Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Can the Fourth Industrial Revolution Resolve Why the Teaching of Mathematics in the Current Paradigm Continues to Be Decontextualised and Ineffective

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Mathematics Education in Africa

Abstract

The conversation about the mathematics curriculum, its relevance to the current discourse, and its positive contribution to the Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR) appear to take momentum. However, the mathematics and the discourse surrounding its delivery are still not place-based but rather isolated from the people and the land. For the mathematics curriculum to be place-based and relevant to the African context and paradigm, there is a need for a shift in its content and dissemination. Place-based mathematics education is an approach to critical mathematics education that engages students, teachers, and communities around interests of importance to students and their communities. While the 4IR describes the exponential change in how the communities will live and communicate due to the internet of things and the cyber-physical systems, its direct impact on education and its influence on the mathematics curriculum is yet to be debated and realised. The mathematics curricula, while place base, must conform and adapt to the influence of 4IR. The challenges fronting the proponents of mathematics curriculum reform and effective mathematics instruction are that the subject continues to be underperformed and the instructions are flawed and ineffective. The effect is that the students produced in current mathematical curricula perpetuate the impact of ineffective mathematics instructions. The bearers of 4IR assert that it can support effective mathematical instruction in place-based orientations. This paper explores the current mathematics discourse in Sub Sahara Africa and its preparedness or lack of for the 4IR.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Agodini, R., & Harris, B. (2010). An experimental evaluation of four elementary school math curricula. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 3(3), 199–253. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345741003770693

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, J. (2009). Mathematics curriculum development and the role of problem solving. ACSA conference 2009, pp. 1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhatt, R., & Koedel, C. (2012). Large-scale evaluations of curricular effectiveness: The case of elementary mathematics in Indiana. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 34(4), 391–412. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373712440040

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhatt, R., Koedel, C., & Lehmann, D. (2013). Is curriculum quality uniform? Evidence from Florida. Economics of Education Review, 34, 107–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2013.01.014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boaler, J., LaMar, T., & Williams, C. (2021). Making sense of a data-filled world. Mathematics Teacher: Learning and Teaching PK-12, 114(7), 507–517. https://doi.org/10.5951/MTLT.2021.0026

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boser, U., Chingos, M., & Straus, C. (2015). The hidden value of curriculum reform. Center for American Progress.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cai, J. (2003). What research tells us about teaching mathematics through problem solving. In Research and issues in teachings mathematics through problem solving (pp. 241–254). National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cambridge Assessment. (2005, August 3). Cambridge assessment is new identity of the university of Cambridge Local Examination Syndicate (UCLES). Cambridge University News, pp. 1–4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Charalambous, C. Y., & Phillippou, G. N. (2010). Teachers’ concerns and efficacy beliefs about implementing a mathematics curriculum reform: Integrating two lines of inquiry. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 75(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-010-9238-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chisholm, L. (2007). Diffusion of the national qualifications framework and outcomes-based education in southern and eastern Africa. Comparative Education, 43(2), 295–309. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050060701362631

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cortes, K. E., Goodman, J. S., & Nomi, T. (2015). Intensive math instruction and educational attainment long-run impacts of double-does algebra. Journal of Human Resources, 50(1), 108–158. https://doi.org/10.3368/jhr.50.1.108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cox, A. M. (2021). Exploring the impact of Artificial Intelligence and robots on higher education through literature-based design fictions. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 18, 3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-020-00237-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Danley, K. (2002). Mathematical proficiencies. Principal, Starline Elementary School.

    Google Scholar 

  • Department of Education (2001). White Paper 6: Special Needs Education - Building an inclusive education and training system. Pretoria: Department of Education. Available at http://www.education.gov.za/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=gVFccZLi%2FtI%3D&tabid=191&mid=484. Accessed 26 February 2014.

  • Ding, L., & Jones, K. (2006). Teaching geometry in lower secondary school in Shanghai, China. Proceedings of the British Society for Research into Learning Mathematics, 26(1), 41–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Domina, T., McEachin, A., Penner, A., & Penner, E. (2015). Aiming high and falling short: California’s eighth-grade algebra-for-all effort. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 37(3), 275–295. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373714543685

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doorman, M., Drijvers, P., Dekker, T., van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M., de Lange, J., & Wijers, M. (2007). Problem solving as a challenge for mathematics education in The Netherlands. ZDM, 39(5), 405–418. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-007-0043-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doorman, M., Drijvers, P., Gravemeijer, K., Boon, P., & Reed, H. (2012). Tool use and the development of the function concept: From repeated calculations to functional thinking. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10(6), 1243–1267.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engelbrecht, J., Llinares, S., & Borba, M. C. (2020). Transformation of the mathematics classroom with the internet. ZDM Mathematics Education, 52, 825–841. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-020-01176-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerdes, P., & Djebbar, A. (2007). Mathematics in African history and culture: An annotated bibliography. University of Lille. African Mathematical Union.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gurlen, E. (2015). An analysis of mathematics curriculum at secondary level. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 174, 1404–1407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hiebert, J., Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Fuson, K., Human, P., Murray, H., Olivier, A., & Wearne, D. (1996). Problem solving as a basis for reform in curriculum and instruction: The case of mathematics. Educational Researcher, 25(4), 12–21. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X025004012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hill, H. C., Blunk, M. L., Charalambous, C. Y., Lewis, J. M., Phelps, G. C., Sleep, L., & Ball, D. L. (2008). Mathematical knowledge for teaching and the mathematical quality of instruction: An exploratory study. Cognition and Instruction, 26(4), 430–511. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370000802177235

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hodges, C., Moore, S., Lockee, B., Trust, T., & Bond, A. (2020). The difference between emergency remote teaching and online learning. Educause Review. https://er.educause.edu/articles/2020/3/the-difference-between-emergency-remoteteaching-and-online-learning

  • Jackson, C. K., & Makarin, A. (2016). Can online off-the-shelf lessons improve student outcomes? Evidence from a field experiment (No. 22398). National Bereau of Economic Research, Inc.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, P., Freemyer, J. V., & Fitzmaurice, O. (2019, March). The perceptions of Irish mathematics teachers toward a curriculum reform 5 years after its implementation. Frontiers in Education, 4, 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2019.00013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kilpatrick, J., Swafford, J., & Findell, B. (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics (Vol. 2101). National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koedel, C., Li, D., Polikoff, M. S., Hardaway, T., & Wrabel, S. L. (2017). Mathematics curriculum effects on student achievement in California. Aera Open, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858417690511

  • Lee, E., & Luft, J. A. (2008). Experienced secondary science teachers’ representation of pedagogical content knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 30(10), 1343–1363. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690802187058

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luneta, K. (2012). Designing continuous professional development programmes for teachers: A literature review. Africa Education Review, 9(2), 360–379. https://doi.org/10.1080/18146627.2012.722395

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luneta, K. (2013). Teaching elementary mathematics: Learning to teach elementary mathematics through mentorship and professional development. LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luneta, K. (2015). Understanding students’ misconceptions: An analysis of final Grade 12 examination questions in geometry. Pythagoras, 36(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.4102/pythagoras.v36i1.261

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luneta, K. (2018). Teaching problem-solving in mathematics pedagogy: Using a protocol to document instruction. 9th annual UNISA ISTE conference on mathematics, science and technology education, p. 51.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCormick, R. (1997). Conceptual and procedural knowledge. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 7, 141–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Education, Singapore. (2012). Primary mathematics teaching and learning syllabus. Singapore Curriculum Planning and Development Division.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murray, H., Olivier, A., & Human, P. (1998). Learning through problem solving. Eric Clearinghouse. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED458096

    Google Scholar 

  • Naroth, N. (2016). The implementation of the Singapore mathematics curriculum in a school in KwaZulu Natal: An action research study. Unpublished doctoral thesis. University of Johannesburg, South Africa.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Curriculum Board. (2009). Shape of the Australian Curriculum: Mathematics. National Curriculum Board.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Curriculum Statement (NCS) (2010). Department of Education National Curriculum Statement White paper. Pretoria Department of Education Government Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicol, C., & Luneta, K. (2018). Place-based mathematics education in the global north and global south. Paper presented at the World Educational Research Association (WERA 2018 world congress) conference, Cape Town Convention Centre, Cape Town, 3–5 August.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicol, C., Archibald, J. A., & Baker, J. (2013). Designing a model of culturally responsive mathematics education: Place, relationships and storywork. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 25(1), 73–89. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-012-0062-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nicol, C., Q’um Q’um Xiiem, J. A., Glanfield, F., & Dawson, A. J. S. (2021). Living culturally responsive mathematics education with/in indigenous communities. Brill Sense.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ogunyemi, B. (2010). Curriculum politics in the changing fortunes of Nigerian social studies. International Journal of Education, 2(2), 1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parker, D. (2006). Grade 10-12 mathematics curriculum reform in South Africa: A textual analysis of new national curriculum statements. African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 10(2), 59–73. https://hdl.handle.net/10520/EJC92651

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pólya, G. (1945). How to solve it. Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ramsook, L. (2017). Curriculum emergence in a postcolonial society-Trinidad and Tobago. International Journal for Cross-Disciplinary Subjects in Education (IJCDSE), 8(4), 3263–3271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reddy, V. (2005). Cross‐national achievement studies: learning from South Africa’s participation in the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS). Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 35(1), 63–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reiss, K., & Torner, G. (2007). Problem solving in the mathematics classroom: The German perspective. ZDM, 39(5), 431–441. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-007-0040-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reusser, K., & Stebler, R. (1997). Every word problem has a solution—The social rationality of mathematical modelling in schools. Learning and Instruction, 7(4), 309–327. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0959-4752(97)00014-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Romberg, T. A. (2001). Designing middle-school mathematics materials using problems set in context to help students progress from informal to formal mathematical reasoning. Wisconsin Center for Education Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, M., & Stern, E. (2010). The developmental relations between conceptual and procedural knowledge: A multimethod approach. Developmental Psychology, 46(1), 178–192. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016701

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schoenfeld, A. H. (1991). On pure and applied research in mathematics education. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 10(3), 263–276.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoenfeld, A. H. (2014a). Reflections on curricular change. In Mathematics curriculum in school education (pp. 49–72). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7560-2_4

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Schoenfeld, A. H. (2014b). What makes for powerful classrooms, and how can we support teachers in creating them? A story of research and practice productively intertwined. Educational Researcher, 43(8), 404–412. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X14554450

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schoenfeld, A. H., & Floden, R. E. (2014). The algebra teaching study and mathematics assessment project. An introduction to the TRU math dimensions. E. Lansing; Graduate School of Education. University of California, Berkeley & College of Education, Michigan State University. Retrieved from: https://ats.berkeley.edu/tools.html and/or https://map.mathshell.org/materials/pd.php

    Google Scholar 

  • Sherin, M. G., & Drake, C. (2009). Curriculum strategy framework: investigating patterns in teachers’ use of a reform‐based elementary mathematics curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 41(4), 467–500.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X015002004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.57.1.j463w79r56455411

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Southwest Educational Development Laboratory (SEDL). (1996). Using community resources. Classroom Campus, 3(1), 1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stanic, G.A., Kilpatrick, J. (2004) Mathematics curriculum reforming the United States: A historical perspective. Educ. Mat. Pesqui, 6(2), 11–27. Retrieved from https://revistas.pucsp.br/index.php/emp/article/viewFile/4686/3255.

  • Star, J. R. (1999). Toward a theory of knowing and doing in mathematics learning. http://gseacademic.harvard.edu/~starjo/papers/Knowing_CogSci.pdf

  • Stein, M. K., Engle, R. A., Smith, M. S., & Hughes, E. K. (2008). Orchestrating productive mathematical discussions: Five practises for helping teachers move beyond show and tell. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 10(4), 313–340. https://doi.org/10.1080/10986060802229675

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan, P. A. (2011). Ways of working with numeracy and mathematics leaders to improve student learning. In Powerful learning: A strategy for systematic Educational improvement (pp. 82–95). ACER Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swan, M. (2005). Standards unit-improving learning in mathematics: Challenges and strategies. Department for Education and Skills, Standards Unit.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verschaffel, L., Greer, B., & De Corte, E. (2000). Making sense of world problems. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 42(2), 211–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verwoerd, H. F. (1953). House of assembly debates. 78, 3575–3670.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, L., Liu, Q., Du, X., & Liu, J. (2017). Chinese mathematics curriculum reform in the 21st century: A review. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 13(8), 5311–5326. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2017.01005a

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zakaria, E., & Zaini, N. (2009). Conceptual and procedural knowledge of rational numbers in trainee teachers. European Journal of Social Sciences, 9(2), 202–217.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa

    Kakoma Luneta

Authors
  1. Kakoma Luneta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kakoma Luneta .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Education, Cape Peninsula University of Technology, Cape Town, South Africa

    Brantina Chirinda

  2. Faculty of Education, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa

    Kakoma Luneta

  3. University of Rwanda, College of Education (URCE), Kayonza, Rwanda

    Alphonse Uworwabayeho

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Luneta, K. (2022). Can the Fourth Industrial Revolution Resolve Why the Teaching of Mathematics in the Current Paradigm Continues to Be Decontextualised and Ineffective. In: Chirinda, B., Luneta, K., Uworwabayeho, A. (eds) Mathematics Education in Africa. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-13927-7_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation