Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A critical orientation to numeracy across the curriculum

  • Original Article
  • Published:
ZDM Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Numeracy is a fundamental component of the Australian Curriculum as a General Capability in each subject. Here, we report on an aspect of a larger project that aims to provide insight into how teachers can assist their students to develop a critical orientation to life-related situations through a cross-curricular approach to numeracy. Specifically, we draw on data collected via lesson observations and semi-structured teacher interviews exploring the use of mathematics in a critical fashion within the teaching of two subjects outside of mathematics—English and social education. Our investigation revealed that attention to the details of a rich model of numeracy can support the framing of such activities but that time, experience, and initial intent for the learning activity are factors which shape the effectiveness of teachers as designers of such tasks, especially in relation to a critical orientation to numeracy.

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
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Australian Association of Mathematics Teachers (AAMT) (1997). Numeracy = everyone’s business. In Report of the numeracy education strategy development conference. Adelaide: AAMT.

  • Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) (2014). The Australian curriculum: mathematics v 6.0. http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/Download/F10. Accessed 2 April 2014.

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

    Google Scholar 

  • City, E. A., Elmore, R. F., Fiarman, S. E., & Teitel, L. (2009). Instructional rounds in education. Cambridge: Harvard Educational Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cobb, P., Confrey, J., DiSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in educational research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9–13.

    Article  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 13 January 2014.

  • Drijvers, P., & Weigand, H. (2010). The role of handheld technology in the mathematics classroom. ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 42(7), 665–666.

  • Ernest, P. (2002). Empowerment in mathematics education. Philosophy of Mathematics Journal. http://www.ex.ac.uk/~PErnest/pome15/contents.htm. Accessed 13 January 2014.

  • Frankenstein, M. (2001). Reading the world with math: goals for a critical mathematical literacy curriculum. In Keynote address delivered at the 18th biennial conference of the Australian Association of Mathematics Teachers, Canberra.

  • Geiger, V., Goos, M., & Dole, S. (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, 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., Dole, S., & Geiger, V. (2011a). Improving numeracy education in rural schools: a professional development approach. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 23(2), 129–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goos, M., Geiger, V., & Dole, S. (2011b). 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: PME.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoyles, C., Wolf, A., Molyneux-Hodgson, S., & Kent, P. (2002). Mathematical skills in the workplace. In Final report to the Science, Technology and Mathematics Council. Foreword and executive summary. London: Institute of Education, University of London; Science, Technology and Mathematics Council.

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

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kloosterman, P. (2002). Beliefs about mathematics and mathematics learning in the secondary school: measurement and implications for motivation. In G. C. Leder, E. Pehkonen, & G. Törner (Eds.), Beliefs: a hidden variable in mathematics education (pp. 247–269). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loucks-Horsley, S., Love, N., Stiles, K., Mundry, S., & Hewson, P. (2003). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston: NCTM.

  • National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). (2014). Principles to actions. Ensuring mathematical success for all. Reston: NCTM.

  • Noss, R., Hoyles, C., & Pozzi, S. (2000). Working knowledge: mathematics in use. In A. Bessot & J. Ridgeway (Eds.), Education for mathematics in the workplace (pp. 17–35). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD (2010). PISA 2012 mathematics framework. Paris: OECD Publications. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/8/38/46961598.pdf. Accessed 3 April 2014.

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoenfeld, A. (2006). Design experiments. In G. C. P. B. Elmore & J. Green (Eds.), Complementary methods for research in education (pp. 193–206). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

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

  • Sullivan, P. (2011). Teaching mathematics: using research-informed strategies. Australian Education Review, 59. Camberwell: Australian Council for Educational Research.

  • Sullivan, P., Clarke, D., & Clarke, B. (2013). Teaching with tasks for effective mathematics learning. New York: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sun, H. (2013). Pet bans, jail time for irresponsible dog owners under new government crackdown. http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/law-order/pet-bans-jail-time-for-irresponsible-dog-owners-under-new-government-crackdown/story-fni0fee2-1226675633767. Accessed 20 April 2014.

  • Verillon, P., & Rabardel, P. (1995). Cognition and artifacts: a contribution to the study of thought in relation to instrumental activity. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 10, 77–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wartofsky, M. W. (1979). Models. Representation and the scientific understanding. Dordrecht: Reidel.

    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 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This project is funded by the Australian Research Council (Discovery Grant DP120100694).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Australian Catholic University, Brisbane, Australia

    Vince Geiger

  2. Monash University, Melbourne, Australia

    Helen Forgasz

  3. The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia

    Merrilyn Goos

Authors
  1. Vince Geiger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Helen Forgasz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Merrilyn Goos
    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., Forgasz, H. & Goos, M. A critical orientation to numeracy across the curriculum. ZDM Mathematics Education 47, 611–624 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-014-0648-1

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-014-0648-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation