WTNTKAN

P e t e r We s t w o o d
The What Teachers Need to Know About series aims to refresh and expand
basic teaching knowledge and classroom experience. Books in the series provide
essential information about a range of subjects necessary for todays teachers
to do their jobs effectively. These books are short, easy-to-use guides to the
fundamentals of a subject with clear reference to other, more comprehensive, What
sources of information. Other titles in the series include Teaching Methods,
Spelling, Learning Difficulties, Reading and Writing Difficulties, Personal Wellbeing, teachers
need to know
Marketing, and Music in Schools.
There is an increasing need for numeracy skills in all aspects of life and Numeracy
about
NUMERACY
explores the issues that are emerging regarding the teaching of these skills,
beginning with preschool and the early years of primary school through to adults
with poor numeracy skills. It draws on research and relevant literature from several
different countries to provide a comprehensive overview of the subject and contains
many links to other sources of information and additional resources.
Peter Westwood has been an Associate Professor of Education and has taught all
age groups. He holds awards for excellence in teaching from Flinders University
in South Australia and from the University of Hong Kong. Peter has published
many books and articles on educational subjects and is currently an educational
consultant based in Macau, China. Westwood
Cover images: Erengoksel | Dreamstime.com

Feng Yu | Dreamstime.com
ISBN 978-0-86431-904-3
Numeracy
9 780864 319043
What teachers
need to know about
Numeracy
numeracy_text.indd 1 19/6/08 3:24:32 PM

What teachers
need to know about
Numeracy
Peter Westwood
ACER Press

First published 2008
by ACER Press, an imprint of
Australian Council for Educational Research Ltd
19 Prospect Hill Road, Camberwell
Victoria, 3124, Australia
www.acerpress.com.au
sales@acer.edu.au
Text Peter Westwood 2008

Design and typography ACER Press 2008
This book is copyright. All rights reserved. Except under the

conditions described in the Copyright Act 1968 of Australia
and subsequent amendments, and any exceptions permitted
under the current statutory licence scheme administered by
Copyright Agency Limited (www.copyright.com.au), no part
of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval
system, transmitted, broadcast or communicated in any form
or by any means, optical, digital, electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the written
permission of the publisher.
Edited by Carolyn Glascodine

Cover and text design by Mary Mason
Typeset by Mary Mason
Printed in Australia by Ligare
National Library of Australia Cataloguing-in-Publication data:
Author: Westwood, Peter S. (Peter Stuart), 1936

Title: What teachers need to know about numeracy / Peter Westwood.
Publisher: Camberwell, Vic. : ACER Press, 2008.
ISBN: 9780864319043 (pbk.)
Notes: Includes index.
Bibliography.
Subjects: NumeracyStudy and teaching.
MathematicsStudy and teaching.
Dewey Number: 513.071

Contents
Preface vii
1 Conceptualising numeracy 1
Numeracy: important in its own right 2
The evolving definition of numeracy 4
The anatomy of numeracy 6
Is numeracy the same as mathematics? 8
Numeracy across the curriculum 9
Affective aspects of numeracy 10
2 Numeracy in early childhood 13

Pre-kindergarten 14
Working with children in the preschool years 17
Early childhood mathematics objectives 18
Number sense 19
3 The development of number concepts 24

Piagets theory 25
Lev Vygotsky 29
Jerome Bruner 30
4 The primary school years and beyond 33

Transition from preschool to school 34
Teaching in the primary years 35
Positive intervention: the daily numeracy hour 38
The key issue of teacher competence 39
The secondary school years 41
Adult numeracy 42
5 Calculating and problem solving 46

The place of computational skills 47
Number facts: the importance of automaticity 49

vi c o n t e n t s
Use of a calculator 51
Mental calculation 51
Teaching problem solving 52
Knowledge that learners need to acquire 55
6 Barriers to numeracy 57
Teaching method as a cause of difficulty 58
Other contributory causes 62
The nature of students difficulties 63
Dyscalculia 64
7 Assessment 68
Purposes of assessment 69
Approaches to assessment 71
Assessing problem-solving skills 76
Conclusion 78
References 81
Index 97

Preface
There can be no doubt that since the 1990s numeracy has been high on the
agenda in many countries. There is an increasing need for numeracy skills
in all aspects of life at home, in employment, and in the community.
Steen (2007, p. 16) states that, Being numerate is one of the few essential
skills that students absolutely must master, both for their own good and for
the benefit of the nations democracy and economic well-being.
Developments over the past two decades have seen a move toward less
emphasis in schools on routine arithmetic teaching and more on application
of number skills to problem solving. This change of emphasis is in response
to recommendations for reform in the teaching of mathematics ema
nating from influential bodies such as the National Council for Teachers
of Mathematics in America and the Australian Association of Teachers of
Mathematics. Departments of Education have also backed these reforms.
We have reached a stage now when it is important to consider whether
the changes in emphasis are proving effective. Have students gained a better
understanding of mathematics than before; and do they have more positive
feelings about the subject? Or have we moved too far away from teaching
and practising computational skills so that now it is more difficult, rather
than easier, for students to engage in problem solving and investigation?
What degree of balance is needed between formal skills instruction and
investigative approaches using those skills?
This book explores some of the issues that are emerging in the domain
of numeracy teaching. I have drawn on relevant literature from several
different countries notably the United Kingdom, the United States of
America, Australia, New Zealand and parts of Asia to provide a com
prehensive overview. The issues range from those concerning children
in the preschool and early school years through to those affecting adults
with poor numeracy skills. I have provided many links to other sources of
information, and I hope readers will find something of interest.
vii

viii pre f ace
My sincere thanks go to Carolyn Glascodine for her very efficient edit

ing of this manuscript. Many thanks also to the staff at ACER Press for
their continuing support.
P e t er W e s t w o o d
Resources www.acer.edu.au/need2know
Readers may access the online resources mentioned

throughout this book through direct links at
www.acer.edu.au/need2know

o n e
Conceptualising
numeracy
Key issues
Defining numeracy: The definition has expanded considerably over

time. The process of change mirrors that of the evolution of the
definition of literacy. We now acknowledge the existence of multiple
numeracies.
Relationship between literacy and numeracy: Numeracy should not
be subsumed under literacy (as has happened in the past). Numeracy
merits separate and serious attention.
Relationship between mathematics and numeracy: The terms
numeracy and mathematical competence are not synonymous.
Core components of numeracy: These are difficult to specify because
the demands on numeracy tend to be context-specific.
Numeracy across the curriculum: Numeracy skills are needed in all
subject areas. All school subjects can help to develop and generalise
numeracy skills.
Affective components of numeracy: The most recent descriptions
of numeracy include reference to learners attitudes, confidence and
disposition to use numeracy skills independently.
The term numeracy appears to have been coined officially many years ago in
a report dealing with the education of students in upper secondary schools
in the United Kingdom (the Crowther Report: Central Advisory Council

2 n u m erac y
for Education, 1959). In that document numeracy was presented as the

companion skill to literacy. Numeracy was seen to be the ability to deal
successfully with the quantitative aspects of everyday life, while literacy was
the ability to cope with normal demands of reading and writing. Numeracy
and literacy were thus seen at that time as separate but complementary
domains of competence (ODonoghue, 2002).
In many ways it was unfortunate that this distinction between literacy
and numeracy became blurred later, when a much broader interpretation
of the concept of literacy emerged. Some educators and writers began to
equate the term literate with being adequately educated, not just able to
read and write; and they considered that numeracy was therefore simply
one aspect of being literate. Such a view was evident in 1990 when official
documentation for the International Year of Literacy stated that literacy
included numeracy (DEETYA, 1997). Similarly, in 1995 a major project
under the Australian Language and Literacy Policy also included numeracy
within its definition of literacy (Cumming, 1996). Even today, the two
terms literacy and numeracy are often used together in an integrated way as
if describing a single information-processing ability.
The problem with taking literacy and numeracy closely together, for
example in research studies and when funding is allocated for special
projects, is that literacy (in the sense of reading) always seems to get the
lions share of attention (e.g., Department of Education and Training,
WA, 2006; Dymock, 2007; van Kraayenoord, Elkins, Palmer & Rickards,
2000). For many years, the amount of research and intervention in the
literacy domain far outweighed research into numeracy. This tendency
to subsume numeracy under literacy may also be one of the reasons why
numeracy remained a relatively neglected area in education policy making
until the mid-1990s.
Numeracy: important in its own right

Common sense would suggest that literacy and numeracy are separate
domains of competence; and by the end of the 1990s, the Australian
Association of Mathematics Teachers (AAMT) was strongly expressing
such a view. In its policy document on numeracy teaching in schools the
AAMT (1998) made it clear that literacy and numeracy are fundamentally
different areas of learning and each merits separate consideration.

c o n cep t u a l i s i n g n u m erac y 3
The recommendation to address students numeracy separately from

literacy saw a flurry of interest and action, with many countries publishing
guidelines for improving numeracy standards, and with a parallel increase
in research interest and writing in this domain. For example, in the United
States of America, the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics
(NCTM) had first produced a document titled Curriculum and evaluation
standards for school mathematics in 1989, but by 1997 a revision and updating
of this material commenced. The outcome was the publication in 2000
of the influential document Principles and standards in school mathematics, in
which numeracy was given a higher profile.
In Australia, interest in numeracy, particularly among adults in the
workplace, had started in the 1990s or even earlier ( Johnston, 2002).
Activity in the field was given extra impetus in 1996 when the Common
wealth, state and territory governments endorsed the National Plan for
Literacy and Numeracy, followed soon after by the publication of a report
titled Numeracy = Everyones business (DEETYA, 1997). National bench
mark testing in numeracy was soon introduced for school students in Years
3, 5 and 7. From 2008, students numeracy skills in Years 3, 5, 7 and
9 are being tested under the National Assessment Program in Literacy
and Numeracy (NAPLAN) (Curriculum Corporation, 2008). The Adult
Literacy and Numeracy Australian Research Consortium (ALNARC)
(2002) was established in 1999 and initiated several projects and organised
forums on themes related to numeracy. The year 2000 saw the publication
of a Commonwealth Government document Numeracy, a priority for all:
Challenges for Australian schools. Since that time a number of studies have
been conducted into various aspects of students learning and achievement
in mathematics (e.g., Louden et al., 2000; van Kraayenoord et al., 2000).
All education systems across the states and territories have drawn up
numeracy development plans. A typical example of such a plan is the one
operating in NSW (Department of Education and Training, NSW, 2006:
see the Links box at the end of the chapter). In New Zealand, 2001 saw the
introduction of the Numeracy Development Project, a well-documented
and successful teacher and school development initiative that is still
continuing (Annan, 2006; Irwin & Niederer, 2002).
In the United Kingdom, the National Numeracy Strategy was launched
in 1998 and implemented in schools from 1999. In that year, the UK
commenced a daily period of intensive teaching of basic mathematical

4 n u m erac y
skills in primary schools (the numeracy hour) to complement the already

existing literacy hour. The format of such sessions will be discussed in a
later chapter. The year 2006 saw the Department for Children, Schools
and Families in the UK issuing a revised Primary Framework for Literacy
and Mathematics with renewed emphasis on numeracy and with some
modifications to the original 1998 objectives (DfCSF, 2007a).
The adult education sector has focused heavily on numeracy in recent
years, presumably because schools have been far from successful in dev
eloping the numeracy skills of an alarmingly high proportion of the student
population (Boaler, 1997; Coben, 2003; Munn, 2005). It is reported that
many adults lack the numeracy skills needed to function in a maximally
effective manner in their vocational, civic and personal lives (Wiest et al.,
2007). In the United Kingdom the National Research and Development
Centre for Adult Literacy and Numeracy has been very active since 2001
with publications, resources and a major project called Maths4life, concerned
with numeracy and what they termed non-specialist mathematics. The
main project, established for the Department of Education and Skills, ran
from August 2004 to March 2007 and has now been transferred to the
National Centre for Excellence in Teaching Mathematics (NCETM). There
are positive signs that numeracy courses for adults yield good results, not
only in terms of skill acquisition but also social and personal gains (Balatti
et al., 2006; Dymock, 2007). More will be said about adult numeracy in
Chapter 4.
The evolving definition of numeracy

At first glance, the meaning of the term numeracy would appear to be
simple and straightforward. Surely, it means the ability to apply number
concepts and arithmetic skills for everyday purposes, together with the
ability to interpret the quantitative information that bombards us daily
from many different sources? Certainly this simple view accords well with
that appearing in the Cockcroft Report Mathematics counts (1982) in which
the writers proposed:
We would wish numerate to imply the possession of two attributes. The

first of these is at-homeness with numbers and an ability to make use of
mathematical skills which enable an individual to cope with the practical
mathematical demands of his [sic] everyday life. The second is an ability

to have some appreciation and understanding of information which is

presented in mathematical terms, for instance graphs, charts and tables or
by reference to percentage increase or decrease. (p. 11)
In the United Kingdom, Askew et al. (1997) have defined numeracy as the
ability to process, communicate and interpret numerical information in a
variety of contexts. This definition is echoed in Australia in the AAMT
(1998, p. 2) policy statement: To be numerate is to use mathematics
effectively to meet the general demands of life at home, in paid work, and
for participation in community and civic life. New Zealands definition
of numeracy is very similar: To be numerate is to have the ability and
inclination to use mathematics effectively at home, at work and in the com
munity (Ministry of Education, NZ, 2001).
All this seems very straightforward, and surely not contentious? But
Coben (2003, p. 9) warns us that, Numeracy is a deeply contested and
notoriously slippery concept. Most of the difficulty relates to deciding
exactly which specific areas of knowledge and skill together constitute
numeracy.
The concept of numeracy has undergone many changes in the years
since the term was coined in the Crowther Report. Numeracy is now
viewed as a multifaceted and sophisticated construct, incorporating
mathematics, communication, cultural, social, emotional and personal
aspects of each individual in context (Maguire & ODonaghue 2002, cited
in American Institutes for Research, 2006, p. 6). According to Turner
(2007, p. 28), Numeracy has become a personal attribute very much depen
dent on the context in which the numerate individual is operating ... [and]
numeracy will mean different things to different people according to their
interests and lifestyles.
So how did such a simple concept become so complex? The changes that
have occurred in conceptualising numeracy tend to parallel the changes that
occurred in the past 25 years with the concept of literacy (Falk et al., 2002).
Mainly as a result of ideas emanating from what has become known as new
literacy studies, literacy is no longer regarded as simply being able to read
and write. Literacy now embraces reading, writing, listening, speaking,
viewing and critical thinking; and is said to exist in many forms described
as multiple literacies (Richards & McKenna, 2003). Examples include,
literacy of the workplace, consumer literacy, critical literacy, school
literacy, mathematical literacy, financial literacy, literacy for the digital

6 n u m erac y
age, and so on. Literacy acquisition is seen to be socially and culturally

determined, and its nature, role and importance interpreted differently in
different contexts thus leading to the notion of situated literacies (Barton
et al., 2000). In very much the same way, the acquisition and application
of numeracy is now regarded as culturally based, socially determined,
situated and context-specific (Baker et al., 2001; Kerka, 1995). To illustrate
the point, Steen (2000; 2007) provides examples to show how numeracy
demands on individuals vary in a range of different real-life contexts. The
term multiple numeracies is now emerg ing in the professional literature
(e.g., Baker et al., 2006; Gough, 2007; Grubb, 1996; Johnston, 1994).
Examples include community numeracy, critical numeracy, workplace
numeracy, consumer maths, and street maths.
We can appreciate that numeracy skills are used for quite different
purposes in different contexts. For example, Butcher et al. (2002) refer
to numeracy for practical purposes, numeracy for interpreting society,
numeracy for personal organisation and numeracy for knowledge.
Similarly, Steen (1997) suggests that numeracy, or mathematical literacy,
needs to be:
practical (for everyday use)

civic (to understand issues in the community)
professional (for employment)
recreational (for example, understanding scoring in sports and games)
cultural (as part of civilised persons deep knowledge and culture).
So, the precise meaning of numeracy will vary according to the context and
purposes for which numeracy skills are used. This is perhaps why Coben
(2003) suggests that numeracy is a slippery concept.
The anatomy of numeracy

The fact that numeracy manifests itself in different ways according to the
context in which it is applied makes it difficult to determine precisely what
constitutes essential core content in numeracy teaching. Steen (2000,
p. 17) states that, Numeracy has no special content of its own but inherits
its content from its context. But surely there must be some areas of know
ledge and skill that are absolutely fundamental and would apply in all
situations?

Different writers have addressed in different ways the issue of which areas
of knowledge and skill actually comprise numeracy. Gough (2007) tells us
that numeracy embraces much more than numberacy meaning that the
domain of numeracy includes much more than basic arithmetic. According
to DEETYA (1997, p. 39) the mathematical underpinning of numeracy is
not restricted to working with numbers, but also includes work with space,
data (statistical and measurement) and formulae. In the adult numeracy
domain, SAALT (2006) confirms that numeracy incorporates basic number
skills, spatial and graphical skills, measurement and problem solving.
Gough (2007) makes the interesting proposal that the content of
numeracy is represented by most of what comprises the typical primary
school mathematics course. Gough excludes all aspects of mathematics that
the large majority of adults do not use this would include much of what
is contained in the typical secondary school academic maths curriculum.
If his proposal is sound, the primary curriculum may serve as a guide to
the core content needed to achieve numeracy. The Primary Framework for
Mathematics in the United Kingdom (covering problem solving, reasoning
and numeracy for Years 1 to 6) identifies seven strands that together make
up the learning area. They are fairly similar to the six strands that form the
mathematics curriculum in Australian schools (Curriculum Corporation,
1994). The strands in the UK are:
counting and understanding number

knowing and using number facts
calculating
understanding shape
measuring
handling data
using and applying mathematics.
No doubt there could be endless debates concerning the precise level of com
petence an individual would need to develop in each of these strands in order
to be deemed numerate. But, the list above does represent a very reasonable
starting point for giving some substance to the concept of numeracy.
With a focus on teaching numeracy with adults, Ginsburg et al. (2006)
suggest that courses should be organised around four key strands:
number and operations sense

patterns, functions and algebra

8 n u m erac y
measurement and shape

data, statistics and probability.
Within each of these strands, a learner needs to become proficient in four

areas:
conceptual understanding
adaptive reasoning
strategic competence for problem solving
procedural fluency.
It is also seen as vital that the learner develops a positive attitude toward
mathematics and acquires a productive disposition. More will be said later
on the affective component of numeracy.
DEETYA (1997) concludes that numeracy involves a combination of:
mathematical concepts and skills from across the discipline (numerical,

spatial, graphical, statistical and algebraic)
mathematical thinking
numerical strategies
appreciation of context.
The above statement almost makes it seem that numeracy = mathematical

ability. But is this so? Is numeracy simply another name for basic mathe
matical competence?
Is numeracy the same as mathematics?

At the beginning of this chapter it was argued that numeracy does not equal
literacy; the two draw upon different bodies of knowledge and involve
different processing skills. But numeracy and mathematics do draw upon
the same body of knowledge and skills, so what is the relationship between
the two?
Perso (2006a) states that to be numerate you must know some mathe
matics; but simply knowing some maths does not necessarily make a person
functionally numerate. Martin (2007, p. 28) takes up the point and writes,
Just as knowing the definition of words does not make a person literate,
knowing rules and algorithms to solve mathematics problems does not make
a person mathematically literate. It is generally agreed that mathematical
competence comprises more than numeracy (e.g., Lott, 2007).

How teachers view numeracy in relation to mathematics is important

because it will influence the way in which they structure the components of
their classroom curriculum. Perso (2006a; 2007), who clearly accepts that
numeracy is different from mathematics, suggests that this relationship is
not well understood by some teachers, resulting sometimes in an imbalance
in their approach for example, placing a major emphasis on computation
at the expense of task-based or investigative approaches; or vice versa.
The official position (DEETYA, 1997, p. 11) states categorically that:
Numeracy is not a synonym for school mathematics, but the two are clearly
interrelated. All numeracy is underpinned by some mathematics; hence
school mathematics has an important role in the development of young
peoples numeracy.
Steen (2007), on the other hand, feels that the dichotomy between what
is mathematics and what is numeracy should be eliminated, particularly
the attitude that abstract mathematics represents a more respectable level
of academic study while numeracy is simply contextualised arithmetic for
commercial and social purposes. Steen (2007, p. 18) says: Unfortunately,
numeracy is often characterised as watered-down mathematics minor-
league curriculum that schools offer to those who are unable to compete
in the major league of algebra, trigonometry and calculus. Steen feels that
the everyday maths needed for understanding such events as elections, poll
results, consumer finance, discounts, home management and clinical trials
is just as important as the content in any academic-style secondary maths
courses. It is suggested that recent UK reports and White Papers affecting
numeracy in the post-school years are tending to reinforce the perception
of a vocational/academic divide in their use of the term functional
mathematics (Hudson, 2006).
Numeracy across the curriculum

The fact that students often do not spontaneously use their mathematical
knowledge in other areas highlights the important role of all teachers in
helping to facilitate this process of transfer and generalisation (Thornton
& Hogan, 2005). Numeracy skills remain inert unless they can be readily
applied in a variety of situations and for a variety of purposes. The official
view is that Numeracy is a proficiency that is developed mainly in
mathematics but also in other subjects (Df EE, 2002, p. 9).

10 n u m erac y
Just as all teachers are said to be teachers of literacy, so too should all
teachers endeavour to be teachers of numeracy by taking every opportunity
to introduce students to the statistical and quantitative aspects of their
subjects, and to relate these aspects to the real world (Posamentier & Jaye,
2007). Steen (2000) states that numeracy is not just one among many
subjects but an integral part of all subjects.
Perso (2006b, p. 27) suggests that: Within each learning area two
questions must be asked:
How can numeracy contribute to enhanced learning outcomes in this learning

area?
How can this learning area enhance students numeracy?
By integrating mathematical components into all school subjects, students

are helped not only to strengthen and generalise their skills and under
standings but also to appreciate the utility of numeracy in a wider sense
(DETYA, 2000; DfCSF, 2001). Hogan et al. (2004) observe that knowledge
of mathematics and its application in a range of contexts seems to provide
students with the confidence to have a go, make mistakes and try again.
In addition to infusing numeracy into school subjects and into learning
projects, there are also very many events occurring regularly in any
school day that provide authentic opportunities for students to exercise
their numeracy skills for a genuine purpose budgeting for school camps,
concerts, field trips, bring-and-buy sales, fundraising events, sports days,
inter-school matches, and many more (e.g., Rennie, 2006; Zawojewski &
McCarthy, 2007). Effective teaching of numeracy will make full use of all
such naturally occurring events.
Affective aspects of numeracy

It is not only the contextual aspects of numeracy that have been stressed in
recent definitions; increasing importance has also been placed on affective,
as well as cognitive, aspects of being numerate. Ginsburg et al. (2006, p.
30) explain that, The affective component of numeracy includes the beliefs,
attitudes and emotions that contribute to a persons ability and willingness
to engage in, use, and persevere in mathematical thinking and learning,
or in activities with numeracy aspects. The terms positive disposition
and positive inclination (to use mathematical skills) are appearing more

frequently when the characteristics of a numerate person are described

(e.g., Kilpatrick et al., 2001).
Disposition and inclination in relation to numeracy would include an
individuals confidence, emotional comfort, interest and willingness to try
to interpret and process quantitative data and solve problems. For example,
Kemp and Hogan (2000, p. 3) state that, Numeracy is having the disposition
and critical ability to choose and use appropriate mathematical knowledge
strategically in specific contexts. Similarly, Turner (2007) explains the role
of inclination as having the desire and motivation to use numeracy skills.
Turner further remarks that, Having negative feelings about mathematics
and ones mathematical ability, implies a reluctance to use mathematics and
hence a failure to be fully numerate (p. 33).
Positive attitudes, interest in, and motivation for mathematics begin in
the early years of childhood, and are either fostered and encouraged on
entry to school or are snuffed out by lack of success. The following chapter
looks at development of numeracy in these crucial early years.
L i nk s t o m o r e ab o u t c o nc e p t u al i s i n g n u m e r ac y
Ginsburg, L., Manly, M., & Schmitt, M. J. (2006). The components

of numeracy. Cambridge, MA: National Center for the Study of Adult
Learning and Literacy. Available online at: http://www.ncsall.net/
fileadmin/resources/research/op_numeracy.pdf
Coben, D. (2003). Adult numeracy: Review of research and related
literature. London: National Research and Development Centre for Adult
Literacy and Numeracy. Available online at: http://www.nrdc.org.uk/
uploads/documents/doc_2802.pdf
American Institutes for Research. (2006). A review of the literature on
adult numeracy: Research and conceptual issues. Washington, DC: US
Department of Education. Available online at: http://www.eric.ed.gov/
ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/29/
e3/66.pdf
Steen, L. A. (2000). The case for quantitative literacy. Available online
at: http://www.maa.org/ql/001-22.pdf
>

12 n u m erac y
The in-service training material Numeracy across the curriculum

produced by DfCSF (2001) provides some very useful suggestions and
activities to help teachers consider the role of numeracy in different
subject areas. It also contains suggestions for specific content and skills
that students should acquire by Year 9 although some might argue
that the list goes beyond what is normally considered basic numeracy.
Available online at: http://www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/secondary/
keystage3/all/respub/numxc
A good example of a Numeracy Plan is the one devised by Department
of Education and Training, New South Wales. Available online at: http://
www.curriculumsupport.education.nsw.gov.au/primary/mathematics/
assets/pdf/numeracy_plan_15mar06.pdf
Gough (2007) suggests that numeracy comprises the concepts,
strategies and skills typically taught and developed in the primary
years. For reference, a comprehensive list of objectives for mathematics
covering Reception to Year 6 can be found online at:
http://www.thegrid.org.uk/learning/maths/ks1-2/assessment/documents/
nnskeyobjectives.doc
New Zealands curriculum statement on numeracy teaching can be
located online at: http://www.tki.org.nz/r/literacy_numeracy/num_
practice_e.php

t wo
Numeracy in
early childhood
Key issues
Early childhood as the foundation stage in numeracy development:

Even before formal schooling begins, children are acquiring an informal
understanding of quantitative relationships. They also develop their own
strategies for dealing with number. And the early years shape a childs
feelings about engaging in number work and mathematics.
The teachers role in the early years: The teacher is not only a
facilitator but must also act as mediator, helping to interpret childrens
quantitative experiences.
Developing number sense: Number sense underpins genuine
understanding of all numerical relationships and processes. Possessing
number sense in mathematics is to some extent similar to possessing
phonological sense and understanding the phonic concept in reading.
Core objectives for early numeracy: In early childhood education it
is essential to create a firm foundation of number concepts and skills.
There is reasonable agreement on what needs to be taught.
The numeracy concepts and skills that most individuals possess in adol
escence and adulthood had their beginnings in the very earliest stages
of childhood, long before any formal instruction took place. It is even
suggested that the human brain is in some way pre-programmed before
13

14 n u m erac y
birth to process quantitative information Butterworth (2005) describes it

as innate numerosity. Beaty (1998, p. 227) remarks:
Using the physical and mental tools they are born with, children interact
with their environment to make sense of it, and in doing so they construct
their own mental concepts of the world. The brain seems to be conditioned
to take in information about objects and their relationships to one another.
Even before they enter kindergarten, children appear to acquire an intuition

about number that enables them to tackle simple quantitative tasks and deal
with everyday problems successfully (Koralek, 2007). There is evidence that
infants not yet 4 months old can distinguish visually the difference between
unequal quantities; and by the time they are 3 years old, most children
have developed a pre-symbolic sense of number ( Jung et al., 2007). Griffin
(2004) suggests that by the age of 4 years children develop two systems, one
for making global comparisons and another for counting. By the age of 5
or 6 years these two systems have combined to provide a more powerful
grasp of number relationships upon which subsequent numeracy concepts
and skills develop. At around this age children begin to grasp that moving
forward or back along a counting sequence is exactly the same as adding
or subtracting. When applied to a numberline, this provides them with a
mental model of addition and subtraction and marks a major step forward
in their understanding of number relationships (Griffin & Case, 1997). The
studies of Barth et al. (2006) and Gilmore et al. (2007) reveal that young
children can carry out forms of quantitative comparison and simple addi
tion and subtraction long before these skills are taught in school.
Through exposure to more advanced individuals in their social setting
children observe and acquire essential skills such as counting, sequencing
and pattern making. Through play with others they meet concepts such as
shape, relative size, capacity, sharing, sorting and classifying. They begin
to compare and contrast groups of objects, and quantitative elements begin
to appear in their early drawings, suggesting that they are able to invent
simple ways of representing number relationships (Pound, 1999).
Pre-kindergarten
In the United States of America, the document Principles and standards for
school mathematics (NCTM, 2000) included coverage of children in the pre-

N u m erac y i n ear l y c h i l d h o o d 15
kindergarten age range for the first time. The provision of Pre-K standards is
a clear indication that numeracy development is now regarded as beginning
soon after birth. The Pre-K objectives cover mainly counting, recognising
how many, cardinal and ordinal number, connecting number words to
numerals, sorting and classifying, recognising patterns and sequences, and
identifying basic shapes.
A similar stand is taken in the United Kingdom, where problem
solving, reasoning and numeracy are identified as key learning areas for
the very early years (birth to five) (Pimentel, 2007). The Department for
Children, Schools and Families (DfCSF, 2005) has stressed the importance
of stimulating childrens learning in the first three years of life and has
prepared a guidance package titled Birth to three matters to help parents,
caregivers and early-years educators support childrens learning, including
numeracy, in the years before kindergarten.
In Australia, where early childhood spans the period from birth to
age 8, the Australian Association of Mathematics Teachers joined forces
with Early Childhood Australia to issue a joint position statement on Early
childhood mathematics (2006). In relation to the preschool and beginning
school years this statement highlights the importance of:
engaging childrens natural curiosity

using play and child-initiated activities as the focus
dealing with quantitative issues relevant for a childs age
solving problems (in the sense of tackling real tasks that involve number
concepts and skills)
providing opportunities by supplying abundant materials, space and time
using language to develop maths concepts and vocabulary
encouraging mental manipulation of ideas
assessing childrens level of development as a basis for planning activities.
Charlesworth (2005, p. 235) observes that:
Pre-kindergarten mathematics focuses mainly on young childrens natur

alistic explorations and the ability to provide informal scaffolding through
questions and comments. Young children are developing mathematics
concepts and skills at the initial level. These concepts include one-to-
one correspondence, number sense and counting, logic and classifying,
comparing, parts and wholes, ordering and patterning, measurement and

16 n u m erac y
concrete addition and subtraction [and] young children also begin to

recognise number symbols and experiment with technology.
In the pre-kindergarten years, children who are exposed to normal

experiences in the home and community develop an understanding of
quantitative relationships. They acquire this awareness mainly through play,
exploration and everyday experiences (Aubrey et al., 2003; Perry & Dockett,
2007; Tucker, 2005). For example, they are exposed to language that
accompanies numerous informal quantitative experiences such as serving
food at the table: (Give me two potatoes today, please, because they are
rather small; Pour everyone half a glass of water) or at the supermarket
(Can you get two tins of peas please; not the big tins, the smaller ones;
The apples are three for $1.00 today) and so forth. Young children also
hear and use number names as they join in with number rhymes and songs.
They hear sister counting the steps as she walks upstairs, and they hear
brother say, Mum, I have four pages of homework to do tonight, but I have
already finished two. These incidental encounters with the language of
everyday mathematics are laying an important foundation. Through these
informal quantitative experiences, most children in early childhood begin
to develop confidence with numbers counting, sharing, comparing, and
partwhole relationships without direct teaching (Zaslavsky, 2001).
Parents could do much to encourage childrens curiosity about numbers and
number relationships simply by drawing attention in an interesting way to
relevant quantitative situations, asking questions, making comments, and
making more explicit their own daily use of numbers (Doig, McCrae &
Rowe, 2003; Griffiths, 2007; Maher, 2007).
Of course, not all children encounter a rich language and number
environment at home and therefore do not enter school with the same
depth of knowledge and experience. It is for children such as these that
intervention programs in the kindergarten are needed. For example,
Griffin (2004) describes one such intervention called Number Worlds.
This is a research-based kindergarten maths program that provides rich
experiences of investigating number in a variety of ways through a games
approach. The program is reported to bring significant gains in childrens
number knowledge. The activities seem to be particularly beneficial for
disadvantaged children whose prior learning has not resulted in optimum
development of number awareness before entry to school. Other early

number programs include Mathematics Recovery (Wright, 2003),

Numeracy Recovery (Dowker, 2001; 2005) and Early Numeracy: Assess
ment and Teaching for Intervention (Wright, Martland & Stafford, 2006).
Doig et al. (2003) provide a review of several programs designed for the
early years.
Working with children in the preschool years

It is recognised now that most young children enter school with a great
deal of informal knowledge about number and mathematics (Thomson
et al., 2005). The role of early childhood educators is to build upon this
knowledge by creating an environment where children can continue
to explore quantitative relationships with the aid of a teacher and with
peers. Situations that invite quantitative investigation are most likely to
arise in preschool classrooms where there is an abundance of materials and
equipment available that will encourage children to play and investigate.
In particular, every early childhood setting should have a ready supply of
building blocks, boxes, counters, tiles, shapes, pattern boards, measuring
tapes, calculators, squared paper, jars of beads, egg cartons and so on
(Wallace et al., 2007). Adequate time and opportunity need to be made
available for children to play and work with these materials.
In the preschool years, direct and formal teaching of number skills is
generally not recommended, although kindergarten programs in some
countries (e.g. in parts of Asia) do introduce children to the beginning
levels of arithmetic. Children of this age really need to discover number
relationships for themselves and invent ways of representing or recording
these, rather than having abstract processes taught to them in some formal
manner. Most attempts at formal instruction end up destroying a childs
natural curiosity and confidence. Clements (2001) writes that preschools
should capitalise fully on young childrens high level of natural motivation
to learn in a self-directed manner. If early learning situations use childrens
interests, they will help to promote a positive view of mathematics as an
enjoyable, self-directed, problem-solving activity.
None of the above is intended to suggest that a teacher must stand back
and play no active part in fostering childrens early number development.
It is believed now that early learning is greatly enhanced if adults help

18 n u m erac y
young children interpret their learning experiences (Baroody, 2000;

Fleer & Raban, 2005; Kirova & Bhargava, 2002). Teachers should work
with childrens interests and spontaneous activities, and also deliberately
introduce many new mathematical situations into the curriculum (Epstein,
2003; Groves, Mousley & Forgasz, 2006). Skilled preschool teachers seize
opportune moments to impose some degree of structure on naturally
occurring events or situations in the day. This structuring is commonly
achieved by supporting (scaffolding) the childs own discoveries through
giving encouragement, thinking aloud, making suggestions and asking
questions. Warfield (2001) advises teachers to pose many questions and
problems involving number throughout the school day, not just in maths
lessons. The terms mediated learning and guided participation have
become popular when describing the teacherchild shared interaction in
such situations (Rogoff, 1995).
The Russian psychologist Vygotsky (1978) presented the notion of a
zone of proximal development. This relates to each childs potential to
move forward in his or her learning. All learners, when provided with
relevant information or guidance at the right moment, can advance their
conceptual development by building on what is already known and under
stood. The zone of proximal development for a child represents the new
learning that can take place if another person supports the child directly or
indirectly in some way. The role of the educator is to supply information
at the teachable moment and to build bridges between abstract ideas and
the real world. Gradually, these supports are withdrawn so that the child
is dealing with the task or problem independently. Learning activities that
fall within a childs zone of potential development have a high probability
of success, whereas activities beyond the zone are usually too difficult for
the child and may result in failure and frustration.
Early childhood mathematics objectives

It is impossible (and probably undesirable) to be prescriptive about the
precise knowledge, skills and attitudes relating to number work that should
be addressed in the preschool years. However, some guidance may be found
by combining suggestions from several different authorities. For example,
from Sarama and Clements (2006) and Kehl et al. (2007) the following list
could be offered as a possible core set of objectives:

building positive interest and confidence in working with numbers

pattern making and sequences, for example with blocks or tiles
verbal counting in sequence to 10, to 20 (or even to 100)
using one-to-one correspondence in counting objects to 20
counting a collection of objects and knowing that the last count tells how
many
recognising instantly how many objects are in a very small set (less than 5)
without counting; this ability is known as subitising
recognising numerals to 20
joining or separating small sets of objects, telling how many in each set and
altogether
sharing items equally among friends
comparing small sets of objects and using terms such as same, equal, more,
less
knowing the number that is one more than
simple adding and subtracting below 10
recognising and naming shapes (circle, square, triangle, rectangle)
building new shapes using other shapes
recognising symmetry in shapes
simple measuring
grouping objects based on attributes
making simple picture graphs, for example using shoes, pets, toys
communicating ideas and information to others, based on the above
contexts.
There will be significant variation among children in the extent to which

they master the above skills. Preschool teachers need to assess each childs
achievement in order to plan appropriate learning experiences or to provide
additional teaching for some children prior to school entry. Assessment is
discussed more fully in Chapter 7.
Number sense
Perhaps the most important development in the early years is the acquisi
tion of number sense. Howell and Kemp (2006) observe that since the late
1980s the term number sense has gained much recognition and is now being
used frequently within curriculum and policy documents to describe the

20 n u m erac y
informal and often intuitive understanding of number that all children

need to develop if they are to succeed in mathematics. Steen (2000, p. 8)
describes it as having accurate intuition about the meaning of numbers,
confidence in estimation, and commonsense in employing numbers as a
measure of things.
There is no widely accepted definition of the term number sense and Berch
(2005) says that the way in which experts in mathematical cognition use
the term differs from the way that it is understood and used by mathematics
educators. Nor is there complete agreement among experts on the exact
knowledge and skills that together make up number sense.
Number sense develops from all the informal quantitative concrete
experiences that a child encounters in the early years, and it eventually
comes to underpin the childs smooth entry into arithmetic in primary
school. Number sense continues to expand through the school years as
children engage with new tasks and solve new problems (Gersten & Chard,
1999; Wells, 2000). If children arrive in primary school lacking number
sense, they are extremely likely to have difficulties when the more formal
aspects of computation are introduced. Jordan et al. (2007) report that
childrens number sense in kindergarten is highly correlated with maths
achievement at the end of Grade 1.
Griffin (2004) believes that acquisition of number sense follows a
developmental path and can be enhanced in the early years by providing
a learning environment in which quantitative concepts can be freely
explored, interpreted and discussed. Similarly, Wells (2000) believes that
number sense is developed most easily in situations where children are
actively involved in their learning and where teachers encourage reflection
and discussion on quantitative aspects of their activities. A teachers role is
to encourage childrens number sense development by noticing at what level
they are currently operating and helping them develop to the next level by
questioning and challenging their thinking (Schwerdtfeger & Chan, 2007).
Encouraging children to work mentally with numbers, rather than writing
them down, is also considered important (Cutler, 2001). Number sense is
least likely to develop fully in classrooms where written computation and
memorisation of procedures or rules are introduced too early and become
the prime focus of attention (Smith & Smith, 2006; Yang, 2005). Yang
(2005) believes that too much emphasis on written computation narrows

childrens thinking and reasoning at an early stage and causes them to begin
to rely on rote memory, rather than meaningful learning.
Howell and Kemp (2006) suggest that assessing young childrens
number sense may be a valid way of detecting children who are likely to
have difficulties later in primary mathematics. Early detection could then
lead to appropriate forms of intervention to help these children develop
the understanding and confidence with numbers they currently lack. A
similar notion was put forward by Malofeeva et al. (2004) who devised
a suitable test for this purpose for children in the 3- to 5-year age range.
The test assessed six components of number awareness, namely counting,
number identification, number-to-object correspondence, ordinality,
comparison, and simple addition and subtraction. A study by Jordan et al.
(2007) confirms that early testing of this type will indeed help to identify
children at risk of learning difficulties in primary mathematics.
The study by Howell and Kemp (2006) endeavoured to obtain consen
sus on the precise components of number sense by soliciting opinions
from mathematics experts in different countries. Eventually they gener
ated a fairly daunting list of some 35 possible components; but most of
these can be subsumed under broader categories such as counting,
matching, comparing, ordering, combining groups, simple subtraction,
numeral recognition and a sense of magnitude. Subitising (i.e., recognising
the number of items in a small group without needing to count them) is
also included by some experts (e.g., Clements, 1999). A few writers suggest
that number sense also includes automatic recall of basic arithmetic facts
(American Mathematical Association of Two-Year Colleges, 1995; cited
in Ginsburg et al., 2006).
It is worth noting that in addition to number sense, Steen (2000, p. 9)
also refers to symbol sense that is, being comfortable using and inter
preting signs and symbols. And other writers have introduced the notion
of operations sense, meaning a deep understanding of how algorithms in
arithmetic actually do model number operations. Obviously these areas
of awareness develop a little later than the basic number sense described
above.
Cutler (2001) suggests that understanding the acquisition of number
sense can be understood best by considering how concepts are developed.
We are helped in this process by looking in the next chapter at the work

22 n u m erac y
of Piaget (1942; 1983), Vygotsky (1962) and Bruner (1960; 1966), who in
different ways were all interested in childrens concept development.
L i nk s t o m o r e ab o u t e a r ly c h i l d h o o d n u m e r ac y
Joint position statement by National Association for the Education

of Young Children (NAEYC) and the National Council of Teachers of
Mathematics (NCTM). (2002). Early childhood mathematics: Promoting
good beginnings. Available online at: http://www.naeyc.org/about/
positions/psmath.asp
Joint position statement by Australian Association of Mathematics
Teachers and Early Childhood Australia. (2006). Early childhood
mathematics. Available online at: http://www.aamt.edu.au/content/
download/722/19512/file/earlymaths.pdf
Exemplars for early number concepts are presented in the New Zealand
Curriculum Framework, Ministry of Education. (2006). Available online
at: http://www.tki.org.nz/r/assessment/exemplars/maths/strategy/st_
overview_e.php
Other useful information from New Zealand available at: http://www.
nzmaths.co.nz/numeracy/Intro.aspx and at http://www.nzmaths.co.nz/
Numeracy/2006numPDFs/NumBk1.pdf
A useful resource for early childhood educators and parents is Early
childhood numeracy cards produced by Department of Education,
Science and Training (Australia). (2006). These cards present age-
appropriate photographs of real-life situations with quantitative
elements. Discussion points and questions are presented on the reverse
side. See samples online at: http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/school_
education/programmes_funding/programme_categories/early_childhood/
learning_resources#The_resource_materials
Fleer, M., & Raban, B. (2007). Early childhood literacy and numeracy:
Building good practice. Canberra: DEST, Commonwealth of Australia.
This is a booklet for early childhood educators, containing advice
on creating an environment for mathematics, the role of language,
and observation of childrens knowledge and strategies. It also
contains guidance on concepts to be introduced in the early years.

Available online at: http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/school_education/

programmes_funding/programme_categories/early_childhood/learning_
resources#The_resource_materials
The Commonwealth Department of Education, Science and Training
website provides details of (and links to) a number of projects
and reviews that have involved numeracy in Australian school
settings. Available online at: http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/school_
education?policy_initiatives_reviews/key_issues/literacy_numeracy/
numeracy_publications.htm

t h re e
The development
of number concepts
Key issues
How are number concepts developed? We form concepts as a result

of engaging in, and interpreting, a variety of learning experiences.
New information is assimilated and linked with prior knowledge as we
categorise and make sense of our environment.
The theories of Piaget, a developmental perspective: Piagets
observations on childrens cognitive development at various stages have
greatly influenced our views on developmentally appropriate practice.
His notion of schema helps us understand how new learning is linked
with prior knowledge and how concepts are formed.
The contributions of Lev Vygotsky: The zone of proximal development.
The importance of scaffolding childrens learning. Learning as a social
activity.
Bruners views on learning: Learners must be actively involved in the
learning process. Most learning progresses from concrete to abstract.
The spiral curriculum.
A concept can be defined as a mental representation that embodies all the

essential features of an object, a situation, or an idea. Concepts enable us
to classify phenomena as belonging, or not belonging, together in certain
categories. Concept formation is the means by which we mentally organise
our environment into meaningful units of information that we can then
use for future reference.
24

T h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f n u m b er c o n cep t s 25
The development of conceptual knowledge is achieved by the recog

nition of relationships between different items of information. The process
of forming concepts consists of linking items of information together
because of common properties they possess. McInerney and McInerney
(2005) suggest that by being exposed to a range of objects and experiences
we begin to see common properties emerge. For example, our concept of
triangle embodies our knowledge of the number of sides, the properties
of the angles, the different sizes and orientations of a triangle that are
possible by varying the dimensions, and the different names that have been
given to various triangular forms. We also discover that triangles can be
seen occurring quite frequently within manufactured articles and in the
built environment; finally, we can also classify triangles as falling within
a larger concept group embracing two-dimensional shapes. Hiebert and
Lefevre (1986, p. 3) believed that conceptual knowledge is characterised
most clearly by knowledge that is rich in relationships. Conceptual
knowledge can be thought of as a connected web of information.
The manner in which concepts develop from firsthand observation and
from relevant information that we discover (or are given) is exactly what
occurs when children experience quantitative situations in the early years
and develop awareness of properties and relationships among numbers
and shapes. Piaget, Vygotsky and Bruner are three pioneers in cognitive
development research whose theories help to throw light on the way in
which such concept development occurs in children.
Piagets theory
We owe much of our understanding of how children develop number
concepts from the work of the late Jean Piaget (1942; 1983). Piagets
theory of cognitive development was derived from his close observation
of children (mainly his own children) as they engaged in various tasks,
including many involving quantitative and spatial relationships. He was
interested in investigating how their perceptions, thinking and reasoning
developed and changed over time. His ideas have influenced greatly the
current constructivist view of learning that places the learner rather
than the teacher at the heart of the learning process. Piaget argued that
children must continually construct and modify their own understanding
of phenomena through their own actions and reflection. In Piagets theory,

26 n u m erac y
childrens active exploration of their environment, coupled with their

increasing physical and neurological maturation, play the most important
role in influencing conceptual development.
An essential aspect of Piagets theory of cognitive development is his
concept of schemata (singular: schema). A schema is an integrated mental
representation or assembly of knowledge comprising everything one has
learned about a particular concept over time. For example, in forming the
triangle concept above, we did not acquire all that knowledge on one
occasion; the different items of information have been added at different
times as a result of new experiences. Learners filter, interpret and adjust
new information in terms of what they already know. Piaget used the
term assimilation to describe the process of taking in new information and
linking it with prior knowledge, and the term accommodation for the process
involved in adjusting or revising the existing schema to reflect this advance
in understanding. Thousands of schemata are developed over an indivi
duals lifetime, and they are constantly changing, refining and expanding.
Concept development is thus a process of creating mental structures and
refining them over time. The acquisition of concepts continues throughout
life and is the main characteristic of cognitive development.
Piaget considered that children pass through four distinct stages on their
way to mature cognitive functioning. At each stage, they become better able
to process information accurately and less likely to develop misconceptions.
In general, the sequence they follow begins at birth and continues into
adulthood. An approximate age range for each stage has been suggested
below, but children actually differ significantly in the age at which they
pass through each Piagetian stage, due to factors such as maturity, mental
ability, teaching and experience. The stages may be briefly described thus:
Sensorimotor stage (birth to 18 months). During this stage, the young child
develops motor and orienting responses or reactions to sensory input (e.g.
focusing visual attention; reaching for and picking up an object; attending
to sounds). At this stage, a child is rapidly coming to understand important
features of his or her immediate environment, but is not aware, for example,
that physical objects continue to exist even when they are out of sight; in
other words, the child lacks an understanding of object permanence (Weiten,
2001). But, as stated in the previous chapter, even at this early age an infant
can make some basic quantitative comparisons and judgements when real
objects are present.

Pre-operational or intuitive stage (from age 18 months to 7+ years). Piaget used

the term operation to mean the mental process of thinking something through.
Children at the pre-operational stage tend not to be able to manipulate ideas
mentally or deduce cause and effect relationships. As a result, they are often
misled by what they see. An important example of this in the numeracy field
is conservation of number. Children at the pre-operation stage at first do not
understand that the number of items in a group does not change even though
the spatial arrangement of the items may be altered. It is sometimes argued
that until children can understand conservation of number there is little point
in attempting any form of written recording. Studies have suggested that the
concept of conservation of number is achieved by most children between the
ages of 6 and 7 years (conservation of mass, length and area develop later).
Children at the pre-operational stage of development tend to focus too much
on one feature of a problem or task, and do not consider other aspects that
may be important. They also have difficulty imagining an action reversed, for
example, if 3 tokens are placed with 2 tokens to make 5, what would happen
if the 3 tokens were then taken away from 5?
Concrete operational stage (7 to 11+ years). During this stage, the child can
begin to understand and process increasingly complex information if it can
be experienced, acted upon and observed firsthand. During the concrete
operational stage, the child becomes better able to handle symbolic repre
sentation and carry out mental operations provided the symbols (e.g. numbers)
can be easily related to reality.
Formal operational stage (11 to adulthood). Finally, the normally developing
individual becomes able to operate with abstract ideas, and to think and
reason without the need for real objects or firsthand experience. Adolescents
in the formal operational stage become more thoughtful and systematic in
their problem solving; they reason things out rather than using a hit-or-miss
approach.
Educators think it is important to consider Piagets four stages in relation

to the types of mathematical experiences normally provided at different
age levels, and how children can be supported best in learning number
skills and concepts. According to Piaget, abstract reasoning and the use of
purely symbolic representation cannot be forced on a child too early. His
theory led educators to question, for example, the wisdom of attempting
to teach young children formal arithmetic skills at an early age. When
children are taught such rules, procedures and facts out of context, and too

28 n u m erac y
early, they cant connect them to what they already know, so conceptual
learning does not occur. According to Piaget (1942), the direct teaching of
number knowledge and skills ahead of a childs cognitive readiness to learn
is largely a waste of time. Such teaching can also have negative impact on
a childs confidence and attitude toward number work.
Over the years since Piagets works were first translated and published,
numerous experimental studies have generally supported his description of
the way in which cognitive development occurs. However several criticisms
of his theory have emerged. The first is that he underestimated the learning
capacity of preschool children (Case, 1991; Lutz & Sternberg, 1999;
Mandler, 2004). Piaget placed heavy emphasis on the role of maturation
and readiness, but more recent work appears to indicate that experience
and instruction are as important as maturation. It is now believed that with
appropriate experience and skilled teaching young children can actually
learn very much more than Piaget thought possible. Developmental
psychologists who have built on his earlier work (the neo-Piagetians)
assert that the knowledge and processes needed to learn new skills and
concepts and to solve problems are teachable, and we do not need to await
biological maturation of the child. This suggests that instead of opting for
the currently recommended developmentally appropriate curriculum in
early childhood settings, we should be seeking effective teaching methods
for accelerating young childrens mathematical learning. It is argued that
curriculum in the early years often underestimates childrens abilities and
is therefore insufficiently challenging (Wright, 1994).
In the United States of America, the National Child Care Information
Center (2007) states that, in the domain of numeracy education, many
researchers (and some early childhood educators) are now recognising the
importance of complementing child-initiated learning with high-quality,
teacher-directed instruction in the early years. But this notion does not sit
comfortably with many contemporary guidelines on preschool teaching
since they still advocate play and developmentally appropriate practice.
The two differing views constructivist vs instructivist represent one of
the ongoing debates in early childhood education (Katz, 1999).
It is also believed now that Piaget overestimated what the average
adolescent could do in terms of abstract reasoning. The age 11 years has
often been suggested as the end of the concrete operational stage, but more
recent studies have suggested that for the majority of adolescent students

their thinking in subjects such as mathematics and science may remain at

the concrete stage until at least age 15 years or 16 years (Collis & Romberg,
1992; Santrock, 2006). For this reason, much of the contemporary
mathematics teaching in secondary schools misses the mark because it is
conducted largely through textbook examples, chalk and talk, without
hands-on experience. The relative absence of concrete experience and
visual representation may well account for many of the learning difficulties
evident in older students and their growing dislike of mathematics.
Despite these limitations, Piagets major contribution to the field of
numeracy teaching has been:
to present the view of children as active and constructive learners

to redefine the role of a teacher as facilitator of childrens self-initiated dis
covery of new information
to remind teachers to consider childrens level of cognitive maturity and readi
ness for particular types of learning
to highlight the futility of attempting to transmit predigested knowledge to
young children by didactic methods.
Lev Vygotsky
In the previous chapter, reference was made to Vygotsky (1962; 1978) and
his notion of the zone of proximal development. To Vygotsky, optimum
learning occurs when tasks or problems are correctly tailored to be just a
shade above a childs current level of ability but which the child can handle
successfully with some support or guidance from an adult or a peer. This
support has become known in education as scaffolding and it takes the
form of hints, suggestions, comments, questions, demonstrations and even
direct explanations. Vygotsky and Piaget both see the role of the teacher
as facilitator, but Vygotsky places much greater emphasis on the teacher
actively guiding the child toward new knowledge construction. He was
much more interested in helping to advance each child beyond his or her
present level of understanding, rather than awaiting natural maturation and
so-called readiness. He also believed in the importance of making topics or
problems meaningful by situating them in real-life contexts.
Vygotsky regarded language and social interaction as playing much
greater roles in childrens concept development than Piaget had

30 n u m erac y
acknowledged. His recognition of the importance of discussion and think

ing aloud has greatly influenced the teaching of mathematics. Teachers are
beginning to acknowledge now that talking is at the very heart of young
childrens knowledge construction (e.g., Monaghan, 2006).
The major messages for numeracy teaching that stem from Vygotskys
work are as follows:
The teacher must actively guide children towards better understanding by

supporting (scaffolding) and mediating their thinking.
It is essential to identify a childs present level of understanding in order to
provide guidance that will help him or her to progress further.
Encouraging collaborative group work, peer assistance and discussion all
foster concept development and learning.
Schools should base much of the curriculum on real-life topics and problems.
Jerome Bruner
Bruner (1960; 1966) was instrumental in raising educators awareness of
the important role that learners themselves must play in constructing know
ledge. In the domain of mathematics for example, he stressed the need
for students to think mathematically for themselves instead of having a
deconstructed and decontextualised version of mathematics presented for
mally to them by the teacher and textbook. However, Bruner sees the
role of the teacher to be more than simply a facilitator. Children do need
opportunities to explore and discover on their own but they also need
to interact positively with more knowledgeable adults and peers who can
support their efforts, challenge them, and assist them in interpreting and
assimilating new discoveries.
According to Bruner, concept development progresses from the enactive
stage (in which learning should involve concrete experiences) through the
iconic stage (where pictorial and other graphic representations are used
to move beyond the purely concrete) to the final symbolic stage where
abstract symbols and notation alone convey meaning to the learner.
Applying Bruners three stages to early numeracy development, the
first step that most children take in moving from the real world is to use
pictorial recording of number relationships (for example, to draw three
pet goldfish in a tank). At around the same time, children are also able to

interpret pictorial representations of groups of objects to establish a number

relationship, for example they can count the balloons in a picture. When
situations are presented to children in pictorial form, or are recorded by
them as pictures, they can easily relate to them even though they are not
the real objects. This is the first stage in moving from concrete experience
to symbolic representation. It might be called the beginning of the semi-
concrete stage. At the next (iconic) stage of development the child can use
an object to stand for some other real object. For example, a wooden block
can stand for a car. Three blocks can stand for three cars moving along
an imaginary road, and so forth. The blocks dont look like cars, but the
notion that one thing can be represented in a different way is established.
At a later stage, tally marks (looking even less like the real object) can be
used at the semi-abstract stage, with an understanding of their one-to-
one correspondence with the original objects. It is not until a child has had
these intermediate experiences of translating reality into different forms of
semi-concrete and semi-abstract representation that they are ready to begin
to use symbolic recording with understanding.
It is believed that some children begin to experience difficulty in
learning mathematics because they have been taken too quickly from the
concrete stage to the abstract symbolic level of recording. A gap is created
in childrens understanding if they are forced to operate too soon with
symbols and mathematical notation. The use of structural apparatus such
as Dienes MAB, Cuisenaire Rods, or Unifix can help bridge this gap
by providing a visual link between real objects and the symbols that can
eventually represent them.
Bruners views are not incompatible with those of Piaget; but like
Vygotsky, he is much less concerned with issues such as readiness and
maturation. Instead, Bruner supports the view that young children can be
taught many things if the quality of instruction is good and the teaching
follows the sequence of concrete, through the semi-concrete, to the
abstract levels. His claim is that any subject can be taught effectively in
some intellectually honest form to a child of any stage of development if
the method is right. More recently, Watson (2004, p. 372), arguing against
denying some students a right to a challenging and interesting maths
curriculum because of poor ability, has echoed Bruners view, stating,
It is possible to engage nearly all students in some form of abstract and
conceptual understanding.

32 n u m erac y
In the domain of mathematics, Bruners suggestion that a curriculum

should be spiral rather than linear in its progression is sound advice. A spiral
curriculum implies that key ideas or operations that are first introduced
at a simple level are revisited later at regular intervals to be expanded and
enriched by application to new situations.
In summary, Bruners influences on numeracy teaching include:
the need for learners to be actively involved in investigating real problems and
discovering information for themselves
the need for children to work through concrete experiences before they are
ready for abstraction
the need to create learning environments that provide materials and situations
necessary to stimulate inquiry
the recognition that children who participate actively in their own learning are
more able to use and generalise the knowledge and skills they acquire.
Many of the principles embodied in the theories of Piaget, Vygotsky and

Bruner apply to the education of children beyond the early childhood period.
The following chapter raises some of the issues involved in developing
numeracy in the primary school years and beyond.
L i nk s t o m o r e ab o u t c o nc e p t d e v e l o p m e n t
Wikipedia provides a good overview of concept development. Available

online at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concept
A summary of key mathematical concepts in the preschool years is
presented in Early childhood today: Development of mathematical
concepts. Available online at: http://teacher.scholastic.com/products/
ect/mathconcepts.htm
For information related to concepts development and number sense,
see Project Math Access: Teaching mathematical concepts at: http://
s22318.tsbvi.edu/mathproject/ch1.asp
What is a mathematical concept? Available online at: http://www.emis.
de/proceedings/PME28/SO/SO036_Jahr.pdf
More on Vygotsky, Piaget and Bruner can be found at the North Central
Regional Education Laboratory website. Available online at: http://www.
ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/methods/instrctn/in5lk2-4.htm

fou r
The primary school

years and beyond
Key issues
Children commence formal schooling: A change of teaching approach.

Higher expectations. Basic numeracy should be firmly established by
the end of primary school.
Effective teaching in the primary years: Several research studies have
investigated teachers instructional skills. The results have provided a
useful window on the type of teaching that produces the best results in
numeracy and mathematics.
Teacher competency: Some teachers have great difficulty implementing
an interactive teaching approach. Many primary teachers lack expertise
and confidence in teaching mathematics. Effective teaching principles
are too rarely applied.
Secondary school: Mathematics becomes increasingly abstract. The
gap widens between high achievers and low achievers. Schools often
resort to ability grouping to cope with this problem.
Adult numeracy: An area of significant development. Recent years have
seen an increase in new policies and provisions for this population.
Children enter formal schooling with a wide range of differences in their

numeracy knowledge and skills. They also vary greatly in their feelings
toward number work and their own ability to handle it. Some are eager,
interested and confident in their own abilities; others are much less certain.
33

34 n u m erac y
Doig et al. (2003, p. 21) remarked that, The difference between preschool
and school is quite dramatic in terms of the aims, pedagogy, content of
the numeracy program and in what is expected of the children. What
happens to them over the next few years will either strengthen their skills
and confidence or will cause them to develop a distaste for mathematics,
believing they have no aptitude for what appears to them now to be a
difficult subject. Whitebread (1995, p. 11) observed that, Far too many of
our young children find learning mathematics in school difficult, lose their
confidence in mathematics, and go on to join that large swathe of the adult
population who panic at the first sight of numbers.
This chapter looks at some of the issues involved in providing high-
quality teaching to strengthen childrens numeracy skills and enhance their
interest in mathematics in the primary school years and beyond.
Transition from preschool to school

Following on from the kindergarten years, a childs entry into the reception
class will not usually see a dramatic change in teaching methods for the
first year. Although schools differ, teachers in most junior primary (infant)
schools tend to subscribe to a child-centred philosophy with an emphasis
on activity approach and avoidance of too much direct instruction. There is
continuity therefore between preschool and beginning school experiences,
providing an opportunity for some children whose early learning has not
resulted in optimum development of number sense and skills to catch
up during the first half-year. Teachers will be working to observe each
childs number ability and level of confidence, and will endeavour to plan
and provide activities that build upon previous learning and reduce any
significant gaps in childrens prior knowledge.
In the years ahead, a teachers role is to help all children understand
mathematics, compute fluently, develop concepts, solve problems, reason
logically, and engage willingly with mathematics (Kilpatrick & Swafford,
2002). The primary years are vital for achieving this goal. Methods after
the reception year soon become rather more structured and a little more
teacher-directed to ensure that mastery of basic skills is achieved alongside
learning with understanding.
During the primary years children need to acquire an adequate pro
ficiency in carrying out calculations and solving problems involving
larger numbers. The informal numeracy strategies they developed in

T h e pr i m ar y s c h o o l y ear s a n d b e y o n d 35
the earlier years are rarely adequate for this purpose, so new learning is
required. Marmasse et al. (2000, n.p.) state that, The strongest influence
on arithmetical development is formal education, which can lead to the
development of skills that would not have emerged in a more natural
environment without formal education. The teachers role is to create a
learning environment where there are opportunities for active investiga
tion and problem solving by the children (Fleer & Raban, 2005). Teachers
also have a responsibility to impart relevant mathematical information to
children and to teach specific skills and strategies.
Teaching in the primary years

There have been several important studies of the instructional approaches
used by teachers of primary and secondary school mathematics (e.g., Askew
et al., 1997; DEST, 2004; Lamb, 2004; Weiss & Pasley, 2004; Wilson
et al., 2005). A few studies have looked at mathematics teaching across
many different countries and cultures, for example the Third International
Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) (Institute of Education Sciences,
1999). TIMSS even involved the videotaping of a number of mathematics
lessons in action, allowing detailed analysis of the minute-by-minute inter
actions between teachers, students and subject matter. TIMSS will be
discussed in more detail in a moment.
From the work of Askew et al. (1997) in the United Kingdom, a
picture emerged suggesting that teachers of numeracy tend to reflect one
of three possible orientations toward the teaching process. The orientation
most in harmony with contemporary learning theory can be referred to
as connectionist. Those with a connectionist orientation make every effort
to link new learning to the childrens prior knowledge. Their aim is to
encourage conceptual understanding. They make explicit connections
within and across different mathematical topics and with real-life situa
tions. Connectionists acknowledge and make use of (connect with)
childrens own informal numeracy strategies and ideas as new topics and
skills are introduced. The second orientation is towards direct teaching
a transmissionist approach. Those subscribing to this teacher-centred
orientation believe it is important to teach explicitly the information, rules
and procedures that students will need to acquire to become numerate.
They also believe that it is important to practise essential skills until they
are mastered. The third orientation is recognised in teachers who firmly

36 n u m erac y
believe that children must discover mathematical rules and concepts for
themselves. This minimally guided discovery orientation leads the teacher
to establish situations in which learners must investigate problems, find out
information, and develop number skills and concepts for themselves. It is
believed that children will learn basic computational skills such as adding,
subtracting, multiplying and dividing through their regular engagement in
exploratory quantitative activities. Of the three orientations, Askew et al.
(1997) conclude that the connectionist seems to result in deeper learning
than either of the other approaches.
A study in the United States of America, involving students in the
K to 12 age range, set out to explore in more detail what makes a difference
in quality of mathematics instruction (Weiss & Pasley, 2004). Classroom
observations were conducted during 364 mathematics lessons. The find
ings revealed that the following variables were significant in ensuring that
students make good progress: (a) using relevant and interesting subject
matter (b) maintaining a high level of student engagement (c) using effec
tive questioning to encourage children to reflect, and (d) assisting students
to make complete sense of the subject matter (i.e., the teachers role as medi
ator and guide). This study also reported that effective teaching employing
these important principles was far from common.
Also in the United States of America, a very much earlier study of
mathematics teaching by Good and Grouws (1977) supported what they
termed an active teaching model. Good and Grouws found that effec
tive learning in mathematics could be best achieved with a structured
curriculum and a fair degree of direct teaching. Lessons were found to be
maximally effective if the teacher introduces each new topic by explicitly
linking it with previous work, provides clear process explanations and
demonstrations, uses many illustrative examples, engages students in much
guided and independent practice, and checks very frequently that students
are understanding (Good et al., 1983). This work was one of the earliest
examples of establishing research-based practice in mathematics teaching,
and it yielded powerful findings. However, the findings were never fully
implemented across schools because that style of teaching was suddenly
at odds with recommendations favouring a student-centred investigative
approach with less, not more, direct instruction (NCTM, 1989; 2000).
In Australia, a project initiated in the state of Victoria probed more
deeply into the actual tactics employed by teachers of students in Prep

to Year 4, and Years 5 and 6, as they interact with their students to bring
about learning (DEST, 2004) (see the Links box at the end of the chapter).
The researchers found that 12 tactics used by teachers were effective in
promoting students learning in the numeracy domain. These tactics were
classified as:
Excavating: uncovering what students know

Orienting: setting the scene; contextualising; reminding; linking
Modelling: demonstrating; directing; explaining; instructing; showing; telling
Collaborating: acting as co-learner; working closely with students
Guiding: cueing; prompting; navigating toward understanding
Noticing: being aware of how well students understand new work; identifying
any gaps or misconceptions; providing coaching or re-teaching
Probing: clarifying; monitoring; checking
Convince me: seeking explanations and justification from students for their
ideas
Reflecting and reviewing: recounting; considering again; summarising; sharing
Extending: challenging; taking students beyond simple ideas
Apprenticing: encouraging peer assistance; mentoring.
Many of these effective teaching tactics are reminiscent of what was dis
covered previously about highly effective teachers of mathematics in Japan.
Students in Japan and other Asian countries usually do outstandingly well
in international surveys of achievement in mathematics, so the teaching
methods used with them are of great interest. In the TIMSS research, it was
noted that effective teachers appeared to provide systematic instruction in
a way that children not only master arithmetic skills and problem-solving
strategies but also develop a genuine understanding of the subject matter.
Japanese teachers teach in an interactive way and are seen to encourage
their students participation, critical thinking and reflection at all points in
a lesson in order to encourage a conceptual level of learning. The students
spend more time devising and proving their strategies for solving problems
and less time practising routine procedures (Stigler & Hiebert, 1997). The
typical mathematics lesson in Japan involves four stages. First, the teacher
presents a problem. Then, the students are given time to attempt a solution,
often working collaboratively with a partner or in a small group. Next, their
solutions are presented to the group and there is whole-class discussion to
evaluate their ideas and the methods they used. Finally, there is a summing

38 n u m erac y
up by the teacher and an opportunity to apply the most effective strategies

to similar problems for homework (Shimizu, 1995). One of the key features
of effective lessons in Japan is the teachers final summary, providing an
overview and consolidation of what students have discovered and how it
can be applied (Benjamin, 1997). Benjamin (1997) reports that cohesion,
thoroughness, and the emphasis on understanding as well as skill in calcu
lation, are characteristic of Japanese teachers. The brisk pace of a lesson
helps to motivate students and keeps them on task and productive.
It is clear from the findings of these and other studies of teaching that
effective teachers of numeracy and mathematics employ an interactive
approach. They work closely with their students, guiding them as necessary
and providing relevant input at appropriate moments. They are successful
in engaging children fully in the business of learning; and as teachers, they
actively teach rather than relying on a sequence of textbook exercises to
enact the curriculum. They put students at the centre of each learning task,
but they use their expertise to guide and support students construction of
knowledge and their acquisition of skills and strategies.
Positive intervention: the daily numeracy hour

As a key component of its National Numeracy Strategy in 1999, the UK
government introduced the model of a daily mathematics lesson of 45
minutes to 1 hour for primary school students (DfCSF, 2007b; DfCSF,
2007c). This became known as the numeracy hour, to complement the
already existing literacy hour. It has been mirrored in similar developments
in some parts of Australia.
The guidelines for operating the numeracy hour place emphasis on an
interactive teaching approach, used within a whole-class context. Influenced,
it seems, by the data from TIMSS and other studies of effective instruction,
the session is to be conducted at a brisk pace, and there should be much
use made of mental work and discussion. Children are to be encouraged to
explain their thinking when they offer solutions and answer questions. The
typical format for the numeracy hour comprises three parts:
1 Warm up: oral and mental work for about 5 to 10 minutes

2 Main teaching activity: Investigating a problem or introducing a new concept,
for 30 to 40 minutes. This is still mainly conducted with the whole class, but
some grouping may occur and level of work may be differentiated by ability.

3 Plenary: summarising and consolidating the lesson, clearing up any miscon

ceptions, setting homework.
Reviews by Brown (2002) and Kyriacou and Goulding (2004) indicated

that the daily numeracy lesson has had some modest benefit in enhancing
primary childrens confidence and competence in early maths. However,
many teachers have not been particularly successful in running the sessions
in the interactive manner that is recommended; and there is some indi
cation that the lesson is sometimes taught in a fairly formal manner using
a whole-class teaching approach. Brown (2002) suggests that the lower-
achieving students derive little benefit from the whole-class approach
because much of the content is above their level of understanding. There is
also evidence that teachers are not really effective in the final summarising
and consolidating of the session, with many classes simply ending without
summary as soon as the main teaching section has finished. The inability of
a significant number of teachers to implement all aspects of the numeracy
hour effectively undermines its potential value (Macrae, 2003).
The National Union of Teachers (2002) expressed concern that teachers
in reception classes were feeling under pressure to introduce a numeracy
hour involving whole-class teaching with young children. It was felt that
this degree of structured teaching, particularly for blocks of 45 minutes
or more, was not appropriate at that age and is not in the childrens best
interests. Watson (2004) suggests that the teaching methods recommended
in the numeracy strategy and the numeracy hour are in danger of causing
teachers to move too rapidly through the curriculum, spending too little
time on each topic and changing tack too often, thus destroying continuity
in students learning.
It is notable that the numeracy hour has spawned a flood of resource
materials (worksheets, books of ideas, charts and planners) from commer
cial publishers. An online search under numeracy hour will reveal many
of these resources.
The key issue of teacher competence

The inability of many teachers to implement fully an interactive and flexible
numeracy lesson, together with findings from other studies that reveal poor
quality teaching in many classrooms (e.g., Weiss & Pasley, 2004), raises a
very important issue of the overall competence of primary teachers to teach

40 n u m erac y
mathematics. Stigler and Hiebert (2004) confirm that the teachers skills
and the quality and type of interaction they have with students seem to be
the most important variables in how well students learn mathematics (and
therefore how well they acquire numeracy) and the feelings they develop
about the subject. Teachers own attitude toward mathematics and their
feeling of professional competence, as well as the depth of their subject
knowledge, greatly influences the way they go about teaching the subject
(Bonner, 2006; Thornton & Hogan, 2004). Those who lack confidence
and have fairly limited subject knowledge may teach mathematics very
poorly indeed. Unfortunately, it seems likely that this is the situation in
many primary schools at this time.
Part of the problem stems from the fact that in many countries, teachers
in junior primary and primary schools are generalists rather than specialist
teachers of maths; maths is simply one of many subjects they must teach
each day. Teachers who have no great interest in maths and no special exper
tise to teach it tend to avoid a problem-based and open-ended approach
because it is difficult and unpredictable to manage. They feel insecure with
an investigative method so they avoid creating too many open-ended situ
ations, fearing that they may not be able to answer students questions
or deal with issues that may arise. Instead, they teach numeracy as if it
only involves learning mechanical arithmetic through memorisation and
repetitive practice. To achieve this narrow objective, the teachers are
most likely to use a transmission mode of instruction and simply teach
the operations without reference to childrens conceptual understanding.
In other words, they will tend to teach as they were taught themselves
in the primary school. This weakness was highlighted in an Australian
study conducted by Lamb (2004), in which teachers understanding of the
division algorithm was the focus of attention. Lamb concluded: It would
appear that the teachers do not have the depth of knowledge necessary to
teach for conceptual understanding (p. 153). She also remarks that, It is
impossible to calculate the degree of student difficulty caused by teachers
who remain ill-informed and fail to seek outside assistance yet continue to
teach (p. 167).
If teachers are to adopt the methods that research has shown to be effec
tive, this situation will need to be addressed. It will be impossible to develop
students numeracy skills to the full and to foster a positive attitude toward
mathematics, if teachers are not confident enough to operate interactive,

learner-centred methods rather than a textbook-centred approach. When

teachers are not effective in the way in which they present mathematics
they are reducing students opportunities to learn (Siemon et al., 2001).
It is, of course, almost impossible for teachers to adopt a connectionist
orientation if they themselves lack a conceptual understanding of the
subject matter. It must be admitted that for teachers who lack a sound
understanding of mathematics, it is far from easy to teach in the style
displayed by expert teachers of the subject for example, some of those
depicted in Japanese classrooms in the TIMSS videos (Institute of Education
Sciences, 1999). Chinese and Japanese teachers are reported to have a sound
conceptual understanding of mathematics themselves, resulting in less
reliance on procedural and algorithmic teaching (Ma, 1999).
Fortunately, this problem of limited expertise in non-specialist teachers
is being acknowledged now in countries such as Australia and the United
Kingdom; and although there will be no quick solution, at least there has
been an increase in the number of in-service professional development
courses with a focus on teaching mathematics, and an increase in online
and other resources available for teachers for example, TeacherNet,
provided by the Department for Children, Schools and Families in the
United Kingdom, and SOFWeb in Victoria (see the Links box below).
Projects have also been initiated to encourage teachers to support each
other in building the pedagogical skills and understandings necessary to
teach mathematics in a more realistic, flexible and effective way (e.g.,
Bonner, 2006; Carpenter et al., 1999; Clarke et al., 2000).
The secondary school years

Many students entering secondary schools have already developed func
tional numeracy as a result of their mathematical experiences in primary
school, in the home and in the community. For these students, secondary
school mathematics provides an opportunity to build on this foundation
and explore more advanced concepts. Unfortunately, for some students,
secondary school mathematics quickly becomes increasingly abstract, resul
ting in a high proportion of them losing their confidence, motivation
and initiative. They begin to doubt their own abilities and they come to
rely much more on their teacher to transmit the knowledge which they
then attempt to memorise (Watson, 2004). This in turn tends to make

42 n u m erac y
their teachers adopt a didactic approach rather than a student-centred

investigative approach.
Zawojewski and McCarthy (2007) have pointed out a very serious
mismatch between the type of maths content taught in most secondary
schools and the abilities really needed beyond school. It could be argued
that most of the content of secondary school mathematics does little to help
develop students numeracy.
It is still very common to find that secondary schools organise the
teaching of mathematics into ability groups (Turner, 2007). The mathe
matically competent students find themselves in the top set, while the
students with limited mathematical ability and little interest are placed in
the bottom set. In theory, the focus of attention in the bottom set is on
developing students numeracy to a level where they can function effec
tively at work and in the community. Attempts are made to tailor the
curriculum content and teaching method to suit the interests and learning
rate of these students. Often these adapted mathematics courses are given
catchy titles such as Consumer Maths, Life Skills Maths, Workplace
Maths. Unfortunately, the students (who frequently refer to such courses as
veggie maths) perceive them to be little more than watered down versions
of the mainstream maths course, with heavy emphasis on practising routine
arithmetic skills. In general, it can be stated that many secondary schools
need to focus on making these courses much more attractive and much
more relevant for lower-ability students by establishing a better balance
between strengthening computational skills and applying such skills to
authentic and interesting real-life issues and problems.
Adult numeracy
In several countries, interest in numeracy within the adult population
has been spurred by data from surveys such as those carried out by the
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD,
1998), the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) that has
collected data in the United States of America for more than 30 years
(Institute of Education Sciences, 2007), the International Numeracy Survey
of 1997, the National Child Development Study (Bynner & Parsons, 1997),
the Moser Report A fresh start: Improving literacy and numeracy (Moser, 1999),
and the 2003 Skills for Life Survey (Grinyer, 2006), all giving cause for

alarm. For example, in the United States of America it was found that 35
per cent of students were scoring below basic in the National Assessment
of Educational Progress maths tests (American Institutes for Research,
2006). This led to the launch of the Adult Numeracy Initiative. Similar
alarm was triggered in the United Kingdom by evidence indicating that
some 7 million individuals in the 16 to 65 age-range exhibited very poor
maths skills, and that poor numeracy had a major impact on an individuals
employability (Moser, 1999; Parsons & Bynner, 2005). Concern was also
growing regarding the decline in the number of students over the age of 16
who opt to study mathematics and science.
Studies were commissioned (e.g., Smith, 2004) and new policies made.
The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA, 2004) developed
National Standards for Adult Numeracy in 2000, and the Df EE prepared
Skills for life: The National Strategy for improving adult literacy and numeracy skills
in 2001. Since 2002, adult numeracy specifications have been introduced
for the first time in England (DfCSF, 2006; Loo, 2007; QCA, 2004). The
focus has been on providing opportunities beyond school for individuals to
acquire knowledge and skills that they failed to acquire while at school, or
that they need to update since leaving school. In the United Kingdom, the
BBC, in collaboration with the Basic Skills Agency, ran a campaign in 1997
called Count Me In. It was designed to help adults with numeracy problems
improve their skills and raise community awareness of the importance of
mathematics in daily life. The titles Count Me In and Count Me In Too have
been used in several other countries (notably Australia and New Zealand)
in connection with numeracy intervention programs for children.
In Australia, additional teaching for adults has usually been provided
under ALBE (Adult Literacy and Basic Education) schemes, via further
education centres or similar bodies. Provision for adult numeracy classes
began in a low-key way in the 1970s but gained impetus from 1991 when
the government endorsed the Australian Language and Literacy Policy
(Cumming, 1996). More recently, instructors and tutors of adult numeracy
classes are expected to have professional training in this area, and courses
now exist for this purpose (e.g., Johnston, 2002; Johnston & Tout, 1995).
Originally, adult numeracy classes tended to focus on arithmetic skills
and the application of these skills to routine problems rather than attemp
ting to link the mathematics taught to real-life contexts. There was a
tendency to work methodically through the number and computation

44 n u m erac y
components of a typical primary or lower-secondary curriculum. More

recently, every effort has been made to ensure that the content of adult
literacy and numeracy courses has a more social practices and real life
focus ( Johnston, 2002). To facilitate the linking of teaching to real life,
efforts have been made to study the numeracy needs associated with
particular areas of employment (e.g. Hagston & Marr, 2007; Hoyles et al.,
2002). Studies in this area are continuing.
In Australia, numeracy now features within the curriculum for the
Certificate in General Education for Adults (CGEA) where it is organised
under the framework of numeracy for practical purposes, numeracy for
interpreting society, numeracy for personal organisation and numeracy
for knowledge.
The teaching of numeracy to learners of any age requires a careful
balance between ensuring that computational skills are mastered on the one
hand, and that individuals become confident and competent in applying
such skills to problem solving and to everyday situations on the other. The
following chapter addresses this issue.
L i nk s t o m o r e o n n u m e r ac y i n t h e p r i m a r y
s c h o o l an d b e y o n d
A good summary of the numeracy hour, together with typical objectives

for each year in the primary school, can be found online at: http://www.
woodlands-junior.kent.sch.uk/Guide/ygroups/numer3.html
Primary Framework for Literacy & Mathematics (UK). By entering
this site and selecting mathematics you will find information about
numeracy topics for specific year levels: http://www.standards.dfes.gov.
uk/primary/frameworks
Researching numeracy teaching approaches in primary schools. DEST
2004. Available online at: http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/school_
education/publications_resources/literacy_numeracy/researching_
numeracy_teaching.htm
TeacherNet (2007). TeacherNet is sponsored by the Department for
Children, Schools and Families in the United Kingdom. For information

and resources for numeracy teaching, see: http://www.teachernet.gov.

uk/teachingandlearning/subjects/maths/teachingnumeracy/
SOFWeb: Information on numeracy from State of Victoria, Australia.
Available online at: www.sofweb.vic.edu.au/eys/num/index.htm
Adult numeracy: Core curriculum. Department for Children, Schools and
Families (UK). Available online at: http://www.dfes.gov.uk/curriculum_
numeracy/
Useful information on adult numeracy can be located at the SAALT
website. Provides links also to ANAMOL project (Adult Numeracy and
Maths Online). SAALT (Supporting Adults and Applied Learning and
Teaching). (2006). Adult numeracy. Available online at: http://www.
saalt.com.au/numeracy/background.html
An excellent document surveying the development of adult numeracy
research and practice, Johnston, B. (2002). Numeracy in the making:
Twenty years of Australian adult numeracy. Sydney: Adult Literacy and
Numeracy Australian Research Consortium, can be found online at:
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_
01/0000019b/80/1a/d0/c6.pdf

f i ve
Calculating and
problem solving
Key issues
The relative importance of computational skills: The proposed

reforms in mathematics education have encouraged downplaying of the
direct teaching of computational skills in favour of more time spent on
investigation and problem solving. However, computational skills remain
extremely important.
Automaticity as an instructional goal: Number facts and operations
need to be recalled quickly and easily by learners. Adequate practice is
essential to automate such recall.
Strategies for solving problems: Learners become better problem
solvers if they are taught appropriate strategies to apply.
Forms of knowledge that comprise numeracy: Declarative knowledge;
procedural knowledge; strategic knowledge; conceptual understanding.
The ability to compute is only a part of being numerate; but it is an

important part. Almost all numerical situations in everyday life require
an individual to be able to add, subtract, multiply or divide, often with
numbers that are too large to be manipulated mentally. It is for this reason
that to be numerate, children still need to master computational processes
as both paper-and-pencil and calculator skills. Equally important, they
need to understand the principles and concepts underpinning the various
algorithms (Booker, 2004; Thompson, 2007).
46

C a l c u l a t i n g a n d pr o b l e m s o l v i n g 47
Macrae (2003, p. 83) states that effective teaching of numeracy, as

defined in the Effective Teachers of Numeracy Project, is teaching that
helps children to:
acquire knowledge of and facility with numbers, number relations and

number operations based on an integrated network of understanding
techniques, strategies and application skills
learn how to apply this knowledge of and facility with numbers, number
relations and number operations in a variety of contexts.
This chapter examines some of the issues related to teaching computational

skills and problem-solving strategies.
The place of computational skills

Interestingly, the place of instruction in computational skills remains a
point of major contention in reforms of primary maths teaching. Perso
(2006b) compares the debate over the relative importance of computational
skills in numeracy to the ongoing debate over phonic skills in the literacy
domain. Most reformers in mathematics education urge that much less
attention and time be devoted to practising arithmetic operations; but
practitioners maintain that explicit teaching and practice of computational
skills is essential for more effective problem solving (Calhoon et al., 2007;
Farkota, 2005; Westwood, 2003).
Some authorities favour delaying the teaching of any arithmetic opera
tions until students are ready to learn them with complete understanding.
For example, in New Zealand, the Ministry of Education (2006, p. 8)
suggests that:
Students should not be exposed to standard written algorithms until they

use partwhole mental strategies. Premature exposure to working forms
restricts students ability and desire to use mental strategies. This inhibits
their development of number sense.
It is very clear that at this time the United Kingdom places much more
emphasis on developing childrens computational skills through direct
teaching than does Australia, where the official message is to give much
less attention to drill and practice and to keep everything contextualised.
In the United States of America, a similar message seems to be creating

48 n u m erac y
conflict, because on the one hand there is a call for more investigative
activities and less formal teaching of arithmetic, but on the other hand
there are warning signs that, students skills in calculation are deficient
(Kilpatrick & Swafford, 2002; Loveless & Coughlan, 2004). These poor
computation skills are possibly due to a combination of factors such as
inadequate training of primary maths teachers, greater use of calculators in
the classroom, and education reforms that emphasise activity and problem
solving over practice in basic skills (Loveless & Coughlan, 2004). It must
be remarked, however, that a slight improvement in overall achievement in
mathematics in United States of America was detected in the 2007 NAEP
results (Grades 4 and 8) (Institute for Education Sciences, 2007). This is
possibly due to an improvement in teacher preparation and a better balance
between skill development and activity methods within the curriculum
and teaching approach.
In the United Kingdom, the official line is that teachers in primary
schools should use approaches that involve both teaching for understanding
and an element of memorisation (e.g., mastery of number facts, multi
plication tables, signs and symbols) (DfCSF, 2007b). But the word
memorisation raises alarm bells in the minds of most maths education
reformers who equate it with the rote learning typical of the very teaching
approaches they are trying to replace. Some argue that the calculator can
now perform in an instant every process that a student is likely to need,
so why devote hours to paper-and-pencil arithmetic practice? (Watson,
2004). As typical of this viewpoint, Martin (2007) suggests that it is better
to have students develop their own problem-solving strategies rather than
memorise rules and procedures. And Boaler (1997) warns against leading
students to develop inert procedural knowledge that is of limited use to
them in anything other than textbook situations.
There comes a time, however, when one has to question the wisdom of
not teaching children to compute. How can a student really solve problems
other than at a very simple level, or with the help of a calculator
without having the necessary computational skills to use? The argument
that children will learn these components of numeracy simply by creating
their own mental strategies to handle number situations is attractive, but not
entirely convincing. Surely effective teaching of mathematics (and therefore
numeracy) must involve both the teaching of sound computational skills,
and the opportunity to apply these skills in investigating and recording data

and in solving authentic problems? Brown (1998) is undoubtedly correct

when recommending that, in addition to engaging in investigative maths
activities, students must, Practise skills and consolidate their recall of basic
facts (p. 84).
The teaching of numeracy requires a sensible balance between instruc
ted skills and discovered concepts, principles and applications. A purely
problem-based approach often makes unreasonable assumptions concerning
childrens ability to discover and remember mathematical relationships for
themselves. In particular, major concern arises with such methods over the
reduced attention given to developing childrens automaticity in essential
arithmetic skills. The evidence seems to indicate that some children will
not make good progress in skill development under such an approach
(Ellis 2005; Farkota, 2005). These students make much better progress in
mathematics when they are directly taught essential skills and strategies
(Carnine et al., 1998; Farkota, 2005; Pearn, 1999; Pincott, 2004).
Number facts: the importance of automaticity

Number facts is the term applied to all the simple relationships among
small numbers. Examples are, 7 + 3 = 10; 10 3 = 7; 10 7 = 3; or 3 7 = 21;
21 3 = 7; etc. Knowing number facts is partly a matter of learning them
through practice, and partly a matter of grasping a rule (e.g. that zero added
to any number doesnt change it: 3 + 0 = 3, 13 + 0 = 13, etc.; or if 7 + 3 = 10
then, 7 + 4 must be one more than ten, etc.). Some mathematics experts
believe that knowledge of number facts should be regarded as one com
ponent of number sense.
These number relationships are so fundamental that all children should
know them without having to work them out each time they need to
apply them. Number facts should be recalled instantly, with a high degree
of automaticity. The reason for this is obvious recalling basic number
facts automatically allows children to deal swiftly and effectively with
calculations and the solution of problems. They are able to focus full
attention and mental effort on the higher-order processes involved in
addressing and working through the problem, rather than to the lowest-
order steps in completing a calculation. Such automaticity is only acquired
through frequent and successful practice. According to Sun and Zhang
(2001, p. 28):

50 n u m erac y
A mastery of lower-order skills instills confidence in students and facilitates

higher-order thinking. The ability to automatically recall facts strengthens
mathematical ability, mental mathematics, and higher-order mathematical
learning. Without this automation students have difficulty performing
advanced operations.
In the United Kingdom, school inspectors now consider primary schools

to be exemplifying best practice in early numeracy if, among other things,
they are placing increased emphasis on recall of number facts and on the
ability to calculate quickly and accurately, both mentally and on paper
(OFSTED, 1997, p. 4). Prior to 1997 during the era when arithmetic
was de-emphasised teachers would have been criticised for attending too
much to these very same aspects within their mathematics programs. But
the pendulum has swung again, and in the United Kingdom at least, it is
again respectable to teach computational skills and number facts.
Of course, from the beginning, some exponents of problem-based
maths have recognised the importance of mastering these basic skills. For
example, Baker and Baker (1990, p. 103) indicated that all children should
be able to give snappy answers to number facts to ten and twenty. Similarly,
Mannigel (1992, p. 116) gave as one of the key objectives in early child
hood mathematics that children be able to recall number relationships
instantly from memory. However, these writers firmly believed that essen
tial number facts would be discovered and learned incidentally through
engaging in purposeful quantitative activities, rather than from drill and
practice exercises.
There is some evidence to support the notion that a few students do in
deed acquire mastery of number facts and computational skills simply
through activity, discovery and exploration (Baker & Baker, 1990; Thornton
et al., 1997). But it is not at all certain, however, that they acquire necessar
ily the same degree of facility in automatic recall as they might under more
direct teaching and with more time devoted to intensive practice. Nor can
we be sure that all students will acquire adequate mastery of basic number
facts through incidental learning. Just as some students seem to need more
direct teaching of basic literacy skills it seems equally evident that certain
students require more than just casual exposure to number relationships
through problem solving, discovery and discussion if they are to reach
mastery (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2001). There is evidence that when students who

are weak at recalling number facts receive additional guided practice

through methods such as computer-aided instruction their fluency in recall
and application improves significantly (Goldman & Hasselbring, 1997).
Use of a calculator
As stated above, it can be argued that in this age of the pocket calculator
it is pointless to spend time teaching children to recall number facts and
perform paper-and-pencil arithmetic operations after all, the answers are
now at their fingertips. It is certainly true that the calculator has proved
to be a boon for many students, allowing them to complete more work
and spend more time, rather than less time, on problem solving (Clark,
1999; Dion & Harvey, 2001; Drosdeck, 1995). The calculator has been
of particular value for students of high ability, enabling them to tackle
complex problems or themes, and also for students of low ability, allowing
them to bypass some of their computational weaknesses. There is no doubt
at all that developing a students confidence and competence in using a
calculator must be one of the main goals in numeracy teaching (Df ES,
2004; Huinker, 2002). However, there is a danger that children may use
a calculator without necessarily understanding the operation they have
performed. For this reason, it is advisable that, at first, calculator use for
most children should follow or accompany other more concrete work that
will build conceptual understanding of the four arithmetic processes.
Mental calculation
In the past, mental calculation was regarded as important, but attention
was devoted to it only briefly, often in the form of a test given the first five
minutes of every lesson. This writer can recall that when he was teaching
in primary schools in England in the 1950s he was provided with a book
titled The daily ten, containing all the mental arithmetic items set for each
day of the school year. Such a routine activity probably did little to help
develop numeracy since it simply tested what children could do but did not
teach them ways of improving their performance.
Recently, teachers have been encouraged to place more emphasis on chil
dren thinking about number relationships and working with them mentally
rather than resorting immediately to written algorithms or the calculator

52 n u m erac y
(Filiz & Farran, 2007; McIntosh, 2005). It is argued that writing numbers
down in that way reduces students opportunities to deepen their number
sense and develop their own insightful strategies for adding, subtracting,
multiplying and dividing (Kamii, 1994). Mardjetko and Macpherson (2007)
even suggest delaying the formal teaching of paper-and-pencil algorithms
until children have flexible mental computational strategies.
Some students appear to have particular difficulty keeping numbers in
mind (i.e., within their working memory space) long enough to complete
a mental calculation. For example, if the teacher says, Red team scored 9
points. Blue team scored 7 points. Green team scored 12 points. How many
points scored altogether by the three teams? Before these children can add
the three numbers together mentally, they have forgotten what the numbers
were. One simple teaching tactic in such cases is to jot the numerals down
anywhere on the whiteboard in random order (not in horizontal or vertical
algorithm format) as the problem is presented. Having this key information
available in visual form enables many more children to add the numbers
mentally. Their problem was in retaining the auditory information, not in
mentally calculating an answer.
In the United Kingdom, the increased attention given to mental
calculation appears to be having some benefits. Ineson (2007) found an
improvement when comparing standards measured in the first year of
introduction of the numeracy hour with standards obtained six years later.
Ian Thompsons website (see the Links box at the end of the chapter)
provides more information related to helping children improve in mental
calculation. His material is strongly recommended.
Teaching problem solving

Reys et al. (2006) regard problem solving not so much as a subsection of
the mathematics curriculum but rather as a method of teaching. Working
with problems provides the most relevant way to help students engage in
interesting learning and at the same time develop functional numeracy
(OECD, 2002).
When discussing computation, number facts and mental arithmetic
above the impression may have been given that children need to acquire a
foundation of arithmetic skills before they can even begin to engage in any
real problem solving. This is certainly not the case; the two developments

must go hand in hand. Instead of being seen as something that you move
on to later after you have mastered arithmetic, problems should provide
an interesting and motivating way for new skills to be acquired. But, in an
appropriately balanced numeracy program, time also needs to be devoted
to the teaching, practice and consolidation of computational skills.
The topic of problem solving and how to teach it is vast; so it is beyond
the scope of this book to go into problem-solving strategies in great detail.
It can also be argued that higher-order problem solving really involves
knowledge, skills and strategies that are beyond the generally accepted
boundaries of what constitutes everyday numeracy. Here we will consider
some of the more general issues involved in helping children approach
maths problems strategically and with confidence.
First, we need to recognise that solving an authentic problem is rarely
as easy as simply applying a pre-taught algorithm. Real-life problems are
often messy in the sense that, to begin with, one is not sure which bits
of available information are important and which are not. However, there
are logical steps we can take in approaching most problems. A problem
needs to be analysed, explored for possible actions to take, a decision made
concerning procedures to use, calculations performed either mentally
or by other means, and then the result checked. As well as the cognitive
processes involved in this approach, such as identifying what is required and
performing the necessary calculations, the individual solving the problem
also needs to use metacognitive skills such as reflection, self-monitoring,
and self-correction (Booker et al., 2004). For example, the list below
identifies some of the self-directing questions that an individual could ask
when approaching a problem.
What needs to be worked out? (identification of goal)

Can I picture this problem in my mind? (visualisation strategy)
How will I try to do this? (selection or creation of a strategy; identification of
the operations and steps required)
Is this working out OK? (self-monitoring)
How will I check if my solution is correct? (evaluation)
Is my answer reasonable? (reflection and judgement)
I need to correct this error and then try again. (self-correction)
Students will often generate their own strategies for tackling a particular
problem, but those who find this process difficult need practice in sifting

54 n u m erac y
the relevant from the irrelevant information, identifying exactly what the
problem requires, and deciding the best way of obtaining and checking the
result. In other words, they need to be taught the very things that other
students who are efficient and confident problem-solvers already know and
do. To achieve this outcome, direct teaching in the early stages is a neces
sary step toward later independence (Swanson, 1999).
Much of what we already know about effective teaching has an impor
tant place in teaching problem-solving strategies. In particular, the teacher
needs to provide students with the following forms of guidance:
clear modelling and demonstrating of effective strategies for solving a

particular routine or non-routine problem
thinking aloud while identifying and analysing various aspects of the
problem
thinking aloud while selecting and applying appropriate procedures for the
solution
reflecting upon the effectiveness of the procedure used and the plausibility of
the solution obtained.
Once students have been shown an effective strategy, they need an

opportunity to apply it themselves under teacher guidance with feedback.
Finally, they are able to use the strategy independently and to generalise its
use to other problem contexts. If all students are to develop problem-solving
skills, time must be made available for discussing, comparing and reflecting
on methods of solution with other individuals (peers, adults). Teaching in
Japanese schools, as described earlier, reflects just such an approach.
Xin and Jitendra (1999) and Swanson (1999) have reviewed results from
a number of intervention studies designed to improve the problem-solving
ability of students with learning difficulties. Their conclusion is that it is
certainly possible to improve this area of performance using strategy train
ing. Their analysis of the research indicates that longer-term interventions
are very much more effective than short-term interventions, and students
need to gain strong independent control of the strategies themselves if there
is to be any likelihood of the learning being generalised. Gaining such
control requires students to reason and reflect upon the procedures they
use, not merely carry them out by rote. It is said that students who learn
to monitor and regulate their own problem-solving behaviour show most
improvement in problem solving (van de Walle, 2006).

Knowledge that learners need to acquire

From all that has been said in this and previous chapters it seems that in the
domain of numeracy a learner needs to acquire four types of knowledge
declarative, procedural, conceptual and strategic. These different forms
of knowledge are mutually supportive and are used together in different
combinations when we calculate and solve problems. Declarative knowledge
is represented by our fund of factual information; for example, we know
that the numeral 14 is read as fourteen, that $ means dollar, that 2 x
8 = 16, and that a period of 60 minutes is called one hour. Declarative
knowledge is (or should be) available for instant recall. Procedural knowledge
involves knowing the most effective sequence of steps in performing an
operation; for example, in the vertical algorithm for addition, we usually
start on the right-hand side by adding units together, but in a division
algorithm, we work from left to right, dividing thousands or hundreds first;
and so forth. Conceptual knowledge represents all the connected knowledge
and information we have acquired about different attributes of an object, a
process or a situation; for example, being able to understand and visualise
the division process as the equal partitioning of a group of items. Strategic
knowledge represents our acquired repertoire of effective ways in which a
task can be approached or a problem can be solved. To be numerate, an
individual needs to possess these four types of knowledge to a level that
enables him or her to function effectively at school and in the community.
Not all students find it easy to achieve this level of numeracy, as the next
chapter explains.
L i nk s t o m o r e o n calc u lat i n g an d p r o bl e m
s o lv i n g
Not all experts support a purely constructivist approach to mathematics

teaching. Read a perspective from New York (2003) regarding curricula
that lack adequate attention to the teaching of arithmetic skills.
Available online at: http://www.nychold.com/pr-cf-030104.html
A valuable website is provided by Ian Thompson. You will find many
articles that can be downloaded covering topics such as teaching
>

56 n u m erac y
mental calculation, place value, calculators, written calculation methods

and much more. Available online at: http://www.ianthompson.pi.dsl.
pipex.com
A staff development seminar from New Zealand on teaching and
assessing number facts is available online at: http://www.nzmaths.
co.nz/Numeracy/Other%20material/Tutorials/BasicFactsNzmaths.
ppt#291,1
DfES. (2004a). Guidance paper: The use of calculators in teaching and
learning mathematics. Available online at: http://www.standards.dfes.gov.
uk/primaryframeworks/downloads/PDF/calculators_guidance_paper.pdf
DfES. (2004b). Approaches to calculation. Available online at: http://
www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/secondary/keystage3/downloads/ma_
study015604_mod1.pdf
TeacherNet: http://www.teachernet.gov.uk/teachingandlearning/subjects/
maths/Numeracy
Burns, M. (2007). 7 basics for teaching arithmetic today. Scholastic
Website. Available online at: http://teacher.scholastic.com/professional/
teachstrat/arith.htm
Resources and ideas for teaching number and place value. Available
online at: http://teachingideas.co.uk/maths/contents04number.htm
Resources for teaching the four operations. Available online at: http://
math.about.com/od/fouroperations/Add_Subtract_Multiply_Divide.htm
Sherman, L., & Weisstein, E. W. (2004). Arithmetic. From MathWorld:
A Wolfram Web Resource. Available online at: http://mathworld.wolfram.
com/Arithmetic.html
The New Zealand Numeracy Development Project (NDP) provides nine
guidebooks for teachers covering most aspects of number work and
computation. Details are available online at: http://www.nzmaths.co.nz/
Numeracy/2007numPDFs/pdf_updates.aspx
McIntosh, R., & Jarrett, D. (2000). Teaching mathematical problem
solving: Implementing the vision. Available online at: http://www.nwrel.
org/msec/images/mpm/pdf/monograph.pdf
Problem solving strategies: Math. Available online line at: http://math.
about.com/library/weekly/aa041503a.htm

s i x
Barriers to
numeracy
Key issues
The method of teaching is often a contributory cause of learning

difficulty: For example, too much attention (or too little attention) given
to computational skills; lack of explicit instruction; loss of continuity;
pace too rapid; poor communication.
Other causes: Absence from school; changing schools; textbooks.
Specific learning disability: Do some students have a disability that
causes them to have major difficulties when processing quantitative data?
Studies already referred to (e.g., American Institutes for Research, 2006;

Moser, 1999; OECD, 1998) revealed the unfortunate fact that many stu
dents leave school with fairly limited numeracy skills and often a marked
dislike for (or even fear of ) mathematics. Great concern has been expressed
over this unacceptable situation, leading to some major new initiatives in
providing additional opportunities for adults who wish to revisit mathe
matics and gain more effective numeracy skills through evening classes and
other provisions (Coben, 2003; McGlynn, 1999).
What are the factors that have contributed to the failure of a significant
number of students? Is the subject matter of mathematics simply too abstract
for most students to understand and master? Can the problem be traced back
to the method of teaching? Do these individuals who have great difficulty
57

58 n u m erac y
with almost all aspects of the subject have some form of learning disability?
These issues will be addressed in this chapter.
Teaching method as a cause of difficulty

It is not the case that the subject matter of mathematics is intrinsically
impenetrable to all but an elite few students. Nor must it ever be assumed
that all students who have difficulties with the subject have an innate
disability that specifically prevents them from learning mathematical con
cepts and operations. While it is true that such a disability does appear
to exist, it affects only a very tiny percentage of the population, not
the 3540 per cent said to have significant difficulty with mathematics
(American Institutes for Research, 2006). Instead, it can be inferred from
points in previous chapters that a major contributory cause of learning
difficulty in mathematics is poor quality teaching. Martin (2007) observes
that innumeracy, or mathematical illiteracy, may not be the result of the
subject matter taught, but the pedagogy used to teach it.
Once children enter formal schooling, the effectiveness of the instruc
tion they receive is the major influence on their progress toward numeracy.
There are many ways in which the teaching of mathematics in primary
and secondary schools falls short of the ideal (Boaler, 1999; Booker, 2004;
Lamb, 2004; Weiss & Pasley, 2004). Often the problem relates to an
imbalance between the amount of attention given to building fluency in
computational skills compared to the time devoted to problem solving and
to applying such skills. But other negative factors also contribute to poor-
quality teaching.
Too much discovery-type activity without adequate

guidance and support
Some learning problems occur when student-centred inquiry methods are
used inefficiently. In attempting to implement an investigative approach, a
teacher may fail to provide students with essential information to help them
make complete sense of their discoveries and refine their existing strategies.
The research evidence is strongly against the effectiveness of entirely open-
ended and minimally guided discovery methods because most students
need a great deal of support from their teacher in interpreting their findings
and accommodating these within their existing mental schema (Kirschner
et al., 2006; Mayer, 2004).

Barr i er s t o n u m erac y 59
Too little attention given to mastery of number facts

and computational skills
Inability to calculate quickly and accurately is one of the main
characteristics of students with difficulties. Again, if teachers follow the
recommendations from the education reforms, they may get the message
that doing arithmetic is unnecessary and represents the most boring and
meaningless way to develop numeracy. Common sense, however, should
tell us that proficiency in calculation is still an essential sub-skill of problem
solving, as emphasised in the previous chapter. A problem-based approach
is relatively ineffective if students cant compute quickly and accurately.
But computational skills need to be taught in a way that ensures students
fully understand the principles on which the various algorithms operate,
rather than simply learning them by rote as a set of steps to follow. Booker
(2004, p. 139) has remarked:
It is a focus on procedures learnt by rote which leads to most of the difficul

ties that students experience in mathematics. If materials are not used,
students may not be able to visualize the significance of the steps in the
processes they are attempting to complete.
The ability to recall number facts and to perform basic addition, subtraction,
division and multiplication needs to be firmly established. Automaticity
in applying these skills can only be achieved with adequate practice
(Westwood, 2003). Investigative approaches, if used alone, are generally
deficient in this respect.
Too much attention given to computational skills

This is the other side of the coin. Learning difficulties and a poor attitude to
mathematics can occur if a teacher errs in the opposite direction by teaching
mainly mechanical arithmetic and neglecting more motivating ways of
making mathematics meaningful (Boaler, 1999; Martin, 2007). It has been
noted already that this tendency to focus too much on arithmetic exists in
primary schools when non-specialist teachers lack sufficient understanding
of the scope, purposes and nature of mathematical learning. These teachers
teach in the way that they were taught, with textbook and worksheets,
because it is easy and it is secure. Most teachers of primary classes have not
learned mathematics themselves in the way they are now expected to teach
it. Of course, this problem is not confined to primary schools; secondary

60 n u m erac y
schools often resort to teaching mathematical concepts and operations in

a highly formal manner, giving little attention to whether or not students
understand fully what they are doing.
Curriculum content covered too rapidly

It was noted previously in relation to teaching the numeracy hour that some
teachers do not allocate sufficient time for studying each topic or concept
before moving to something new (Kyriacou & Goulding, 2004; Watson,
2004). Under these fast-paced conditions, students do not really assimilate
and master essential concepts and skills so learning difficulties can arise.
The same thing can occur, of course, when covering the mathematics
curriculum too quickly by any other teaching method.
Lack of continuity
Within the domain of mathematics, essential concepts, strategies and skills
tend to develop over time in a hierarchical and sequential manner, pro
gressing from simple to more complex. If teachers pick and mix topics
without reference to their cognitive demands, some students will have diffi
culties coping with them. Problems of continuity can occur, for example,
with discovery-based methods because it is impossible to ensure that each
new problem, topic or issue will involve number skills and concepts that
are developmentally appropriate for students of a given age. Butterworth
(1999, p. 298) has observed:
There are many reasons for being bad at any school subject. But school
maths is like a house of cards: the cards in the bottom layer must be firmly
and accurately constructed if they are to support the next layer up. Each
stage depends on the last.
Teachers less than perfect communication skills

The learning of mathematics in school is greatly enhanced when teachers
present information clearly, use language that is easily understood by stu
dents, and make the subject more real and visual by using practical examples,
diagrams, manipulatives, computer simulations and models. Silver and
Hagin (2002) state that without concrete, visual, and experiential back-
up, verbal problem-solving approaches may leave many students lost. If

teachers spend too much time lecturing, asking questions that are vague
and poorly focused, and if they fail to define mathematical terms adequately,
many students will have difficulties.
Teachers need to be effective communicators when offering explan
ations to students, clarifying students ideas, and answering students queries
(Westwood, 1998). They also need to develop excellent skills in demon
strating mathematical operations and problem-solving strategies on the
board and with concrete materials. Much confusion arises in mathematics
classes when teachers are poor communicators.
Moving to an abstract and symbolic level too soon

In the preschool and early school years children acquire their understanding
of quantitative relationships almost entirely from their real-life concrete
experiences, and through seeing, handling and visualising objects.
Gradually, they are ready to move from the concrete operational stage and
begin to use symbols to represent quantities and the operations that can be
performed with those quantities. This process of moving from concrete to
abstract level of reasoning marks the point at which some children begin
to have difficulty with mathematics (Booker, 2004; Heddens, 1986). If
teachers abandon the use of materials and visual aids too soon and begin
to teach new material using only chalk, talk, numerals and mathematical
notation, some children will begin to lose the underlying meaning of
number operations and will be forced to resort to rote memorisation of
rules and procedures (Booker, 1999).
Inadequate review and revision

Students will simply forget the mathematics they have been learning and
will therefore fail to become fully numerate, if they are not given an
opportunity to revisit concepts and skills frequently. Research outlined in
Chapter 4 has shown clearly that one of the features of effective teaching of
mathematics is regular review and revision of work that has been completed
in previous weeks. Bruners (1966) notion of a spiral curriculum applies
here. Instead of presenting the mathematics curriculum in a linear manner,
moving steadily on from topic to topic, teachers should regularly revisit
previous concepts and skills. They can do this by creating new and more
challenging tasks or problems where students can apply this prior learning

62 n u m erac y
again. Connectionist teachers make an effort to link new work with what
students have experienced before.
Teachers failing to address students individual

differences
While teachers quickly become aware that some students are finding
mathematics difficult, it is fairly rare that they make any significant adjust
ments to attempt to tailor the teaching to students level or rate of learning.
Fahsl (2007) suggests that the instructional needs of these students can be
met more successfully if teachers make some simple modifications to the
general approach used in the classroom. This obviously becomes increas
ingly necessary if a class contains some students with special educational
needs. She offers practical examples such as:
encouraging the use of multiplication table-charts and calculators to bypass

some of their weaknesses in computation
representing concepts and operations in a visual and concrete manner by
making greater use of structural apparatus, diagrams or sketches, in both
primary and secondary schools
breaking new work down into smaller units rather than presenting an infor
mation overload
distributing problems and tasks on printed sheets to avoid students wasting
time and making errors when copying from the blackboard/whiteboard
checking more closely for students understanding at each step in the lesson
providing students who have untidy bookwork with squared paper instead of lined
or blank sheets to help them keep figures and recordings correctly aligned
varying homework tasks according to students needs (i.e., for extension, or for
further practice).
Other contributory causes
Absence from school

Due to the hierarchical nature and interconnectedness of mathematical
concepts, this subject is affected more than any other if a student is fre
quently absent from school. Gaps in learning will occur. It is difficult for the
student to understand and catch up with the work when he or she returns
to the class.

Moving to a new school

Discontinuity resulting in confusion can also occur when a student moves
from one school to another. Differences in curricula can result in learning
difficulties.
Inappropriate textbooks
Textbooks and other instructional materials can contribute to childrens
learning difficulties in mathematics. In an ideal situation, a textbook will
contain sufficient worked examples of particular problems and operations
to enable a student to learn from these as well as from the teacher and peers.
Many textbooks still fail in this respect and are therefore less than helpful
to a student who needs to go over work again at home. It is also common
to find that textbooks do not provide enough practice items to meet the
needs of the students who require more than the usual amount of repetition
in order to master new concepts and skills.
The detrimental effect of failure

Finally, we must consider the impact of ongoing failure in mathematics on
a students learning and motivation. Although this adverse impact is the
result of learning difficulty rather than a primary cause of it, it must be
considered here because it greatly exacerbates the learning problem. The
impact of persistent failure produces a very damaging effect on a students
self-esteem, self-efficacy, confidence, motivation and attitude towards the
subject. In particular, ongoing failure impairs a students willingness to
persevere in the face of difficulties (Chinn & Ashcroft, 1998). Learned
helplessness and avoidance tactics are common among students who have
difficulty mastering basic mathematics, because they attribute their failure
to their own lack of ability (Houssart, 2002).
The nature of students difficulties

All students who are weak in mathematics have a fairly characteristic
pattern of difficulties. Some of these difficulties will be referred to again in
Chapter 7. They can be summarised here as:
poorly developed number sense

general slowness and uncertainty in carrying out even routine calculations.

64 n u m erac y
This slowness reduces the amount of practice the student actually engages in
during lessons and prevents the development of automaticity and fluency
uncertainty in translating number words into correct numerals
extremely untidy bookwork leading to errors. This weakness seems to be due
either to fine-motor coordination difficulties and poor spatial ability, or to an
attitudinal problem
major difficulties in learning and recalling basic number facts, multiplication
tables, and computational procedures
difficulty appreciating the relative size of numbers
very poor understanding of place-value (e.g. that in the number 111 the first
numeral on the left represents 100 while the final numeral represents 1 unit)
difficulty comprehending the exact meaning of specific mathematical terms
major problems with understanding what is required in word problems and in
selecting correct operations
lack of effective strategies for approaching mathematical tasks and problems
inability to recognise when an obtained answer is not reasonable
reading difficulties associated with the textbook or worksheet.
A few students exhibit extreme difficulty in becoming numerate. Psych

olgists believe that these students have a specific disability that impairs their
capacity to deal with quantitative data and to master the abstract nature of
mathematics. These students are said to have dyscalculia (Michaelson, 2007),
a term that is now subsumed within the more recent classification
mathematics disability (Geary, 2005). Michaelson (2007, p. 21) says that
dyscalculia is a debilitating disorder that affects a persons ability to
conceptualise operations and processes of fundamental mathematics.
Dyscalculia
Dyscalculia (or more correctly, developmental dyscalculia) is a form of learn
ing difficulty presumed to be of neurological origin, probably genetically
determined and perhaps affecting up to 3 per cent of the population
(Colwell, 2003; Landerl et al., 2004; Munro, 2003). The bible of psycho
logical assessment the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
(APA, 2000) places the prevalence rate at about 1 per cent. Given that at
least 35 per cent of all students do not achieve well in mathematics, dys
calculia is obviously not the primary cause of learning difficulty in most of

these cases. In the majority of cases learning difficulties are caused by the
quality of teaching.
Instead of using the term dyscalculia, the International Classification of
Diseases (ICD-10) (WHO, 2007) prefers the term specific disorder of
arithmetic skills and applies the description to individuals who are not
intellectually impaired and have received normal schooling but display
major weaknesses in dealing with numbers and carrying out calculations.
These disorders are considered to stem from some type of subtle
neurological dysfunction. Landerl et al. (2004) believe dyscalculia reflects
a brain-based deficit that specifically affects numerical processing and is not
due to weaknesses in other cognitive processes such as attention, memory
or visual perception.
The following characteristics are often reported for these students:
poor mathematical concept development

lack of understanding of mathematical terms
confusion over printed symbols and signs
extremely poor recall of number facts
weak multiplication skills
poor procedural skills
inability to determine which processes to use in solving problems
poor bookwork with misaligned columns of figures
frequent reversal of single figures and reversal of tens and units
(e.g. 34 written as 43)
difficulties with reading text compound the students problem in maths.
Individuals with dyscalculia differ in the extent to which they exhibit

these particular difficulties. Dowker (2005) says that dyscalculia may have
a wide range of causes and therefore presents with different patterns of
impairment. She suggests that the specific abilities of students with this
difficulty are patchy, with some concepts or skills being relatively stronger
or weaker than others.
Of course, it can be argued that these difficulties are evident in very
many students who do poorly in mathematics, and certainly they are not
unique to dyscalculic students. However, it is the severity of the problems
and their resistance to normal remedial intervention that set dyscalculic
students apart from others with learning difficulties.

66 n u m erac y
It has been suggested that one of the main underlying weaknesses in

students with dyscalculia is limited capacity in working memory (McLean
& Hitch, 1999). Working memory is very important for efficient processing
of information during problem solving and when completing mathematical
calculations. Learners have to store verbal and numerical information in
working memory while at the same time processing various steps within a
procedure. They also need to be able to retrieve relevant information from
memory quickly and efficiently. It is interesting that limitation in working
memory in the kindergarten years has proved to be one of the predictors of
possible future mathematics learning difficulties (Gersten et al., 2005).
Lyon et al. (2003) suggest that within the dyscalculic population two
sub-groups exist: (a) those individuals with significant difficulties in
learning and retrieving number facts, and (b) those who have difficulty
learning and applying the procedures involved in calculating. Geary (1993)
concurs, and adds a third group (visuo-spatial subtype) with problems in
misreading and misrepresenting place values, occasionally reversing and
transposing numerals, and great untidiness in setting out bookwork.
Dyscalculia is rarely identified early. Often students are not referred for
assessment until the fifth year of school or later. For this reason, there has
been a recent increase in interest in designing screening procedures to help
detect children at risk in the kindergarten years (e.g., Butterworth, 2003;
Mazzocco & Thompson, 2005). From these studies, predictors of potential
mathematical disability have been identified. The main predictors include
not knowing which of two digits is larger, lacking effective counting
strategies, poor fluency in identification of numbers, inability to add
simple single-digit numbers mentally and limitations in working memory
capacity.
It is important to state again that a specific disability in mathematics
learning is relatively uncommon. Teachers should never assume that every
student with poor results in mathematics has dyscalculia. It is far more
likely that their learning difficulty is due to insufficient teaching, or reduced
opportunity to learn in earlier years. Their problem is now being main
tained by secondary emotional and attitudinal reactions such as learned
helplessness, loss of confidence and motivation. The action that teachers
need to take in relation to all students with learning difficulties, whether
due to dyscalculia or other reasons, is to assess their current knowledge and
skills as accurately as possible, and provide instruction that will build

effectively on what they already know. The important issue of assessment

is the focus of the following chapter.
L i nk s t o m o r e o n d i ff i c u l t i e s i n l e a r n i n g
m at h e m at i c s
For information on adapting mathematics for students with intellectual

disability, see Planning, teaching and assessing the curriculum for pupils
with learning difficulties: Mathematics (2001). London: Qualifications
and Curriculum Authority. Available online at: http://www.nc.uk.net/ld/
dump/Ma_ld.pdf
Yetkin, E. (2003). Student difficulties in learning elementary
mathematics. ERIC Digest. ED482727. Available online at: http://www.
ericdigests.org/2004-3/learning.html
Wikipedia has a very good entry dealing with dyscalculia, including a
comprehensive list of symptoms at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
For general information on dyscalculia, together with advice on
improving computational skills, number facts and problem solving, see
Dyscalculia defined. In NetNews 5, 4, n.p. (2005). Available online at:
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_
01/0000019b/80/1b/ed/84.pdf
Practical advice on teaching basic number skills is provided in Geller,
C. H. (2000). Strategies for teaching arithmetic: What are the facts?
Learning Disabilities Journal, 10, 4, 1519. Available online at: http://
www.ldam.org/pdf/journal/2000/11-00_arithmetic.pdf
Dowker, A. (2004). What works for children with mathematical
difficulties? Research Report RR554. London: DfES, at: http://www.
dfes.gov.uk/research/data/uploadfiles/RR554.pdf

seve n
Assessment
Key issues
Assessment allows teachers to monitor the effectiveness of their

teaching: Assessment should be linked closely with the objectives and
standards specified in the mathematics curriculum.
Assessment enables teachers to modify their numeracy program if
necessary: When teachers have precise information about students
current knowledge and skills they can match their instruction and
learning tasks more accurately to students ability.
Assessment identifies which students are having difficulties and
require additional assistance: Testing of a class will reveal which
students are making very good progress, which students are progressing
at a satisfactory level, and which students need support. Additional
diagnostic testing of the at-risk group will reveal the type of support
needed.
There are many ways in which teachers can assess students
numeracy: Examples include observation, testing, examining work
samples, analysing students errors and conducting diagnostic interviews.
Some forms of assessment are required at education system level:
These tests are used to monitor and report standards across schools.
In order to monitor the development of numeracy in an individual student,

in a whole class of students, or in all schools across an education system,
it is necessary to conduct regular assessments. These assessments take
many forms, ranging from the informal minute-by-minute observations
68

Assessment 69
that a teacher makes while conducting a lesson, through to large-scale

testing projects such as the National Assessment Program in Literacy
and Numeracy (NAPLAN) in Australia, or the National Assessment of
Educational Progress (NAEP) in the United States of America.
When the era of standards and accountability in education arrived it
heralded an increase in the number of assessments of students learning
that are made and reported each year. Lokan et al. (2000) describe many
forms of such assessment in the numeracy domain. Similarly, the Numeracy
assessment guide, produced by the Department of Education in Victoria,
summarises several assessment procedures and discusses their applicability,
strengths and limitations (Department of Education, Victoria, 2007).
Different forms of assessment within mathematics serve a number of
different purposes. For example, early assessment of young children is
usually conducted to obtain a clear picture of each childs knowledge and
skills on entry to school and to identify any children who may require
more than the usual amount of support in their learning (Commonwealth
Department of Education, Science and Training, 2002; Doig et al., 2003).
At the other end of the age range, senior students receive a very different
form of assessment to determine their mathematical knowledge and skills
in order to report such data accurately to potential employers or for entry
into tertiary studies. Ysseldyke and Tardrew (2007) confirm that regular
assessment of students progress makes it more feasible for a teacher to
differentiate instruction and resources more effectively.
In Australia, all states and territories have adopted some form of early
assessment of childrens number knowledge. For example, New South Wales
has the Schedule for early number assessment; Queensland includes numeracy
within its Diagnostic Net covering the first three years of school; Tasmania
assesses number skills against the Key Intended Numeracy Outcomes (KINOs).
Details of these and other numeracy assessment programs can be found in
Assessment of literacy and numeracy in the early years of schooling: An overview
(Commonwealth Department of Education, Science and Training, 2002).
Purposes of assessment
It has become popular to identify three main purposes of assessment in
schools and elsewhere as assessment for learning, assessment as learning, and
assessment of learning (Manitoba Education, Citizenship and Youth, 2006).

70 n u m erac y
1 Assessment for learning refers to using assessment data to improve the

teaching program by finding out exactly what students know, where they are
having difficulty, and how best to support their development. This form of
assessment guides a teachers decision making and leads to action that will
enhance learning.
2 Assessment as learning refers to assessment that causes students to monitor
their own performance and think more deeply about their own learning
needs. It causes them to examine more closely their thinking processes and
strategies as they endeavour to construct knowledge and reflect upon their
results. Students become more effective learners if they can self-assess and
identify their own learning strengths, weaknesses and needs.
3 Assessment of learning refers mainly to assessment of students overall
achievement relative to the goals, objectives or standards for the curriculum.
Classroom assessment of development in numeracy serves the same basic

functions as assessment in other areas. In respect to assessments made by
teachers on a regular basis, these functions include:
checking the overall efficacy of the teaching program

identifying any concepts, strategies or operations which may need to be re-
taught, reviewed or practised further with the whole class
determining the stage of development any particular student has reached
gaining information on an individual students specific weaknesses and special
instructional needs.
In order to determine whether a teaching approach is effective it is

necessary to assess students knowledge, skills and strategies on a regular
basis (DfCSF, 2007a). Such assessment in numeracy is recommended to
take one of three possible forms short-term, medium-term and longer-
term. Short-term assessment relates to the observations a teacher makes
concerning childrens understanding and performance during any lesson.
Short-term assessments are often referred to as formative. Such assessment
allows for re-teaching of any concept or operation if necessary, or allocation
of additional practice time. Short-term assessment can also lead to timely
remedying of misconceptions. Medium-term assessment allows a teacher
to appraise students progress over a longer time (e.g., every six weeks, or
at half-term). Longer-term assessment relates to evaluation of learning over
the school year and provides information for students next teacher, for

Assessment 71
parents, for the authorities and (in the case of secondary school students)
sometimes for potential employers. This longer-term assessment is based
mainly on the learning objectives or standards stated in the curriculum for
students of a given age. Both medium- and longer-term assessments are
often referred to as summative.
Coben (2003, p. 66) summarises the three main forms of assessment in
stating that:
Assessment may be regarded as the sharp end of curriculum development;
the point at which teachers endeavour to establish what an intending
learner already knows (diagnostic assessment), devise or adjust programmes
of study according to the progress the learner is making (formative
assessment) or find out whether what has been taught has been learned
(summative assessment).
In relation to using assessment to evaluate the effectiveness of teaching,
McIntosh (2007) recommends that teachers should look for and record
evidence of students improvements in the following areas: conceptual
understanding, knowledge of facts, number sense, competence in applying
skills, problem-solving ability, attitude and confidence. Such evidence may
be collected by any (or all) of the methods described below.
Approaches to assessment
In the numeracy domain, the following procedures are commonly used to
obtain relevant information:
observation of the students while engaged in mathematical activities

questioning students individually, or within small-group contexts
analysing samples of the students written work, including exercise books and
portfolios
applying teacher-made or published tests
using an inventory or checklist of essential knowledge and skills
diagnostic testing and individual interview (which may also include the use of
any or all of the above procedures).
Observation
A teacher will know in advance what to look for during a mathematics les
son in terms of childrens understanding and application; direct observation

72 n u m erac y
of students at work can provide this evidence. Observing students as they

answer and ask questions and as they work on tasks in the classroom pro
vides a teacher with valuable insights related not only to their level of
understanding of the lesson content but also affective aspects of their
engagement in the work. For example, the teacher will notice if the stu
dents are intrinsically motivated by the problems and tasks, and if they are
confident, hesitant or anxious. It will also be evident whether the students
are monitoring their own performance and self-correcting when necessary.
Careful observation of students at work will reveal any difficulties students
have in keeping on task and completing assigned work. The teacher obtains
a fairly clear picture of which students are progressing well and which
individuals require additional follow-up.
Reys et al. (2006) advocate that teachers keep reasonably detailed
records of what they have observed during lessons, particularly where the
evidence suggests that something may need to be taught again, or where
additional practice or different examples may be required. Booker et al.
(2004) provide some very useful examples of concise record keeping at the
individual student and whole-class levels.
Checklists
One way to structure the process of observation and data collection from
time to time is to use some form of checklist containing a concise summary
of concepts, knowledge and skills that students are expected to have
mastered by a certain age. Using representative curriculum content from
the current and earlier years, teachers can construct their own informal
numeracy checklist or inventory containing an appropriate bank of items.
Such a list can be very useful in surveying quickly and effectively what
particular students already know and what they still need to practise. Bahr
(2007) recommends using a simple inventory of this type to obtain an
overview of the range of ability in a new class.
Work samples
Much diagnostic information can be gleaned from looking carefully
through students exercise books, homework, test papers and mathematics
projects. Samples of rough workings, for example, may reveal not only
faulty computation but may throw some light on the strategies the student
has invented and tested while attempting a difficult or unusual problem.
Such papers may also reveal clues that the student is still working at a

Assessment 73
semi-concrete level (e.g., the use of tally marks in the margin for adding
or dividing; tiny drawings to help visualise the problem). Any areas of
difficulty that are detected can then become the focus of a more in-depth
diagnostic interview as described below.
Work samples can include students portfolios. A mathematics portfolio
might contain such items as homework samples, drawings, diagrams,
test sheets, teachers checklists, solutions to problems that the student has
attempted, interpretive writings and students self-appraisals (Koca & Lee,
1998). Van de Walle (2006) suggests that portfolios should also contain
students own self-evaluation comments and reflections.
Testing
Used alone, a test is not an adequate measure of a students ability; it
is only one step in the process of collecting data to assist with decision
making (McAsey, 1999). All data from testing needs to be supplemented
with information obtained by different means. However, effective teachers
do make good use of tests for both diagnostic purposes and to measure
students overall achievement.
Teacher-made tests should be directly linked to the objectives set for that
particular unit of work and are often referred to as curriculum based or
outcomes based. Clear objectives make the design of assessment materials
easier because they indicate not only what knowledge or skill the student
must demonstrate but also the standard that is required.
The ideal teacher-designed test should embody the following features:
The test begins with a few easy items to allow even the least able students to
experience some success.
At least two, preferably three, items are provided at the same level of difficulty
to enable the teacher later to differentiate random and careless errors from
those that are persistent.
A variety of question formats to make the test more interesting (e.g. some
multiple-choice, some missing numbers, some calculations in which the work
ings must be shown, some drawing or measuring, some word problems, etc).
The concepts and skills tested should relate precisely to those covered in the
teaching program.
Unless the test is designed to assess only computational skills it should con
tain problems that will allow the students conceptual understanding, strategic
knowledge and reasoning to be appraised.

74 n u m erac y
Many published tests are available covering basic numeracy. Examples

include Diagnostic mathematical tasks (DMT) (Schleiger & Gough, 2002),
Numeracy progress tests (NPT) (Vincent & Crumpler, 2000), Booker profiles
in mathematics: Number and computation (Booker, 1994) and, for younger chil
dren, I can do maths (Doig & de Lemos, 2000). For details of these and other
test materials, check the website for ACER Press (see the Links box at the
end of the chapter).
Error analysis
In the case of students with learning difficulties it is often helpful to examine
in detail the nature of the errors they make in their written work. Within
an adequate sample of a students paper-and-pencil calculations, a pattern
sometimes emerges indicating a specific point of confusion in relation to a
particular algorithm (Ashlock, 2005). Sometimes, however, errors appear
to be fairly random and may reflect inaccurate recall of basic number facts
or multiplication tables, a tendency to be distracted while working, or poor
vertical alignment of figures on the page.
Many different ways of categorising computational errors have been
devised, some of them much too complicated and time consuming for use
by teachers. One of the least complicated systems suggests that errors tend
to fall into one or more of the following categories:
wrong operation (e.g. adding instead of multiplying)

defective algorithm (incorrect in one or more steps within the procedure)
number fact error within the calculation (e.g. 3 x 7 recalled as 28)
place value problem (forgetting that magnitude of a figure is indicated by its
position)
specific difficulty dealing with zeros during computation (for example, zeros
within the top line in subtraction algorithm).
Error analysis is best implemented within the context of an individual diag

nostic assessment interview, as described more fully in the next section.
Unless error analysis leads to well focused intervention, there is no point in
carrying it out. When the procedure does prove to be of value in identifying
specific weaknesses that need to be remedied, it must still be remembered
that the aim of intervention should be to help the student understand the
process more effectively at a conceptual level, not merely replace one rote-
learned computational trick with another.

Assessment 75
Closely related to error analysis are the many diagnostic number tests
that have been developed over the years. Most of these tests are based
on an analysis of the specific steps involved in completing computational
algorithms at different levels of difficulty. The test items begin at an easy
level and progress gradually to more complex examples. The aim of using
such tests is to identify precisely the point at which a student begins to
make errors so that re-teaching can commence at that point.
Diagnostic interview
The value of talking with individual students about their progress and their
difficulties in mathematics has been more fully appreciated in recent years
(e.g., Ministry of Education, NZ, 2003; Wright, 2003). The numeracy
program Count Me In Too in New South Wales uses an interview procedure
(Schedule for Early Number Assessment: SENA) as an essential component
for data collection that guides program planning. A full description and
evaluation of SENA can be found on the ACT Department of Education
and Training website under Assessable Moments in Numeracy (see the
Links box at the end of the chapter).
While an individual interview may be designed to monitor a particular
students overall understanding of a topic, it is more likely to be carried out
for diagnostic purposes when a student is observed to be having difficulties.
An individual interview with a student is a powerful way to discover not
only the knowledge he or she possesses but also the quality of his or her
thinking and the manner in which the student copes with challenges (Reys
et al., 2006). Assessment should also reveal whether the student approaches
problems at a purely procedural level or whether he or she is developing
sound conceptual understanding of key concepts and operations.
Work samples and test papers can provide the basis for individual
interviews with students. For example, using a test paper as the focus of
an interview may involve asking the student to explain or to demonstrate
how he or she obtained a particular answer or performed a particular
operation. The teacher watches and listens as the student reworks a pre
viously incorrect test item, and can identify the exact point of conf usion
and provide corrective feedback. It is necessary to listen to the students
own explanation of why he or she took some particular action at a specific
point during the solving of a problem or the working of a calculation
(Booker, 1999).

76 n u m erac y
Four key questions can provide teachers with a suitable framework for pro
bing the knowledge, skills and strategies of an individual. The questions are:
1 What does the student know already; and what can the student do correctly
without assistance? Answers to this question reflect the students current
repertoire of concepts, skills and strategies.
2 What can the student do if given some degree of support or guidance? Answers
to this question will reveal concepts and skills to be taught and scaffolded as
priorities within the students zone of proximal development.
3 What gaps exist within the students previous learning? Often specific gaps
can be detected in a students knowledge of certain operations, certain forms
of notation, certain number facts or multiplication tables.
4 What does the student need to be taught next as a top priority in his or her
program? Answers to this question need to take into account both the learning
targets specified within the maths curriculum for the students age level, and
the answers to the second and third questions above.
While some of the information to answer these diagnostic questions can

be obtained from tests and work samples, teachers or tutors will also need
to work closely with the student to obtain additional insights. This form
of individual interview is sometimes referred to as dynamic assessment
because the teacher needs to be flexible in order to adapt or modify the
tasks and questioning as the interview progresses. For example, during the
assessment the teacher may need to move up or down between concrete
to abstract levels of reasoning in order to determine the level at which the
student is operating. The teacher may also decide to re-teach an operation
or skill during the interview process, and then observe the extent to which
this corrective feedback has been immediately understood and used cor
rectly by the student.
Assessing problem-solving skills

Assessment of a students numeracy must include his or her ability to inter
pret and solve routine and non-routine problems. Routine problems are
those where it is fairly obvious which operations to use to obtain a solution.
Non-routine problems are more challenging because the procedures
required for solution are not obvious.

Assessment 77
In assessment of problem-solving ability, a teacher is not only interested

in the answer obtained but also the way in which it was obtained (i.e. the
strategies that were applied). Bahr (2007) encourages teachers to use real-
life problems that will reveal more about students quality of thinking and
the flexibility of their approach. Again, the individual interview, rather than
paper-and-pencil testing, is the most appropriate method for assessment of
problem-solving skills.
If a student has difficulty solving routine problems, the teacher needs
to check:
Can the student actually read the problem?

Having read the words, does the student understand what is required?
Is the student able to summarise and explain the problem to the tester?
Can the student identify the appropriate operations to use?
Is the student able to encode the correct algorithm?
Can the student complete the algorithm correctly, swiftly and confidently?
Does the student appear to have difficulty recalling basic number facts?
Is the student able to check the reasonableness of the result obtained?
Does the student self-correct when necessary?
For non-routine problems most of the questions above also apply. Extra
attention must be given to the following issues:
Does the student have a strategy for beginning the task?

Can the student explain any steps to take that may help determine a
solution?
Can the student identify relevant information within the problem?
Does the student benefit from hints the teacher might provide (e.g. Maybe
you could draw a sketch; Why not compare the two amounts)?
Does the student spontaneously make use of available aids (e.g. number line,
table chart, or calculator)?
What does the student do if the first attempt at a solution is unsuccessful?
How long is the student willing to persevere with a challenging problem?
In the case of both routine and non-routine problems it is important to

observe whether the students make careless errors through inaccurate
encoding or untidy placement of the algorithm on the page.

78 n u m erac y
Conclusion
Assessment is an essential component of effective teaching in all areas of
the curriculum. In the case of numeracy development, the various forms
of assessment are used to indicate precisely the knowledge, concepts, skills,
strategies and beliefs an individual student has acquired. Assessment also
reveals any misconceptions and gaps in students knowledge that need to
be remedied. Assessment also provides teachers with a clear indication of
the overall effectiveness of their teaching program, and should therefore
lead to modifications where necessary. Assessment is only useful if it leads
to appropriate action at the level of the individual student, the class, the
school, or the system.
L i nk s t o m o r e o n a s s e s s m e n t i n n u m e r ac y
Advice on short-term, medium-term and longer-term assessment

associated with the National Numeracy Strategy (UK) can be found
at the DfCSF Standards website: http://www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/
primary/publications/mathematics/math_framework/assessment/
A very good summary of the purpose and nature of assessment in
primary mathematics can be found online at: http://www.bristol-cyps.
org.uk/teaching/primary/maths/pdf/assessment_summary.pdf
The Department of Education (Victoria). (2007). Numeracy assessment
guide. This document summarises several procedures for numeracy
assessment, discussing their applicability, strengths and limitations.
Available online at: http://www.eduweb.vic.gov.au/edulibrary/public/
teachlearn/student/numeracyasstguide.pdf
The ACT Department of Education and Training operates a website
(Assessable Moments in Numeracy) containing much useful information
for teachers. In particular, it provides a description of the diagnostic
interview known as Schedule for Early Number Assessment, associated
with the NSW numeracy program Count Me In Too. Critiques are also
provided of other forms of assessment such as portfolios, checklists
and learning logs. Available online at: http://activated.act.edu.au/
assessablemoments/index.htm

Assessment 79
Details of the Australian National Assessment Program in Literacy

and Numeracy (NAPLAN) (2008) are available at the website for the
Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth
Affairs. Available online at: http://www.naplan.edu.au/about/about.html
Information on the West Australian Literacy and Numeracy Assessment
(WALNA) for students in Years 3, 5, and 7 is available online at: http://
www.det.wa.edu.au/education/walna/index.html
A sample WALNA test paper for Year 7 numeracy is available online at:
http://www.det.wa.edu.au/education/walna/pdfs/Yr7SampleNumeracy~
Test.pdf
A general-purpose numeracy assessment instrument is presented by
Hart, K., Ampiah, J. G., Nyirenda, D., & Nkhata, B. (2004) in Teachers
guide to numeracy assessment instruments. Available online at: http://
www.cripsat.org.uk/downloads/numeracy_guide.pdf
National Assessment Program for Literacy and Numeracy. NSW
Department of Education and Training. Available online at: http://www.
det.nsw.edu.au/media/downloads/dethome/yr2007/nafl_fact.pdf
Secondary Numeracy Assessment Program (SNAP) for students in Year
7. NSW Department of Education and Training. Available online at:
http://www.schools.nsw.edu.au/learning/7-12assessments/snaptest.php
Literacy and Numeracy National Assessment (LANNA) for Years 3, 5
and 7. Conducted by Australian Council for Educational Research. See:
http://www.acer.edu.au/lanna/
ACER Press can supply a variety of suitable tests and other assessment
materials. Check the online education catalogue at: http://www.acer.
edu.au/acerpress/edu-cat.html

References
ACT Department of Education and Training. (2007). Assessable moments in

numeracy. Retrieved November 29, 2007 from: http://activated.act.edu.au/
assessablemoments/assessment/interviews/interviews.htm
Adult Literacy and Numeracy Australian Research Consortium (ALNARC).
(2002). National activities. Retrieved 12 March 2008 from: http://www.staff.
vu.edu.au/alnarc/
American Institutes on Research. (2006). A review of the literature on adult numeracy:
Research and conceptual issues. Washington, DC: American Institutes on Research.
Online at: http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_
storage_01/0000019b/80/29/e3/66.pdf
Annan, B. (2006). The Numeracy Development Projects: A successful policy-research-
practice collaboration. Wellington: NZ Ministry of Education.
APA (American Psychiatric Association). (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of
mental disorders (DSM-IV-TR). (4th ed., text revised). Washington, DC: Author.
Ashlock, R. B. (2005). Error patterns in computation (9th ed.). Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Pearson-Prentice Hall.
Askew, M., Brown, M., Rhodes, V., Wiliam, D., & Johnson, D. (1997). Effective
teachers of numeracy. London: Kings College.
Aubrey, C., Bottle, G., & Godfrey, R. (2003). Early mathematics in the home and
out-of-home contexts. International Journal of Early Years Education, 11, 2, 91102.
Australian Association of Mathematics Teachers (AAMT). (1998). Policy on numeracy
education in schools. Adelaide: AAMT.
Australian Association of Mathematics Teachers and Early Childhood Australia
(2006). Joint position statement on early childhood mathematics. Retrieved November
20, 2007 from: http://www.aamt.edu.au/content/download/722/19512/file/
earlymaths.pdf
Bahr, D. L. (2007). Creating mathematics performance assessments that address
multiple student levels. Australian Mathematics Teacher, 63, 1, 3340.
Baker, A., & Baker, J. (1990). Mathematics in process. Melbourne: Eleanor Curtain
Publishing.
81

82 re f ere n ce s
Baker, D., Street, B., & Tomlin, A. (2001). Understanding home school relations
in numeracy. In J. Winter (Ed.). Proceedings of the British Society for Research into
Learning Mathematics, 21, 2, 4148.
Baker, D., Street, B., & Tomlin, A. (2006). Navigating school numeracies:
Explanations for low achievement in mathematics of UK children from low SES
background. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 8, 3, 287307.
Balatti, J., Black, S., & Falk, I. (2006). Reframing adult literacy and numeracy course
outcomes: A social capital perspective. Adelaide: National Centre for Vocational
Education Research.
Baroody, A. J. (2000). Does mathematics instruction for three- to five-year-olds
really make sense? Young Children, 55, 4, 6167.
Barth, H., La Mont, K., Lipton, J., Dehaene, S., Kanwisher, N., & Spelke, E.
(2006). Non-symbolic arithmetic in adults and young children. Cognition, 98, 3,
199222.
Barton, D., Hamilton, M., & Ivania, R. (Eds.). (2000). Situated literacies: Reading and
writing in context. New York: Routledge.
Beaty, J. J. (1998). Observing development of the young child (4th ed.). Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Merrill.
Benjamin, G. R. (1997). Japanese lessons. New York: University of New
York Press.
Berch, D. B. (2005). Making sense of number sense: Implications for children with
mathematical disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 4, 333339.
Boaler, J. (1997). Experiencing school mathematics. Buckingham: Open University
Press.
Boaler, J. (1999). Mathematics for the moment, or for the millennium? Education
Week, 18, 29, 3031.
Bonner, P. J. (2006). Transformation of teacher attitude and approach to math
instruction through collaborative action research. Teacher Education Quarterly,
Summer Issue 2006, 116.
Booker, G. (1994). Booker profiles in mathematics. Melbourne: Australian Council for
Educational Research.
Booker, G. (1999). Numeracy in action: Diagnosis and intervention in mathematics.
In P. Westwood & W. Scott (Eds.). Learning disabilities: Advocacy and action.
Melbourne: Australian Resource Educators Association.
Booker, G. (2004). Difficulties in mathematics: Errors, origins and implications.
In B. A. Knight & W. Scott (Eds.). Learning difficulties: Multiple perspectives
(pp. 129140). Frenchs Forest, NSW: Pearson Education Australia.
Booker, G., Bond, D., Sparrow, L., & Swan, P. (2004). Teaching primary mathematics
(3rd ed.). Sydney: Pearson Education.

re f ere n ce s 83
Brown, M. (2002). The effectiveness of the National Numeracy Strategy: Evidence from the
Leverhulme Numeracy Research Programme and other studies at Kings College London.
London: Kings College.
Brown, T. (1998). Coordinating mathematics across the primary school. London: Falmer.
Bruner, J. (1960). The process of education. Cambridge, MA. Harvard University Press.
Bruner, J. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. Cambridge MA: Belknap Press.
Butcher, R., Davidson, E., Hagston, J., Ibrido, D., Lucas, J., Ridley, C., Tout, D.,
& Young, D. (2002). Certificate in general education for adults. Melbourne: Adult,
Community and Further Education Board.
Butterworth, B. (1999). What counts: How every brain is hardwired for math. New York:
The Free Press.
Butterworth, B. (2003). Dyscalculia screener. London: Nelson-NFER.
Butterworth, B. (2005). The development of arithmetic abilities. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 46, 1, 318.
Bynner, J., & Parsons, S. (1997). Does numeracy matter? Evidence from the National
Child Development Study on the impact of poor numeracy on adult life. London: Basic
Skills Agency.
Calhoon, M. B., Mereson, R. W., Flores, M. & Houchins, D. E. (2007).
Computational fluency performance profiles of high school students with
mathematics disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 28, 5, 292303.
Carnine, D., Dixon, R., & Silbert, J. (1998). Effective strategies for teaching
mathematics. In E. Kameenui & D. Carnine (Eds.), Effective teaching strategies that
accommodate diverse learners (pp. 93112). Columbus, OH: Merrill.
Carpenter, T. P. , Fenneman, E., Franke, M. L., Levi, L., & Empson, S. B. (1999).
Childrens mathematics: Cognitively guided instruction. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Case, R. (1991). A developmental approach to the design of remedial instruction.
In A. McKeough & J. Lupart (Eds.). Toward the practice of theory-based instruction.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Central Advisory Council for Education. (1959). 1518: A report of the Central
Advisory Committee for Education (England). London: HMSO.
Charlesworth, R. (2005). Pre-kindergarten mathematics: Connecting with National
Standards. Early Childhood Education Journal, 32, 4, 229236.
Chinn, S. J., & Ashcroft, J. R. (1998). Mathematics for dyslexics: A teaching handbook
(2nd ed.). London: Whurr.
Clark, M. (1999). Calculators as learning tools in mathematics lessons. Equals:
Mathematics and Special Educational Needs, 5, 1, 1114.
Clarke, D., Gervasoni, A., & Sullivan, P. (2000). The Early Numeracy Research Project:
Understanding, assessing and developing young childrens mathematical strategies. Paper
presented at the 2000 Conference of the Australian Association for Educational

84 re f ere n ce s
Research in Education, Sydney, December 2000. Retrieved November 14, 2007

from: http://www.aare.edu.au/00pap/cla00024.htm
Clements, D. H. (1999). Subitizing: What is it? Why teach it? Teaching Children
Mathematics, 5, 7, 400405.
Clements, D. H. (2001). Mathematics in the preschool. Teaching Children
Coben, D. (2003). Adult numeracy: Review of research and related literature. London:
National Research and Development Centre for Adult Literacy and Numeracy.
Retrieved October 28, 2007 from: http://www.nrdc.org.uk/uploads/
documents/doc_2802.pdf
Cockcroft Committee. (1982). Mathematics counts: Report of the Committee of Inquiry
into the Teaching of Mathematics in Schools. London: HMSO.
Collis, K. F., & Romberg, T. A. (1992). Collis-Romberg Mathematical Profiles.
Hawthorn: Australian Council for Educational Research.
Colwell, D. (2003). Dyscalculia and functioning of the brain in mathematical
activity. In Coben, D. Adult numeracy: Review of research and related literature
(pp. 104109). London: National Research and Development Centre for Adult
Literacy and Numeracy. Retrieved October 28, 2007 from: http://www.nrdc.
org.uk/uploads/documents/doc_2802.pdf
Commonwealth Department of Education, Science and Training. (2002). Assessment
of literacy and numeracy in the early years of schooling: An overview. Canberra: DEST.
Commonwealth Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs.
(2000). Numeracy, a priority for all: Challenges for Australian schools. Canberra:
Commonwealth of Australia.
Cumming, J. (1996). Adult numeracy policy and research in Australia: The present context
and future directions. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.
Curriculum Corporation. (1994). Mathematics: A curriculum profile for Australian
Schools. Melbourne: Author.
Curriculum Corporation. (2008). National literacy and numeracy testing 2008.
Retrieved March 12, 2008 from: http://www.curriculum.edu.au/ccsite/cc_
nap,19875.html
Cutler, J. A. (2001). An analysis of the development of number sense by sixth-grade
students during an intervention emphasizing systematic mental computation.
Unpublished Ed. D. dissertation, Lowell, MA: University of Massachusetts
Lowell.
DEETYA (Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs).
(1997). Numeracy+ Everyones business: Report of the Numeracy Education Strategy
Development Conference. Adelaide: Australian Association of Mathematics
Teachers.

re f ere n ce s 85
Department of Education (Victoria). (2007). Numeracy assessment guide. Retrieved

November 29, 2007 from: http://www.eduweb.vic.gov.au/edulibrary/public/
teachlearn/student/numeracyasstguide.pdf
Department of Education and Training (NSW). (2006). State Numeracy Plan
20062008. Sydney: Author.
Department of Education and Training (WA). (2006). Literacy and numeracy review:
final report. Perth: Author.
DEST (Department of Education, Science and Training). (2004). Researching
numeracy teaching approaches in primary schools. Melbourne: State of Victoria
Department of Education and Training.
DETYA (Commonwealth Department of Education and Youth Affairs). (2000).
Numeracy: A priority for all. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.
DfCSF (Department for Children, Schools and Families). (2001). Numeracy across the
curriculum: In-service training pack. London: DfCSF.
DfCSF (Department for Children, Schools and Families). (2005). Birth to three
matters. Retrieved November 4, 2007 from Sure Start website at: http://www.
surestart.gov.uk/improvingquality/frameworks/birthtothreematters/
DfCSF (Department for Children, Schools and Families). (2006). Adult numeracy
core curriculum. Retrieved October 28, 2007 from: http://www.dfes.gov.uk/
curriculum_numeracy/
DfCSF (Department for Children, Schools and Families). (2007a). Primary
Framework for Literacy and Mathematics. London: DfCSF. Online at: http://www.
standards.dfes.gov.uk/primaryframeworks/
DfCSF (Department for Children, Schools and Families). (2007b). Teaching
numeracy. TeacherNet: Department for Children, Schools and Families.
Retrieved November 2, 2007 from: http://www.teachernet.gov.uk/
teachingandlearning/subjects/maths/teachingnumeracy/
DfCSF (Department for Children, Schools and Families). (2007c). Teaching the daily
lesson. TeacherNet: Department for Children, Schools and Families. Retrieved
November 12, 2007 from: http://www.teachernet.gov.uk/teachinginengland/
detail.cfm?id=201
Df ES (2004). Guidance paper: The use of calculators in teaching and learning mathematics.
Retrieved November 22, 2007 from: http://www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/
primaryframeworks/downloads/PDF/calculators_guidance_paper.pdf
Df EE (Department for Education and Employment) (UK). (2002). Skills for life:
The national strategy for improving adult literacy and numeracy skills. Annesley,
Nottingham: Df EE.
Dion, G., & Harvey, A. (2001). A survey of calculator use in high schools. School
Science and Mathematics, 101, 8, 427438.

86 re f ere n ce s
Doig, B., & de Lemos, M. (2000). I can do maths. Melbourne: Australian Council
for Educational Research.
Doig, B., McCrae, B., & Rowe, K. (2003). A good start to numeracy. Melbourne:
Australian Council for Educational Research.
Dowker, A. (2001). Numeracy recovery: A pilot scheme for early intervention with
young children with numeracy difficulties. Support for Learning, 16, 610.
Dowker, A. (2005). Early identification and intervention for students with
mathematics difficulties, Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 4, 324332.
Drosdeck, C. C. (1995). Promoting calculator use in elementary classrooms. Teaching
Exceptional Children, 1, 5, 300305.
Dymock, D. (2007). Community adult language, literacy and numeracy provision
in Australia: Diverse approaches and outcomes. Adelaide: National Centre for
Vocational Education Research.
Ellis, L. A. (2005). Balancing approaches: Revisiting the educational psychology research
on teaching students with learning difficulties. Melbourne: Australian Council for
Educational Research.
Epstein, A. (2003). Early math: The next big thing. High/Scope ReSource: A
Magazine for Educators. Summer Issue, 2003, pp. 510.
Fahsl, A.J. (2007). Mathematics accommodations for all students. Intervention in
School and Clinic, 42, 4, 198203.
Falk, I., Millar, P., & Owen, C. (2002). Non/working lives: Implications of non-standard
work practices for literacy and numeracy. Hobart: Adult Literacy and Numeracy
Australian Consortium, University of Tasmania.
Farkota, R. (2005). Basic math problems: the brutal reality! Bulletin: Learning
Difficulties Australia, 37, 3, 1011.
Filiz, V., & Farran, D. (2007). Elementary school students mental computational
proficiencies. Early Childhood Education Journal, 35, 1, 8994.
Fleer, M., & Raban, B. (2005). Literacy and numeracy that counts: From birth
to five years. Canberra: Department of Education, Science and Training,
Commonwealth of Australia. Retrieved November 4, 2007 from: http://www1.
curriculum.edu.au/eclearning/download/litreview.pdf
Fuchs, L.S., & Fuchs, D. (2001). Principles for the prevention and intervention of
mathematics difficulties. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 16, 2, 8595.
Geary, D. C. (1993). Mathematical disabilities: Cognitive, neuropsychological and
genetic components. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 2, 345362.
Geary, D. C. (2005). Role of cognitive theory in the study of learning disability in
mathematics. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 4, 305307.
Gersten, R., & Chard, D. (1999). Number sense: Rethinking arithmetic instruction
for students with mathematical disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 33, 1,
1828.

re f ere n ce s 87
Gersten, R., Jordan, N. C., & Flojo, J. R. (2005). Early identification and
intervention for students with mathematics difficulties. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 38, 4, 293304.
Gilmore, C. K., McCarthy, S. E., & Spelke, E. S. (2007). Symbolic arithmetic
knowledge without instruction. Nature, 447, 589592.
Ginsburg, L. Manly, M., & Schmitt, M. J. (2006). The components of numeracy.
Cambridge, MA: National Center for the Study of Adult Learning and Literacy.
Goldman, S. R., & Hasselbring, T. S. (1997). Achieving meaningful mathematics
literacy for students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30,
2, 198208.
Good, T. L., & Grouws, D. A. (1977). Teaching effects: A process-product study in
4th grade mathematics classrooms. Journal of Teacher Education, 28, 3, 4954.
Good, T. L., Grouws, D. A., & Ebmeier, H. (1983). Active mathematics teaching.
New York: Longman.
Gough, J. (2007). Make your schools Numeracy-across-the Curriculum Policy.
Australian Mathematics Teacher, 63, 3, 3139.
Griffin, S. (2004). Teaching number sense. Educational Leadership, 61, 5, 3942.
Griffin, S., & Case, R. (1997). Re-thinking the primary school math curriculum:
an approach based on cognitive science. Issues in Education, 3, 1, 149.
Griffiths, R. (2007). Young children counting at home. Mathematics Teaching
incorporating Micromath, 203, 2426.
Grinyer, J. (2006). Literacy, numeracy and the labour market: Further analysis of the Skills
for Life Survey. London: Department for Education and Skills.
Groves, S., Moussley, J., & Forgasz, H. (2006). Primary numeracy: A mapping, review
and analysis of Australian research in numeracy learning at the primary school level.
Canberra: Department of Education, Science and Training, Commonwealth
of Australia
Grubb, W. N. (1996). Exploring multiple mathematics. Retrieved October 25, 2007
from: http://www.stolaf.edu/other/extend/Expectations/grubb.html
Hagston, J., & Marr, B. (2007). Thinking beyond numbers: Learning numeracy for the
future workplace. Adelaide: National Centre for Vocational Education Research.
Heddens, J. W. (1986). Bridging the gap between concrete and abstract. The
Arithmetic Teacher, 33, 6, 1417.
Hiebert, J., & Lefevre, P. (1986). Conceptual and procedural knowledge in
mathematics: An introductory analysis. In J. Hiebert (Ed.), Conceptial and
procedural knowledge: The case of mathematics. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hogan, J., Murcia, K., & van Wyke, J. (2004). Numeracy across the curriculum.
Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.
Houssart, J. (2002). Count me out: task refusal in primary mathematics. Support
for Learning, 17, 2, 7579.

88 re f ere n ce s
Howell, S., & Kemp, C. (2006). An international perspective of early number

sense: identifying components predictive of difficulties in early mathematics
achievement. Australian Journal of Learning Disabilities, 11, 4, 197207.
Hoyles, C., Wolf, A., Molyneux-Hodgson, S., & Kent, P. (2002). Mathematical skills
in the workplace. London: Institute of Education, University of London.
Hudson, C. (2006). The implications for post-16 numeracy and maths of the Smith and
Tomlinson reports, the 1419 White Paper, and the Skills White Paper. London:
Huinker, D. A. (2002). Calculators as learning tools for young childrens explorations
of number. Teaching Children Mathematics, 8, 6, 316321.
Ineson, G. (2007). Year 6 children: Has the new British mathematics curriculum
helped their mental computation? Early Childhood Development and Care, 177,
541555.
Institute of Education Sciences. (1999). Trends in international mathematics and
science study (TIMSS): Video study. Washington, DC: US Department of
Education.
Institute of Education Sciences. (2007). The Nations Report Card: Mathematics 2007
(Grades 4 and 8). Washington, DC: National Centre for Education Statistics, US
Department of Education. Retrieved November 25, 2007 from: http://www.eric.
ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/33/59/
ab.pdf
Irwin, K. C., & Neiderer, K. (2002). An evaluation of the Numeracy Exploratory
Study (NEST) and the associated Numeracy Exploratory Study Assessment (NESTA):
Years 710. Wellington, Ministry of Education.
Johnston, B. (1994). Critical numeracy, Fine Print, 16, 4, 3236.
Johnston, B. (2002). Numeracy in the making: Twenty years of Australian adult numeracy.
Sydney: Adult Literacy and Numeracy Australian Research Consortium.
Retrieved October 28, 2007 from: http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/
ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/1a/d0/c6.pdf
Johnston, B., & Tout, D. (1995). Adult numeracy teaching: Making meaning in
mathematics. Canberra: TAFE National Staff Development Council.
Jordan, N. E., Kaplan, D., Locuniak, M., & Ramineni, C. (2007). Predicting first-
grade math achievement from development of number sense trajectories. Learning
Disabilities Research and Practice, 22, 1, 3646.
Jung, M., Kloosterman, P., & McMullen, M. B. (2007). Young childrens intuition
for solving problems in mathematics. Young Children, 62, 5, 5057.
Kamii, C. (1994). Young children continue to reinvent arithmetic: Implications of Piagets
theory. New York: Teachers College Press.
Katz, L.G. (1999). Curriculum disputes in early childhood education. Clearing House on
Early Education and Parenting. ERIC document EDO-PS-00-13.

re f ere n ce s 89
Kehl, R., Ballweg, J., & Strite, P. (2007). Early learning standards: Number and
operations. Madison Early Learning Initiative: Madison School District, WI.
Retrieved October 30, 2007 from: http://www.madison.k12.wi.us/tnl/lilm/
early_math/preschool/standards/number_standards.html
Kemp, M., & Hogan, J. (2000). Planning for an emphasis on numeracy in the curriculum.
Occasional paper commissioned by the Australian Association of Mathematics
Teachers. Adelaide: AAMT and Department for Education, Training and Youth
Affairs.
Kerka, S. (1995). Not just a number: Critical numeracy for adults. ERIC Digest 163.
Columbus, OH: Centre on Education and Training for Employment: Ohio State
University.
Kilpatrick, J., & Swafford, J. (2002). Helping children learn mathematics. Washington,
DC: National Academy Press.
Kilpatrick, J., Swafford, J., & Findell, B. (2001). Adding+ it up: Helping children learn
mathematics. Washington, CD: National Academy Press.
Kirova, A., & Bhargava, A. (2002). Learning to guide preschool childrens
mathematical understanding: a teachers professional growth. Early Childhood
Research and Practice (online journal). 4, 1, n.p. Retrieved November 4, 2007
from: http://ecrp. uiuc.edu/v4n1/kirova.html
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during
instruction does not work: an analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery,
problem-based, experiential and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist,
4, 2, 7586.
Koca, S. A., & Lee, H. J. (1998). Portfolio assessment in mathematics education. ERIC
Digest, ED434802. Retrieved November 10, 2007 from: http://searcheric.org/
digests/ed434802.html
Koralek, D. (2007). Children and adults as problem solvers. Young Children, 62, 5,
1011.
Kyriacou, C., & Goulding, M. (2004). A systematic review of the impact of the
daily mathematics lesson in enhancing pupil confidence and competence in early
mathematics. Research Evidence in Education Library. London: EPPI-Centre, Social
Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London.
Lamb, J. (2004). The impact of teachers understanding of division on their students
knowledge of division. In B. A. Knight & W. Scott (Eds.), Learning difficulties:
Multiple perspectives (pp. 153169). Frenchs Forest, NSW: Pearson Educational
Australia.
Landerl, K., Bevan, A., & Butterworth, B. (2004). Developmental dyscalculia and basic
numerical capacities: a study of 89 years old students. Cognition, 93, 2, 99125.
Lokan, J., Doig, B., & Underwood, C. (2000). Numeracy assessment and associated
issues. Canberra: Commonwealth Government of Australia.

90 re f ere n ce s
Loo, S. (2007). Theories of Bernstein and Shulman: their relevance to teacher

training courses in England using adult numeracy courses as an example. Further
and Higher Education, 31, 3, 203214.
Lott, J. W. (2007). Correcting the course of math education. Principal Leadership, 7, 5,
2731.
Louden, W., Chan, L. K. S., Elkins, J., Greaves, D., House, H., Milton, M.,
Nichols, S., Rohl, M., Rivalland, J., & van Kraayenoord, C. (2000). Mapping the
territory: Primary students with learning difficulties in literacy and numeracy. Canberra:
Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs.
Loveless, T., & Coughlan, J. (2004). The arithmetic gap. Educational Leadership, 61, 5,
5559.
Lutz, D. J., & Sternberg, R. J. (1999). Cognitive development. In M. H. Bornstein &
M. E. Lamb (Eds.), Developmental psychology: An advanced textbook. Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Lyon, G. R., Fletcher, J. M., & Barnes, M. C. (2003). Learning disabilities. In E. J.
Mash & R. A. Barkley (Eds.), Child psychopathology (2nd ed., pp. 520586). New
York: Guilford Press.
Ma, L. (1999). Knowing and teaching elementary mathematics. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
McAsey, K. (1999). Mathematics assessment using Key-Math. In D. Barwood, D.
Greaves, & P. Jeffery (Eds.), Teaching numeracy and literacy: Interventions and strategies
for at risk students (pp. 317332). Melbourne: Australian Resource Educators
Association.
McGlynn, R. (1999). Addressing the basic literacy and numeracy needs of adults.
In P. Westwood & W. Scott (Eds.), Learning disabilities: Advocacy and action.
Melbourne: Australian Resource Educators Association.
McInerney, D., & McInerney, V. (2005). Educational psychology: Constructing learning
(4th ed.). Sydney: Pearson Education.
McIntosh, A. (2005). Developing computation. Hobart: Department of Education,
Tasmania.
McIntosh, A. (2007). Evidence of improved numeracy outcomes. In the ACT Department
of Education and Training website Assessable moments in numeracy. Retrieved
November 29, 2007 from: http://activated.act.edu.au/assessablemoments/index.htm
McLean, J. F., & Hitch, G. J. (1999). Working memory impairments in children with
specific arithmetic learning difficulties. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,
74, 240260.
Macrae, S. (2003). Effective Teachers of Numeracy Project. In Coben, D. (2003).
Adult numeracy: Review of research and related literature (pp. 8385). London:
Retrieved October 15, 2007 from: http://www.nrdc.org.uk/uploads/documents/
doc_2802.pdf

re f ere n ce s 91
Maher, M. (2007). Home-school partnership within mathematics. Australian Journal

of Early Childhood, 32, 3, 4858.
Malofeeva, E., Day, J., Saco, X., Young, L, & Cianco, D. (2004). Construction and
evaluation of a number sense test with Head Start children. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 96, 4, 648659.
Mandler, J. M. (2004). The origins of mind. New York: Oxford University Press.
Manitoba Education, Citizenship and Youth (2006). Rethinking classroom assessment
with purpose in mind. Winnipeg, Manitoba: Ministry for Education, Citizenship
and Youth. Retrieved November 26, 2007 from: http://www.wncp.ca/
assessment/rethink.pdf
Mannigel, D. (1992). Young children as mathematicians. Wentworth Falls: Social Science
Press.
Mardjetko, E., & Macpherson, J. (2007). Is your classroom mental? Australian Primary
Mathematics Classroom, 17, 2, 49.
Marmasse, N., Bletsas, A., & Marti, S. (2000). Numerical mechanisms and childrens
concept of numbers. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Retrieved November
13, 2007 from: http://web.media.mit.edu/~stefanm/society/som_final.html
Martin, H. (2007). Mathematical literacy. Principal Leadership, 7, 5, 2831.
Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three strikes rule against pure discovery
learning? The case for guided methods of instruction. American Psychologist, 59, 1,
1419.
Mazzocco, M. M., & Thompson, R. E. (2005). Kindergarten predictors of math
learning disability. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 20, 3, 142155.
Michaelson, M. T. (2007). An overview of dyscalculia: methods for ascertaining
and accommodating dyscalculic children in the classroom. Australian Mathematics
Teacher, 63, 3, 1722.
Ministry of Education (NZ). (2001). The numeracy story. Curriculum Update 45.
Wellington: Author.
Ministry of Education (NZ). (2003). The diagnostic interview. Wellington: Author.
Ministry of Education (NZ). (2006). Book 1: The number framework. Wellington:
Author.
Monaghan, F. (2006). Thinking aloud together. Mathematics Teaching, 198, 1215.
Moser, C. (1999). A fresh start: Improving literacy and numeracy. London: Department
for Education and Employment.
Munn, P. (2005). Young childrens rights to numeracy. International Journal of Early
Childhood, 37, 3, 6177.
Munro, J. (2003). Dyscalculia: a unifying concept in understanding mathematics
learning disabilities. Australian Journal of Learning Disabilities, 8, 4, 2532.
NAEYC/NCTM (National Association for the Education of Young Children and
the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics). (2002). Joint position paper:

92 re f ere n ce s
Early childhood mathematics: Promoting good beginnings. Retrieved November 1,

2007 from: http://www.naeyc.org/about/positions/psmath.asp
National Child Care Information Centre. (2007). Math and science in early childhood.
Retrieved November 1, 2007 from: http://nccic.org/poptopics/mathscience.html
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation
standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for
school mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM.
National Union of Teachers (England). (2002). The Foundation Stage and the National
Literacy Strategy. Retrieved November 9, 2007 from: http://www.teachers.org.
uk?story.php?id=2066
ODonoghue, J. (2002). Numeracy and mathematics. Irish Mathematics Society
Bulletin, 48, 4755.
OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). (1998).
Literacy in the information age: Final report of the International Adult Literacy Survey.
London: Author.
OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). (2002).
Framework for mathematics assessment. Paris: Author.
OFSTED (Office for Standards in Education) (1997). Teachers count. London:
Author.
Parsons, S., & Bynner, J. (2005). Does numeracy matter more? London: National
Research and Development Centre for Adult Literacy and Numeracy.
Pearn, C. (1999). The importance of efficient strategies in developing numeracy
in the early years. In D. Barwood, D. Greaves, & P. Jeffery (Eds.), Teaching
numeracy and literacy: Interventions and strategies for at-risk students. Melbourne:
Australian Resource Educators Association.
Perry, B., & Dockett, S. (2007). Play and mathematics. Adelaide: Australian
Association of Mathematics Teachers.
Perso, T. (2006a). Teachers of mathematics or numeracy? Australian Mathematics
Teacher, 62, 2, 3640.
Perso, T. (2006b). Issues concerning the teaching and learning of mathematics and
numeracy in Australian schools. Australian Mathematics Teacher, 62, 1, 2027.
Perso, T. (2007). Back to basics or Forward to basics? Australian Mathematics
Teacher, 63, 3, 611.
Piaget, J. (1942). The childs conception of number. London: Routledge &
Kegan Paul.
Piaget, J. (1983). Piagets theory. In W. Kesson & P. Mussen (Eds.), History, theory,
and methods (Vol. 1., pp. 103128). New York: Wiley.
Pimentel, R. (2007). Mathematics in the foundation stage. Mathematics Teaching,
201, 1011.

re f ere n ce s 93
Pincott, R. (2004). Are we responsible for our childrens maths difficulties? In B. A.

Knight & W. Scott (Eds.), Learning difficulties: Multiple perspectives (pp. 141151).
Frenchs Forest, NSW: Pearson Educational Australia.
Posamentier, A. S., & Jaye, D. (2007). Motivating teachers to use mathematics.
Principal Leadership, 7, 5, 4650.
Pound, L. (1999). Supporting mathematical development in the early years. Buckingham:
Open University Press.
QCA (Qualifications and Curriculum Authority). (2004). Key Skills: Standards and
Guidance. Retrieved October 29, 2007 from: http://www.qca.org.uk?qca_6455.
aspx
Rennie, J. (2006). Meeting kids at the school gate: The literacy and numeracy
practices of a remote indigenous community. Australian Educational Researcher, 33,
3, 123142.
Reys, R., Lindquist, M., Lambdin, D.V., Smith, N., & Suydam, M. (2006). Helping
children learn mathematics (8th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Richards, J. C., & McKenna, M. C. (2003). Integrating multiple literacies in K8
classrooms. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Rogoff, B. (1995). Observing sociocultural activity on three planes: participatory
appropriation, guided participation, and apprenticeship. In J. V. Wertsch, P. del
Rio, & A. Alvarez (Eds.), Sociocultural studies of mind (pp. 139164). New York:
Cambridge University Press.
SAALT (Supporting Adults and Applied Learning and Teaching). (2006). Adult
numeracy. Retrieved October 26, 2007 from: http://www.saalt.com.au/
numeracy/background.html
Santrock, J. W. (2006). Life-span development (19th ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.
Sarama, J., & Clements, D. H. (2006). Mathematics in the kindergarten. Young
Children, 61, 5, 3841.
Schleiger, H. E., & Gough, J. (2002). Diagnostic mathematical tasks (DMT). Sydney:
University of New South Wales.
Schwerdtfeger, J., & Chan, A. (2007). Counting collections. Teaching Children
Shimizu, Y. (1995). Some pluses and minuses of typical form in mathematics lessons:
A Japanese perspective. In G. Bell (Ed.), Review of mathematics education in Asia and
the Pacific. Lismore: Southern Cross Mathematical Association.
Siemon, D., Virgona, J., & Corneille, K. (2001). Middle years numeracy research project:
59. Bundoora, Victoria: RMIT.
Silver, A. A., & Hagin, R. A. (2002). Disorders of learning in childhood (2nd ed.). New
York: Wiley.
Smith, A. (2004). Making mathematics count: Inquiry into post-14 mathematics education.
London: The Stationery Office.

94 re f ere n ce s
Smith, S. Z., & Smith, M. E. (2006). Assessing elementary understanding of

multiplication concepts. School Science and Mathematics, 106, 3, 140149
Steen, L. A. (1997). Why numbers count: Quantitative literacy for tomorrows America.
New York: College Examination Board.
Steen, L. A. (2000). The case for quantitative literacy. Retrieved October 26, 2007 from:
http://www.maa.org/ql/001-22.pdf
Steen, L. A. (2007). Every teacher is a teacher of mathematics. Principal Leadership, 7,
5, 1620.
Stigler, J. W., & Hiebert, J, (1997). Understanding and improving classroom
mathematics instruction. Phi Delta Kappan, 79, 1, 1421.
Stigler, J. W., & Hiebert, J. (2004). Improving maths teaching. Educational Leadership,
61, 5, 1217.
Sun, W., & Zhang, J. Y. (2001). Teaching addition and subtraction facts: A Chinese
perspective. Teaching Children Mathematics, 8, 1, 2831.
Swanson, H. L. (1999). Interventions for students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis
of treatment outcomes. New York: Guilford.
Thompson, I. (2007). Deconstructing calculation, part 1: Addition. Mathematics
Teaching incorporating Micromath, 202, 1415.
Thomson, S., Rowe, K., Underwood, C., & Peck, R. (2005). Numeracy in the
early years: Project Good Start. Canberra: Department of Education, Science and
Training, Commonwealth of Australia.
Thornton, C., Langrall, C., & Jones, G. (1997). Mathematics instruction for
elementary students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 2,
142150.
Thornton, S., & Hogan, J. (2004). Orientations to numeracy: Teachers confidence
and disposition to use mathematics across the curriculum. Proceedings of the 28th
Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, 4,
313320.
Thornton, S., & Hogan, J. (2005). Numeracy across the curriculum: Demands and
opportunities. Curriculum Leadership (Electronic Journal). 3, 16, n.p.
Tucker, K. (2005). Mathematics through play in the early years. London: Chapman.
Turner, P. (2007). Reflections on numeracy and streaming in mathematics education.
Australian Mathematics Teacher, 63, 2, 2833.
van de Walle, J. A. (2006). Elementary and middle school mathematics: Teaching
developmentally (6th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
van Kraayenoord, C., Elkins, J., Palmer, C & Rickards, F. W. (2000). Literacy,
numeracy and students with disabilities. Canberra: Commonwealth Department of
Education, Science and Training.
Vincent, D., & Crumpler, M. (2000). Numeracy progress tests (NPT). London: Hodder
& Stoughton.

re f ere n ce s 95
Vygotsky, L. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Edited & translated by M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner & F. Souberman.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wallace, A. H., Abbott, D., & Blary, R. M. (2007). The classroom that maths built:
Encouraging young mathematicians to pose problems. Young Children, 62, 5,
4248.
Warfield, J. (2001). Teaching kindergarten children to solve words problems. Early
Childhood Education Journal, 28, 3, 161167.
Watson, A. (2004). Red herrings: Post-14 best mathematics teaching and curricula.
British Journal of Educational Studies, 52, 4, 359376.
Weiss, I. R., & Pasley, J. D. (2004). What is high quality instruction? Educational
Leadership, 61, 5, 2428.
Weiten, W. (2001). Psychology themes and variations (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Wells, F. K. (2000). Three case studies of middle-school students with highly developed
number sense. Unpublished PhD thesis, Auburn, AL: Auburn University.
Westwood, P. (1998). Reducing educational failure. Australian Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 3, 3, 412.
Westwood, P. (2003). Drilling basic number facts: should we or should we not?
Australian Journal of Learning Disabilities, 8, 4, 1218.
Whitebread, D. (1995). Emergent mathematics or how to help young children
become confident mathematicians. In J. Anghileri (Ed.), Childrens mathematical
thinking in the primary years. London: Cassell.
WHO (World Health Organisation). (2007). International Classification of Diseases:
10th revision, 2007 version. Retrieved November 20, 2007 from: http://www.
who.int/classifications/icd/en/
Wiest, L. R., Higgins, H. J., & Frost, J. H. (2007). Quantitative literacy for social
justice. Equity and Excellence in Education, 40, 1, 4755.
Wilson, P. S., Cooney, T. J., & Stinson, D. W. (2005). What constitutes good
mathematics teaching and how it develops: nine high school teachers
perspectives. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 8, 2, 83111.
Wright, R. (1994). A study of the numerical development of 5-year-olds and
6-year-olds. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 26, 1, 2544.
Wright, R. (2003). Mathematics Recovery: A program of intervention in early
number learning. Australian Journal of Learning Disabilities, 8, 4, 611.
Wright, R., Martland, J., & Stafford, A. K. (2006). Early numeracy: Assessment and
teaching for intervention (2nd ed.). London: Chapman.
Xin, Y. P., & Jitendra, A. K. (1999). The effects of instruction in solving
mathematical word problems for students with learning problems:
A meta-analysis. Journal of Special Education, 32, 4, 207225.

96 re f ere n ce s
Yang, D. C. (2005). Number sense strategies used by 6th grade students in Taiwan.
Teaching Children Mathematics, 31, 3, 317333.
Ysseldyke, J. & Tardrew, S. (2007). Use of a progress monitoring system to enable
teachers to differentiate mathematics instruction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 24,
1, 1 28.
Zaslavsky, C. (2001). Developing number sense: What can other cultures tell us?
Teaching Children Mathematics, 7, 6, 312315.
Zawojewski, J. S., & McCarthy, L. (2007). Numeracy in practice. Principal
Leadership, 7, 5, 3237.

Index
Main entries in bold automaticity 46, 49, 59, 64

avoidance 63
ability grouping in mathematics 33, 38, 42
absence from school 57, 62 balance between skills development and
active teaching 36, 38 problem solving v, 42, 44, 48, 49
activity approach 34, 48, 50, 58 bookwork
adaptive teaching 42, 62, 76 untidy or careless 62, 64, 65, 66, 71, 72
adult numeracy 3, 4, 7, 11, 33, 4244, 45 Bruner, J. 25, 3032
affective outcomes from failure 1, 1011,
72 calculation 38, 48, 49, 52, 56, 59, 74, 75
algorithms 8, 21, 46, 47, 51, 52, 55, 59, see also computation
74, 75, 77 calculators 17, 46, 48, 51, 56, 62, 77
arithmetic v, 4, 7, 9, 17, 20, 21, 27, 37, 40, changing schools 57, 63
42, 4749, 50, 51, 55, 59 Cockcroft Report: Mathematics counts 4
see also computation cognitive development 10, 24, 2530, 65
assessment 66, 6878 cognitive maturity 29
curriculum-based 3, 73 communication
diagnostic assessment 68, 71, 73, 74, teachers skills in 57, 6061
7576, 78 computation 9, 20, 48, 56, 62, 72, 74
dynamic assessment 76 computational skills 9, 20, 36, 38, 48, 52,
formative 70, 71 56, 59, 62, 72, 74
observation 68, 7172 importance of 4749
outcomes-based 73 teaching of 4655
purposes of 6971 computer-aided instruction 51
summative 71 concept development 22, 2431, 65
testing 3, 21, 68, 71, 7374, 77 conceptual understanding 8, 31, 35, 37,
types of 7176 4041, 46, 51, 71, 73, 75
attitude toward mathematics concrete materials 31, 61, 62
students 8, 28, 29, 3334, 39, 40, 41, concrete operational stage 27, 28, 29,
59, 63, 64, 66, 71 30, 61
teachers 40 connectionist orientation 3536, 41, 62
Australian Association of Mathematics conservation of number 27
Teachers (AAMT) 2, 5 constructivist view of learning 25, 28, 55
97

98 i n d e x
continuity in learning 34, 39, 57, 60 homework 38, 39, 62, 72, 73
corrective feedback 54, 75, 76
counting 7, 14, 15, 16, 19, 21, 66 iconic stage in learning 30, 31
Crowther Report 12, 5 individual difference among students 33, 62
curriculum 1, 7, 9, 12, 18, 24, 28, 32, informal learning of number skills 13, 16,
36, 70 17, 20, 34
as a cause of difficulty 60 innumeracy 58
content 7, 9, 12, 30, 42, 44, 45, 60, 72 inquiry method 58
continuity 39, 60 interactive teaching 3738, 39
investigative approach v, 9, 36, 40, 42, 48,
declarative knowledge 46, 55 49, 58, 59
demonstrating
as teaching technique 37, 54, 61 Key Intended Numeracy Outcomes
developmentally appropriate (Tasmania) 69
curriculum 24, 28, 60
diagnostic interview 68, 7576, 78 learned helplessness 63, 66
Diagnostic Net (Queensland) 69 learning difficulties 21, 29, 54, 59, 60, 63,
diagnostic testing 68, 71, 73, 74, 7576, 66, 74
78 learning disability 57, 58, 6467
differentiation 69 literacy 12, 3, 4, 56, 38, 43, 47
direct instruction 28, 34, 35, 36, 46, 47,
50, 54 mathematical illiteracy 58
discovery approach 29, 36, 50, 58, 60 mathematics disability 64
dynamic assessment 76 see also dyscalculia
dyscalculia 6466 Mathematics Recovery 17
described 64 Maths4life 4
subtypes 66 maturation 26, 28, 29, 31
mechanical arithmetic 40, 59
early childhood 1318, 22, 28, 32 mediated learning 18
enactive stage of learning 30 memorisation 20, 40, 48, 61
error analysis 7475 mental calculation 27, 37, 50, 5152, 56
methods
fluency see teaching methods
in number facts and computation minimally guided discovery 36, 58
8, 51, 58, 64 modelling
formal operational stage 27 as teaching tactic 37, 54
formative assessment 70, 71 multiple numeracies 1, 6
multiplication 48, 59, 62, 64, 65, 74, 76
generalisation in learning 1, 9, 10, 32, 54
guided participation 18 National Assessment of Educational
guided practice 36, 51, 54 Progress (NAEP) 42, 43, 48, 69

index 99
National Assessment Program in Literacy practice 36, 40, 46, 48, 49, 50, 59, 70, 72
and Numeracy (NAPLAN) 3, importance of 46, 47, 53, 63
69, 79 predictors of mathematics disability 66
National Council of Teachers of pre-kindergarten 1417
Mathematics (NCTM) 3, 1415, pre-operational stage 27
22, 36 preschool development 15, 1719, 28, 34
National Numeracy Strategy (UK) 34, Primary Framework for Literacy and
38, 78 Mathematics (UK) 4, 44
National Plan for Literacy and Numeracy primary school years 20, 3338, 40, 44
(Australia) 3 Principles and standards in school
National Standards for Adult Numeracy mathematics 3
(UK) 43 problem solving 7, 8, 15, 17, 27, 35, 48,
neo-Piagetians 28 50, 56, 59, 66
number facts 7, 48, 5051, 56, 64, 65, 66, assessment of 7677
74, 76, 77 strategies for 27, 37, 46, 48, 5354
automaticity 46, 49 teaching of 5254, 61
importance of 4951, 59 problem-based approach 40, 49, 50, 59
numberline 14 procedural knowledge 46, 48, 55
number sense 13, 15, 1922, 32, 34, 47,
49, 52, 63, 71 questioning
numeracy as a teaching tactic 20, 36, 71, 76
across the curriculum 1, 910, 12
adult numeracy 4, 7, 11, 33, 4244, 45 readiness 28, 29, 31
content of 4344 reading difficulties 64, 65
defined 5 reflecting 25, 36, 37, 53, 54, 73
issues of content 68 reforms in mathematics education v, 46,
relationship to literacy 1, 23 4748, 59
Numeracy Recovery 17 research into teaching 3, 33, 3638, 40, 54
research-based practice 16, 36
objectives 4, 12, 13, 15, 44, 50, 68, 70, reversal of numbers 65
71, 73 review and revision 6162
for the early years 1819, 50 rote learning 48, 54, 59, 61
observation
as an assessment process 68, 7172 scaffolding 15, 18, 24, 29, 30
one-to-one correspondence 19 Schedule for early number assessment
(New South Wales) 69, 75, 78
parents 15, 16, 22, 71 schema 24, 26, 58
pattern making 14, 19 secondary schools 7, 9, 29, 33, 4142, 58,
Piaget, J. 22, 24, 2529, 32 5960, 71
place value 56, 64, 74 self-correction 53, 72
portfolio assessment 71, 73 self-monitoring 53

100 i n d e x
semi-abstract stage 31 direct 17, 28, 34, 35, 36, 46, 47, 50, 54
semi-concrete stage 31, 73 discovery 29, 36, 50, 5859, 60
sensorimotor stage of cognitive inquiry 32, 58
development 26 testing 3, 21, 68, 69, 7374
sequencing 14 diagnostic 68, 71
spiral curriculum 24, 32, 61 published tests 71, 74
strategic knowledge 46, 55, 73 teacher-made tests 71, 73
strategies for problem solving 37, 48, textbooks 30, 38, 41, 57, 59, 63, 64
5354, 56, 61 thinking aloud as a teaching
structural apparatus 31, 62 technique 18, 30, 54
subitising 19, 21 transmissionist orientation 35, 40
summative assessment 71 Trends in International Mathematics and
symbol sense 21 Science Study (TIMSS) 35, 38, 41
symbolic stage 27, 3031, 61
visualising 53, 55, 61, 73
teacher-directed approach 28, 34 Vygotsky, L 18, 24, 25, 2930, 32
teachers
attitude toward mathematics 40 whole-class approach 37, 38, 39
competency 33, 3638, 40, 59, 6061 work samples
role of 9, 13, 17, 18, 20, 29, 30, 34, assessment of 68, 7273, 75, 76
3536 working memory 52, 66
teaching methods
achieving a balance v, 42, 44, 48, 49 zone of proximal development 18, 24,
as a cause of difficulty 5859 29, 76

What Teachers Need
to Know About
Teaching Methods
Peter Westwood
ACER Press, 2008
The What Teachers Need to Know About About the author

series aims to refresh and expand basic
Peter Westwood has been an Associate
teaching knowledge and classroom
Professor of Education and has taught all
experience. Books in the series provide
age groups. He holds awards for excellence
essential information about a range of
in teaching from Flinders University in South
subjects necessary for todays teachers
Australia and from the University of Hong
to do their jobs effectively. These books
Kong. Peter has published many books
are short, easy-to-use guides to the
and articles on educational subjects and is
fundamentals of a subject with clear
currently an educational consultant based in
reference to other, more comprehensive,
Macau, China.
sources of information.
Teaching Methods explains the different To order What Teachers Need to Know
theories of teaching and learning, together About Teaching Methods
with their underlying principles and Visit <http://shop.acer.edu.au>
methods. It defines the role of a teacher
in the learning process and looks at the Other titles from Peter Westwood
latest research on what contributes to
Visit <http://www.acer.edu.au/westwood>
effective practice. Teaching Methods deals
with important key issues and provides a
wealth of references for fur ther study and
exploration in the subject.

What Teachers Need
to Know About
Spelling
Peter Westwood
ACER Press, 2008
The What Teachers Need to Know About series About the author
aims to refresh and expand basic teaching
knowledge and classroom experience. Books
in the series provide essential information
about a range of subjects necessary for todays
teachers to do their jobs effectively. These
books are short, easy-to-use guides to the
fundamentals of a subject with clear reference
to other, more comprehensive, sources of
information.
Macau, China.
Spelling bridges the gap between knowledge
accumulated from research on spelling To order What Teachers Need to Know
acquisition and the practicalities of teaching About Spelling
spelling more effectively in schools. Current Visit <http://shop.acer.edu.au>
trends are examined, alongside community
views on spelling standards because this is Other titles from Peter Westwood
the context in which change is beginning to
Visit <http://www.acer.edu.au/westwood>
occur. Spelling contains practical suggestions
on methods and activities applicable to all
students, supplemented by specific advice on
assessment, and links to additional resources.

A Parents Guide
to Learning
Difficulties
How to help your child
Peter Westwood
ACER Press, 2008
A Parents Guide to Learning Difficulties will About the author

help you help your child to learn. It provides
parents with a clear explanation of the many
causes of childrens problems in learning, and
contains jargon-free and practical advice for
helping children with reading, writing and
mathematics. It also explains how previously
proven and effective methods can be
implemented in home-tutoring situations, as
well as in school.
Macau, China.
While the focus is on ordinary children with
general learning difficulties, the book also To order A Parents Guide to Learning
provides important information about teaching Difficulties
and managing children with intellectual, Visit <http://shop.acer.edu.au>
physical and sensory disabilities, as well as
autism. Other titles from Peter Westwood
A Parents Guide to Learning Difficulties is Visit <http://www.acer.edu.au/westwood>
full of links to some great online information
resources and references to books that you
can use to help your child learn.

P e t e r We s t w o o d
The What Teachers Need to Know About series aims to refresh and expand
basic teaching knowledge and classroom experience. Books in the series provide
essential information about a range of subjects necessary for todays teachers
to do their jobs effectively. These books are short, easy-to-use guides to the
fundamentals of a subject with clear reference to other, more comprehensive, What
sources of information. Other titles in the series include Teaching Methods,
Spelling, Learning Difficulties, Reading and Writing Difficulties, Personal Wellbeing, teachers
need to know
Marketing, and Music in Schools.
There is an increasing need for numeracy skills in all aspects of life and Numeracy
about
NUMERACY
explores the issues that are emerging regarding the teaching of these skills,
beginning with preschool and the early years of primary school through to adults
with poor numeracy skills. It draws on research and relevant literature from several
different countries to provide a comprehensive overview of the subject and contains
many links to other sources of information and additional resources.
Peter Westwood has been an Associate Professor of Education and has taught all
age groups. He holds awards for excellence in teaching from Flinders University
in South Australia and from the University of Hong Kong. Peter has published
many books and articles on educational subjects and is currently an educational
consultant based in Macau, China. Westwood
Cover images: Erengoksel | Dreamstime.com

Feng Yu | Dreamstime.com
ISBN 978-0-86431-904-3
Numeracy
9 780864 319043

WTNTKAN

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

WTNTKAN

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

P e t e r We s t w o o d

Cover images: Erengoksel | Dreamstime.com

numeracy_text.indd 1 19/6/08 3:24:32 PM

numeracy_text.indd 3 19/6/08 3:24:32 PM

Text Peter Westwood 2008

This book is copyright. All rights reserved. Except under the

Edited by Carolyn Glascodine

National Library of Australia Cataloguing-in-Publication data:

Author: Westwood, Peter S. (Peter Stuart), 1936

numeracy_text.indd 4 19/6/08 3:24:32 PM

2 Numeracy in early childhood  13

3 The development of number concepts  24

4 The primary school years and beyond  33

5 Calculating and problem solving  46

numeracy_text.indd 5 19/6/08 3:24:33 PM

numeracy_text.indd 6 19/6/08 3:24:33 PM

numeracy_text.indd 7 19/6/08 3:24:33 PM

My sincere thanks go to Carolyn Glascodine for her very efficient edit

Readers may access the online resources mentioned

numeracy_text.indd 8 19/6/08 3:24:33 PM

Defining numeracy: The definition has expanded considerably over

numeracy_text.indd 1 19/6/08 3:24:33 PM

for Education, 1959). In that document numeracy was presented as the

Numeracy: important in its own right

numeracy_text.indd 2 19/6/08 3:24:33 PM

The recommendation to address students numeracy separately from

numeracy_text.indd 3 19/6/08 3:24:33 PM

skills in primary schools (the numeracy hour) to complement the already

The evolving definition of numeracy

We would wish numerate to imply the possession of two attributes. The

numeracy_text.indd 4 19/6/08 3:24:33 PM

to have some appreciation and understanding of information which is

numeracy_text.indd 5 19/6/08 3:24:33 PM

age, and so on. Literacy acquisition is seen to be socially and culturally

practical (for everyday use)

The anatomy of numeracy

numeracy_text.indd 6 19/6/08 3:24:33 PM

counting and understanding number

number and operations sense

numeracy_text.indd 7 19/6/08 3:24:33 PM

measurement and shape

Within each of these strands, a learner needs to become proficient in four

mathematical concepts and skills from across the discipline (numerical,

The above statement almost makes it seem that numeracy = mathematical

Is numeracy the same as mathematics?

numeracy_text.indd 8 19/6/08 3:24:34 PM

How teachers view numeracy in relation to mathematics is important

Numeracy across the curriculum

numeracy_text.indd 9 19/6/08 3:24:34 PM

How can numeracy contribute to enhanced learning outcomes in this learning

By integrating mathematical components into all school subjects, students

Affective aspects of numeracy

numeracy_text.indd 10 19/6/08 3:24:34 PM

frequently when the characteristics of a numerate person are described

Ginsburg, L., Manly, M., & Schmitt, M. J. (2006). The components

numeracy_text.indd 11 19/6/08 3:24:34 PM

The in-service training material Numeracy across the curriculum

numeracy_text.indd 12 19/6/08 3:24:34 PM

Early childhood as the foundation stage in numeracy development:

numeracy_text.indd 13 19/6/08 3:24:34 PM

birth to process quantitative information Butterworth (2005) describes it

Even before they enter kindergarten, children appear to acquire an intuition

numeracy_text.indd 14 19/6/08 3:24:34 PM

engaging childrens natural curiosity

2 Numeracy in early childhood 13

3 The development of number concepts 24

4 The primary school years and beyond 33

5 Calculating and problem solving 46