Fostering young children’s interest in numeracy through demonstration of its value: the Footsteps Study

Abstract

Children’s early mathematical abilities are fundamental to their later academic achievement. An interest in mathematics in the early years is likely to establish a positive attitude to later mathematical learning, hopefully sustaining continued interest in mathematics and mathematical learning. Approaches to early mathematics teaching in the early years, however, are typically adult-initiated, which may fail to capture children’s interest. Given the importance of children’s motivation and sustained interest, the study described here strove to spark children’s interests in mathematical problems in everyday life. The study sought to determine if children would incorporate more numeracy-related concepts into their free play if exposed to adult demonstrations of age-appropriate numeracy activities such as patterning. For at least 15 min three times weekly, participating children’s parents and educators demonstrated numeracy problem-solving nearby, while children engaged in other activities. Demonstrations were thought to ascribe social value to the problem-solving activities. If children became interested in participating, adults told them to wait until the demonstrations finished, further indicating social value. Results show these children chose to play with numeracy-related activities in their free play time at preschool significantly more than children in a control group. These results suggest that seeking to foster children’s interest in mathematics through child-initiated play, rather than prescribing adult-initiated mathematics activities, may be an important means of laying the foundation for lifelong mathematics learning. Ascribing social value to numeracy applications is proposed as a new approach to teaching mathematics in the early years.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Notes

  1. 1.

    One mother demonstrated using a sock-puppet as her partner when the father was unavailable.

References

  1. Adams, S., Alexander, E., Drummond, M. J., & Moyles, J. (2004). Inside the foundation stage: recreating the reception year—final report. London: Association of Teachers and Lecturers.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Anning, A. (2010). Play and legislated curriculum. In J. Moyles (Ed.), The excellence of play (3rd ed., pp. 19–33). Berkshire: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Anthony, G., Mclachlan, C., & Lim, F. P. (2015). Narrative assessment: making mathematics learning visible in early childhood settings. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 27(3), 385–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA). (2014). National Report on Schooling in Australia 2012. Retrieved from Sydney, Australia: ACARA. Retrieved from http://www.acara.edu.au/reporting/national-report-on-schooling-in-australia-2012.

  5. Bellin, H. F., & Singer, D. G. (2006). My magic story car: video-based play to strengthen emergent literacy of at-risk preschoolers. In R. M. Golinkoff, D. G. Singer, & K. Hirsh-Pasek (Eds.), Play = learning: how play motivates and enhances children’s cognitive and social-emotional growth (pp. 101–123). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Brooker, L. (2010). Constructing the triangle of care: power and professionalism in practitioner/parent relationships. British Journal of Educational Studies, 58(2), 181–196. doi:10.1080/00071001003752203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Burghardt, G. (2011). Defining and recognizing play. In A. Pellegrini (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of the development of play (pp. 9–18). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Campbell, F. A., Pungello, E. P., Miller-Johnson, S., Burchinal, M., & Ramey, C. T. (2001). The development of cognitive and academic abilities: growth curves from an early childhood educational experiment. Developmental Psychology, 37(2), 231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Carmichael, C., MacDonald, A., & McFarland-Piazza, L. (2014). Predictors of numeracy performance in national testing programs: insights from the longitudinal study of Australian children. British Educational Research Journal, 40(4), 637–659. doi:10.1002/berj.3104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Casey, B. M., Lombardi, C. M., Thomson, D., Nguyen, H. N., Paz, M., Theriault, C. A., & Dearing, E. (2016). Maternal support of children’s early numerical concept learning predicts preschool and first-grade math achievement. Child Development. doi:10.1111/cdev.12676.

  11. Chambers, B., Cheung, A. C. K., & Slavin, R. E. (2016). Literacy and language outcomes of comprehensive and developmental-constructivist approaches to early childhood education: a systematic review. Educational Research Review, 18, 88–111. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2016.03.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Christie, J. F. (1991). Play and early literacy development. Albany: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2008). Experimental evaluation of the effects of a research-based preschool mathematics curriculum. American Educational Research Journal, 45(2), 443–494. doi:10.3102/0002831207312908.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Colliver, Y. (2016). Mothers’ perspectives on learning through play. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 41(1), 4–12.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Colliver, Y. (2017). From listening to understanding: interpreting young children’s perspectives. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 25(6), (Accepted 16/08/2016).

  16. Colliver, Y., & Arguel, A. (2016). Following in our footsteps: how adult demonstrations of literacy and numeracy can influence children’s spontaneous play and improve learning outcomes. Early Child Development and Care. doi:10.1080/03004430.2016.1248958.

  17. Cooney, M. H. (2004). Is play important? Guatemalan kindergartners’ classroom experiences and their parents’ and teachers’ perceptions of learning through play. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 18(4), 261–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Copple, C., & Bredekamp, S. (2009). Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood programs: serving children from birth through age 8 (3rd ed.). Washington DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Curenton, S. M., Dong, N., & Shen, X. (2015). Does aggregate school-wide achievement mediate fifth grade outcomes for former early childhood education participants? Developmental Psychology, 51(1), 921–934. doi:10.1037/a0039295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Doig, B., McCrae, B., & Rowe, K. (2003). A good start to numeracy: effective numeracy strategies from research and practice in early childhood. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia. Retrieved from http://research.acer.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&context=learning_processes.

  21. Duncan, G., Dowsett, C., Claessens, A., Magnuson, K., Huston, A., Klebanov, P., et al. (2007). School readiness and later achievement. Developmental Psychology, 43(6), 1428–1446. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.43.6.1428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Elkind, D. (2007). The hurried child: growing up too fast too soon. Cambridge: Da Capo.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Elkonin, D. B. (2005). On the historical origin of role play. Journal of Russian & East European Psychology, 43(1), 49–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Fleer, M., Tonyan, H. A., Mantilla, A. C., & Rivaland, C. M. (2009). World yearbook of education: a cultural–historical analysis of play as an activity setting in early childhood education: views from research and from teachers. In M. Fleer, M. Hedegaard, & J. Tudge (Eds.), Childhood studies and the impact of globalization policies and practices at global and local levels (pp. 292–312). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Fox, J. (2006). A justification for mathematical modelling experiences in the preparatory classroom. Paper presented at the 29th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, Canberra, Australia.

  26. Fung, C. K. H., & Cheng, D. P. W. (2012). Consensus or dissensus? Stakeholders’ views on the role of play in learning. Early Years: An International Journal of Research and Development, 32(1), 17–33. doi:10.1080/09575146.2011.599794.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Gibbons, A. (2007). The politics of processes and products in education: an early childhood metanarrative crisis? Educational Philosophy and Theory, 39(3), 300–311. doi:10.1111/j.1469-5812.2007.00323.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Ginsburg, H. P. (2002). Little children, big mathematics: learning and teaching in the pre-school. In A. Cockburn & E. Nardi (Eds.), Proceedings of the 26th annual meeting of the International Group for the Psychology of mathematics education (pp. 3–14). Norwich: University of East Anglia.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Ginsburg, K. R. (2007). The importance of play in promoting healthy child development and maintaining strong parent–child bonds. Pediatrics, 119(1), 182–191. doi:10.1542/peds.2006-2697.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Gutierrez, K. D., & Rogoff, B. (2003). Cultural ways of learning: individual traits or repertoires of practice. Educational Researcher, 32(5), 19–25. doi:10.3102/0013189x032005019.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Habgood, M. P. J., & Ainsworth, S. E. (2011). Motivating children to learn effectively: exploring the value of intrinsic integration in educational games. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20(2), 169–206. doi:10.1080/10508406.2010.508029.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Han, M., Moore, N., Vukelich, C., & Buell, M. (2010). Does play make a difference? How play intervention affects the vocabulary learning of at-risk preschoolers. American Journal of Play, 3(1), 82–105.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Harcourt, D. (2011). An encounter with children: seeking meaning and understanding about childhood. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 19(3), 331–343. doi:10.1080/1350293X.2011.597965.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Hattie, J. (2008). Visible learning: a synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Heckman, J. J., & Masterov, D. V. (2007). The productivity argument for investing in young children. Review of Agricultural Economics, 29(3), 446–493. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9353.2007.00359.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Hedges, H., & Cooper, M. (2016). Inquiring minds: theorizing children’s interests. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 48(3), 303–322. doi:10.1080/00220272.2015.1109711.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Hedges, H., & Cullen, J. (2012). Participatory learning theories: a framework for early childhood pedagogy. Early Child Development and Care, 182(7), 921–940. doi:10.1080/03004430.2011.597504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Hunting, R. P., Mousley, J. A., & Perry, B. (2012). A study of rural preschool practitioners’ views on young children’s mathematical thinking. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 24(1), 39–57. doi:10.1007/s13394-011-0030-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Huntsinger, C. S., Jose, P. E., Larson, S. L., Krieg, D. B., & Shaligram, C. (2000). Mathematics, vocabulary, and reading development in Chinese American and European American children over the primary school years. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 745–760. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.92.4.745.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Johnson, J. E., Sevimli-Celik, S., & Al-Mansour, M. (2012). Play in early childhood education. In B. Spodek & O. N. Saracho (Eds.), Handbook of research on the education of young children (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Jordan, N. C., Kaplan, D., Locuniak, M. N., & Ramineni, C. (2007). Predicting first-grade math achievement from developmental number sense trajectories. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 22(1), 36–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Karpov, Y. (2005). The neo-Vygotskian approach to child development. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Kaufman, A. S., & Kaufman, N. L. (2014). Kaufman test of educational achievement: technical and interpretive manual (3rd ed.). Bloomington: NCS Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  45. LeFevre, J.-A., Skwarchuk, S.-L., Smith-Chant, B. L., Fast, L., Kamawar, D., & Bisanz, J. (2009). Home numeracy experiences and children’s math performance in the early school years. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement, 41(2), 55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Ma, X., & Kishor, N. (1997). Assessing the relationship between attitude toward mathematics and achievement in mathematics: a meta-analysis. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28(1), 26–47. doi:10.2307/749662.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Marcon, R. A. (2002). Moving up the grades: relationship between preschool model and later school success. Early Childhood Research & Practice, 4(1), 1–24.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Meiers, M., Reid, K., McKenzie, P., & Mellor, S. (2013). Literacy and numeracy interventions in the early years of schooling: a literature review: report to the Ministerial Advisory Group on Literacy and Numeracy. Retrieved from Department of Education and Communities https://www.det.nsw.edu.au/media/downloads/about-us/news-at-det/announcements/yr2013/acer_report_8April2013.pdf.

  49. Melhuish, E. (2010). Why children, parents and home learning are important. In K. Sylva, E. Melhuish, P. Sammons, I. Siraj-Blatchford, & B. Taggart (Eds.), Early childhood matters: evidence from the effective pre-school and primary education project (pp. 44–89). Oxon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Melhuish, E., Phan, M. B., Sylva, K., Sammons, P., Siraj-Blatchford, I., & Taggart, B. (2008). Effects of the home learning environment and preschool center experience upon literacy and numeracy development in early primary school. Journal of Social Issues, 64(1), 95–114. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.2008.00550.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Moffitt, T. E., & Caspi, A. (2001). Childhood predictors differentiate life-course persistent and adolescence-limited antisocial pathways among males and females. Development and Psychopathology, 13(02), 355–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Monighan-Nourot, P., Scales, B., van Hoorn, J., & Almy, M. (1987). Looking at children’s play: a bridge between theory and practice. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Morrow, L. M. (1990). Preparing the classroom environment to promote literacy during play. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 5(4), 537–554.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Murayama, K., Pekrun, R., Suzuki, M., Marsh, H. W., & Lichtenfeld, S. (2016). Don’t aim too high for your kids: parental overaspiration undermines students’ learning in mathematics. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 111(5), 766–779. doi:10.1037/pspp0000079.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. National Research Council, Committee on Early Childhood Mathematics. (2009). Mathematics learning in early childhood: paths toward excellence and equity. Washington DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Norberg-Hodge, H. (2000). Ancient futures: learning from Ladakh. Milsons Point: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Nutbrown, C., Clough, P., & Selbie, P. (2008). Early childhood education: history, philosophy and experience. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  58. O’Gorman, L., & Ailwood, J. (2012). ‘They get fed up with playing’: parents’ views on play-based learning in the preparatory year. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 13(4), 266–275 Retrieved from http://www.wwwords.co.uk/ciec/index.asp.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2006). Starting Strong II: early childhood education and care. Retrieved from Paris, France: http://www.unicef.org/easterncaribbean/spmapping/Implementation/ECD/StartingStrongII_OECD_2006.pdf.

  60. Papic, M. (2013). Improving numeracy outcomes for young Australian indigenous children. In L. English & J. T. Mulligan (Eds.), Reconceptualizing early mathematics learning (pp. 253–281). New York: SpringerLink ebooks.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Papic, M., & Mulligan, J. (2005). Pre-schoolers’ mathematical patterning. Paper presented at the 28th Mathematical Education Research Group of Australasia Conference. Melbourne: Australia: MERGA.

  62. Papic, M., Mulligan, J., Highfield, K., McKay-Tempest, J., & Garrett, D. (2015). The impact of a patterns and early algebra program on children in transition to school in Australian indigenous communities. In B. Perry, A. MacDonald, & A. Gervasoni (Eds.), Mathematics and transition to school (pp. 217–236). Singapore: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Pearce, A., Sawyer, A. C. P., Chittleborough, C. R., Mittinty, M. N., Law, C., & Lynch, J. W. (2016). Do early life cognitive ability and self-regulation skills explain socio-economic inequalities in academic achievement? An effect decomposition analysis in UK and Australian cohorts. Social Science & Medicine, 165, 108–118. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.07.016.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Pope, C., Ziebland, S., & Mays, N. (2000). Qualitative research in health care: analysing qualitative data. British Medical Journal, 320(7227), 114–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Press, F., & Hayes, A. (2000). OECD thematic review of early childhood education and care policy. Australian Background Report. Sydney: Commonwealth of Australia.

  66. Rogers, S., & Evans, J. (2008). Inside role-play in early childhood education: researching young children’s perspectives. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Rogoff, B., Mistry, J., Göncü, A., & Mosier, C. (1993). Guided participation in cultural activity by toddlers and caregivers. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 58(8), 1–177. doi:10.1111/1540- 5834.ep11871652.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Rogoff, B., Moore, L., Najafi, B., Dexter, A., Correa-Chavez, M., & Solis, J. (2006). Children’s development of cultural repertoires through participation in everyday routines and practices. In J. E. Grusec & P. D. Hastings (Eds.), Handbook of socialization: theory and research (pp. 490–515). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Roskos, K. A., Christie, J. F., Widman, S., & Holding, A. (2010). Three decades in: priming for meta-analysis in play-literacy research. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 10(1), 55–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Schiefele, U., Krapp, A., & Winteler, A. (1992). Interest as a predictor of academic achievement: a meta-analysis of research. In A. Renninger, S. Hidi, & A. Krapp (Eds.), A matter of interest: the role of interest in learning and development (pp. 183–212). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Schweinhart, L. J., & Weikart, D. P. (1997). The high/scope preschool curriculum comparison study through age 23. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 12(2), 117–143. doi:10.1016/S0885-2006(97)90009-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Schweinhart, L. J., Montie, J., Xiang, Z., Barnett, W. S., Belfield, C. R., & Nores, M. (2005). Lifetime effects: The HighScope Perry Preschool study through age 40. (monographs of the HighScope educational research foundation, 14). Ypsilanti: HighScope Press.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Shimpi, P. M., & Nicholson, J. (2014). Using cross-cultural, intergenerational play narratives to explore issues of social justice and equity in discourse on children’s play. Early Child Development and Care, 184(5), 719–732. doi:10.1080/03004430.2013.813847.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Shonkoff, J. P., Boyce, W. T., & McEwen, B. S. (2009). Neuroscience, molecular biology, and the childhood roots of health disparities: building a new framework for health promotion and disease prevention. Journal of the American Medical Association, 301(21), 2252–2259. doi:10.1001/jama.2009.754.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Stephen, C. (2012). Looking for theory in preschool education. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 31(3), 227–238. doi:10.1007/s11217-012-9288-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Sylva, K., Melhuish, E., Sammons, P., Siraj, I., Taggart, B., Smees, R., et al. (2014). Effective pre-school, primary and secondary education 3–16 project (EPPSE 3–16) students’ educational and developmental outcomes at age 16. London: University College London.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Thorpe, K., Tayler, C., Bridgstock, R., Grieshaber, S. J., Skoien, P., Danby, S., & Petriwskyj, A. (2004). Preparing for school: Report of the Queensland preparing for school trials 2003/4. Retrieved from https://eprints.qut.edu.au/10192/1/10192.pdf.

  78. Vassallo, S., Sanson, A., & Olsson, C. A. (2014). 30 years on: some key insights from the Australian temperament project. Family Matters, 94, 29–34.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Vygotsky, L. S. (1933/1967). Play and its role in the mental development of the child (C. Mulholland, Trans.). Voprosy psikhologii, 6, 1–18.

  80. Wager, A. (2013). Practices that support mathematics learning in a play-based classroom. In L. English & J. Mulligan (Eds.), Reconceptualizing early mathematics learning (pp. 163–182). London: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  81. Walsh, G. M., McGuinness, C., Sproule, L., & Trew, K. (2010). Implementing a play-based and developmentally appropriate curriculum in Northern Ireland primary schools: what lessons have we learned? Early Years, 30(1), 53–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Warren, E. (2005). Young children’s ability to generalise the pattern rule for growing patterns. In H. Chick & J. Vincent (Eds.), Paper presented at the 29th conference of the International Group for the Psychology of mathematics education. Melbourne: PME.

    Google Scholar 

  83. Wood, E. (2007). New directions in play: consensus or collision? Education 3–13, 35(4), 309–320. doi:10.1080/03004270701602426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Wood, E. A. (2013). Play, learning and the early childhood curriculum (3rd ed.). London, England: Sage.

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yeshe Colliver.

Appendices

Appendix 1: sample script used in Footsteps Intervention

Adult A and B sit next to each other with coloured blocks

Adult A: [Adding two blocks to an existing tower of four blocks] Okay, so that’s another green and then blue. That gives us … six blocks

Adult B: Cool! Let’s do it with purple and orange! Ok, so can you pass me one of each?

Adult A: I’ll put them together for you.

Adult B: So, if we want to make a tower of six blocks using the purple and orange, how many orange blocks will we need?

Adult A: Hmm… I think we need to divide six by the number of blocks in the unit of repeat. So that’s one purple and one orange. One, two. So, if we want to divide the six blocks in the tower by two, we’d get that two times. Is that right?

Adult B: Ah… let’s see. One, two (once), and one, two (twice) [demonstrating with two units of repeat], then we have one, two, three, four blocks. So NOT six. How many more will be need to make six?

Adult A: I see what you mean. Let me try with another two blocks, one purple, one orange. I’ll put them on top of your four blocks. That’s one, two (once), one, two (twice), and one, two (three times). Can you count to see if that’s six in our tower?

Adult B: Okay: one, two, three, four, five, and six! That’s what you wanted, a tower of six blocks! So how many purple blocks did we use?

Adult A: [Pointing to the purple blocks] One, two, three. So, there’s three! What about the orange blocks? How many are there?

Adult B: [Pointing] One, two, three! So, there are the same number! Shall we add another purple and orange block to our tower? That’s another two blocks…

Appendix 2: an example excerpt from literacy script

Adult A and B sit next to an art easel with crayons and write on a large piece of paper

Adult A: I want to write ‘to Grandma’. I want to start with the word ‘to’ and want a letter that makes the sound /t/ /t/ /t/. Which letter makes the sound /t/?

Adult B: Hmmm, which letter makes the sound /t/ /t/ /t/? I think it’s the letter TEE! Is that right?

Adult A: Letter TEE makes the sound /t/ t/ /t/ … Great! [Writes the letter t in lower case]. Now I want to make the word ‘to’ … and I have the sound /t/ /t/ /t/, … so what letter makes the sound /u:/??

Adult B: Hmmm, which letter makes the sound /u/ /u/ /u/? I think it’s the letter YUUU! Is that right?

Adult A: It usually does, but in the word ‘to’ we use the letter O. So, the word ‘to’ is spelled TEE OH…. Do you know how to write the letter OH?

Appendix 3: Post Study Interview Questions – Parents

Thank you so much for being part of the study. Your participation has led to some interesting preliminary results!

  1. 1.

    The aims of the study were to see if adult behaviour might affect how children decide to play. Do you think the demonstrations had any effect on [child’s name]’s play?

  2. 2.

    How did you find the study?

  3. 3.

    Were you able to do the demonstrations 3 times a week or were you too busy? Did you do more than that?

  4. 4.

    Did you take any notes on changes you noticed in [child’s name]’s behaviour? What were they?

  5. 5.

    Did you notice any other changes in her/his behaviour? (ask for specific examples if they talk generally)

  6. 6.

    Was there anything which you felt got in the way of the effects of the study?

  7. 7.

    Were the materials you received a novel/new thing for the child?

  8. 8.

    Were the activities very different to what you were already doing?

  9. 9.

    Did you find it hard to not tell your child to do things?

  10. a.

    To ignore them when they wanted to join in on the activities?

  11. 10.

    Any siblings? How did they effect the study?

  12. 11.

    How do you think your child’s cultural background impacted on the study?

  13. a.

    The impact of the demonstrations

  14. b.

    The types of play your child was inclined to partake in

  15. c.

    How you interacted with your child?

  16. 12.

    Do you think the study has impacted the way you would like to interact with your children in the future?

  17. 13.

    Do you think you learned anything about your children from doing the activity?

  18. 14.

    Do you think you learned anything about the way that children see their parents?

  19. 15.

    Will this change what you expose your children to?

  20. 16.

    What will you do differently?

  21. 17.

    What were the biggest constraints to doing fifteen minutes of demonstrations three times a week?

  22. 18.

    Do you think the materials you were given will be useful in the future?

  23. 19.

    Do you think you got anything else from the study?

  24. 20.

    Anything else which you would like to add?

Thank you for your time today and for your interest in the study.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Colliver, Y. Fostering young children’s interest in numeracy through demonstration of its value: the Footsteps Study. Math Ed Res J 30, 407–428 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-017-0216-4

Download citation

Keywords

  • Play-based curricula
  • Learning through play
  • Legitimate peripheral participation
  • Child-initiated mathematics