathematics).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Goos, M., Lincoln, D., Coco, A., Frid, S., Galbraith, P., Horne, M., & Gholan, M. (2004). Home, school and community partnerships to support children’s numeracy. Canberra, ACT: Commonwealth of Australia.Google Scholar
  19. Griffith, A. I., & Smith, D. E. (Eds.). (2014). Under new public management: Institutional ethnographies of changing front-line work. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  20. Jorgensen, R. (2010). Structured failing: Reshaping a mathematical future for marginalised learners. In: Paper presented at the MERGA33—2010 Shaping the Future of Mathematics Education Proceedings of the 33rd annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia Freemantle, WA.Google Scholar
  21. Jorgensen, R. (2014). Social theories of learning: A need for a new paradigm in mathematics education. Paper presented at the 37th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, Sydney.Google Scholar
  22. Jorgensen, R., Gates, P., & Roper, V. (2014). Structural exclusion through school mathematics: using Bourdieu to understand mathematics as a social practice. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 87, 221–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jorgensen, R., & Lowrie, T. (2013). Both ways strong: Using digital games to engage Aboriginal learners. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 17(2), 130–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kerr, L. (2011). The educational production of students at risk. (Doctoral Thesis), Toronto, ON: University of Toronto.Google Scholar
  25. Ladwig, J., & Luke, A. (2013). Does improving school level attendance lead to improved school level achievement? An empirical study of Indigenous education policy in Australia. Australian Educational Researcher,. doi:10.1007/s13384-013-0131-y.Google Scholar
  26. Lerman, S. (2000). The social turn in mathematics education research. In J. Boaler (Ed.), Multiple perspectives on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 19–44). Westport, CT: Ablex.Google Scholar
  27. Makar, K. (2012). The pedagogy of mathematics inquiry. In R. Gillies (Ed.), Pedagogy: New developments in the learning sciences. New York: Nova Science.Google Scholar
  28. McDonald, H. (2005). Supporting Indigenous students as “smart, not good” knowers and learners: The practices of two teachers. In: Paper presented at the AARE International Education Research 2004 Conference, Melbourne, VIC: AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  29. Morgan, C. (2014a). Social theory in mathematics education: Guest editorial. Education Studies in Mathematics, 87(3), 123–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Morgan, C. (2014b). Understanding practices in mathematics education: structure and text. Education Studies in Mathematics, 87(3), 129–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mulligan, J., & English, L. (2014). Developing young students’ meta-representational competence through integrated mathematics and science investigations. In: Paper presented at the Curriculum in focus: Research guided practice (Proceedings of the 37th Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia) (pp. 493–500), Sydney.Google Scholar
  32. Nakata, M. (2002). Indigenous knowledge and the cultural interface: Underlying issues at the intersection of knowledge and information systems. IFLA J, 28(5), 281–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Nakata, M. (2007). The Cultural Interface. Aust J Indigen Educ, 36(Supplement), 7–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. NSWDEC. (2014). Early Action for Success 2014 Implementation Plan. NSW Government: Sydney, NSW.Google Scholar
  35. Pais, A., & Valero, P. (2014). Whither social theory? Educational Studies in Mathematics, 87(3), 241–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Polhaus, G. (2002). Knowing communities: An investigation of Harding’s standpoint epistomology. Social Epistemology, 16(3), 283–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Quiggin, J. (1999). Human capital theory and education policy in Australia. Australian Economic Review, 32(2), 130–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Smith, D. E. (2005). Institutional ethnography: A sociology for the people. Oxford: AltaMira Press.Google Scholar
  39. Smith, D. E., & Turner, S. M. (Eds.). (2014). Incorporating texts into institutional ethnographies. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  40. Talbot, D. (2015). Tracing complexities of teacher professional learning to evidence of transformed practice. (PhD thesis), University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.Google Scholar
  41. Uptin, J., Wright, J., & Harwood, V. (2013). ‘It felt like I was a black dot on white paper’: Examining young former refugees’ experience of entering Australian high schools. Australian Educational Researcher, 40, 125–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Vass, G. (2015). Putting critical race theory to work in Australian education research:’We are with the garden hose here’. Australian Educational Researcher, 42(3), 371–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. VICDET. (2015). Identifying students at risk. Retrieved May 05, 2015 from http://www.education.vic.gov.au/school/principals/participation/Pages/disengagedrisk.aspx.
  44. Watters, J., & Diezmann, C. (2013). Community partnerships for fostering student interest and engagement in STEM. Journal of STEM Education, 14(2), 47–55.Google Scholar
  45. Willis, S. (1998). Which numeracy? Unicorn, 24(2), 32–42.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Australian Association for Research in Education, Inc. 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of SydneySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations