Snapshots From A Classroom An Analysis o PDF

ISSN 1463-6840
Proceedings of the British

Society for
Research into Learning
Mathematics
Volume 30 Number 3
Proceedings of the Day Conference held at

Newcastle University, Saturday 13th November 2010
These proceedings consist of short research reports which were written for the
BSRLM day conference on 13 November 2010. The aim of the proceedings is to
communicate to the research community the collective research represented at
BSRLM conferences, as quickly as possible.
We hope that members will use the proceedings to give feedback to the authors
and that through discussion and debate we will develop an energetic and critical
research community. We particularly welcome presentations and papers from
new researchers.
Published by the British Society for Research into Learning Mathematics.
Individual papers © contributing authors 2010
Other materials © BSRLM 2010
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be produced or transmitted

in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying,
recording or any information storage retrieval system, without prior permission
in writing from the publishers.
Editor: M. Joubert, Graduate School of Education, University of Bristol,

BS8 1JA
ISSN 1463-6840
Informal Proceedings of the British Society for Research into Learning
Mathematics (BSRLM)
Volume 30 Number 3, November 2010
Proceedings of the Day Conference held at Newcastle

University on 13 th November 2010
Investigating the development of prospective mathematics teachers’ technological

pedagogical content knowledge with regard to student difficulties: the case of radian
concept 1
Hatice Akkoç
Marmara University, Turkey
Investigating the impact of a developmental research project on teachers’ teaching
practice: Listening to mathematics teachers’ reflections 7
Claire Vaugelade Berg
University of Agder, Kristiansand, Norway
Calculating: What can Year 5 children do? 13
Alison Borthwick and Micky Harcourt-Heath
University of East Anglia
Measuring Students’ Persistence on Unfamiliar Mathematical Tasks 19
Sinead Breen, Joan Cleary, Ann O’Shea
CASTeL, St Patrick’s College, Dublin; Institute of Technology, Tralee; National University of Ireland,
Maynooth
Snapshots from a classroom: an analysis of patterns of interaction over an academic
year in one year 7 mathematics class 25
Alf Coles
University of Bristol, Graduate School of Education
Benchmarking Mentoring Practices for Effective Teaching of Mathematics and Science
31
Francis Kwaku Duah
University of Southampton, fkd1g08@soton.ac.uk
(Loughborough University, f.k.duah@lboro.ac.uk, from January 2011)
Perceptions of symmetry: A window into how 13 year old students appear to understand
symmetry. 37
Sue Forsythe
School of Education, University of Leicester
A week with secondary mathematics through history and culture 43
Ioanna Georgiou
Institute of Education, University of Warwick
The affordances and constraints of turn-taking in the secondary mathematics classroom
49
Jenni Ingram
University of Warwick
Engineering Students’ Understanding Mathematics ESUM 55
Barbara Jaworski
Loughborough University
Why do GCSE examination papers look like they do? 61
Ian Jones
University of Nottingham
Measurement: everywhere and nowhere in secondary mathematics 67
Keith Jones
University of Southampton
Level 3 mathematics: a model for the curriculum 73
Peter Osmon
Department of Education and Professional Studies, King’s College London
Conceptions of ‘Understanding mathematics in depth’: What do teachers need to know
and how do they need to know it? 79
Mary Stevenson
Liverpool Hope University
Analysing Secondary Mathematics Teaching with the Knowledge Quartet 85
Anne Thwaites, Libby Jared and Tim Rowland
University of Cambridge, UK
Investigating the development of prospective mathematics teachers’ technological
pedagogical content knowledge with regard to student difficulties: the case of radian
concept
Hatice Akkoç
Marmara University, Turkey
This study investigates how two prospective mathematics teachers integrate technology
into their lessons to address student difficulties. Prospective teachers took part in a
teacher preparation program which aims to develop technological pedagogical content
knowledge (TPCK). As part of this program, prospective teachers participated in
workshops which aimed to develop TPCK of derivative and function concepts.
Following these workshops, prospective teachers conducted their own workshops during
which they discussed student difficulties with various mathematical concepts such as
limit, continuity, definite integral, probability and radian with their peers. They also
discussed how these difficulties could be addressed during a lesson using technological
tools. This paper particularly focuses on radian concept and investigates the development
of two prospective mathematics teachers throughout the course in integrating technology
into their lessons to address student difficulties with radian concept.
Keywords: Mathematics teacher education; technological pedagogical content

knowledge; radian concept; student difficulties
Introduction
Recently, teacher education research has focused on the nature of teacher knowledge required
for successful technology integration (Mishra and Koehler 2006). In the literature, a
theoretical framework called ‘Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK)’ is
proposed to investigate the nature of knowledge to be able to successfully integrate
technology into instruction. TPCK framework was originally derived from the idea of
‘Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK)’ which was proposed by Shulman (1986) as a new
domain of teacher knowledge. It has been a useful framework for exploring what teachers
need to know or to develop for effective teaching of particular content.
Pierson (2001) has added technology category to PCK framework and described
TPCK as a combination of three types of knowledge: (a) content knowledge, (b) pedagogical
knowledge, that is, the structure, organization, management, and teaching strategies for how
particular subject matter is taught, (c) technological knowledge including the basic
operational skills of technologies. TPCK is defined as a blend of these three knowledge
categories.
Only a few researchers have examined the components of TPCK. Among those,
Pierson (2001) and Niess (2005) used four components of PCK suggested by Grossman
(1990) to define the components of TPCK. Five components of TPCK are proposed in a
research project, part of which constitutes this study. Four of these components were adopted
from Grossman (1990). A component regarding multiple representations was added as the
fifth component of TPCK:
 Knowledge of using multiple representations of a particular topic with technology
 Knowledge of students’ difficulties with a particular topic and addressing them using
technology
From Informal Proceedings 30-3 (BSRLM) available at bsrlm.org.uk © the author - 1

 Knowledge of instructional strategies and methods for a particular topic using
technology
 Knowledge of curricular materials available for teaching a particular topic using
technology
 Knowledge of assessment of a particular topic with technology
In the project, TPCK framework with its five components was used to design a course for
prospective mathematics teachers. Prospective teachers were participated in the activities
concerning each component. This study focuses on a particular component of TPCK, namely
knowledge of students’ difficulties with a particular topic and addressing them using
technology. This study aims to bring the content dimension into play focusing on radian
concept and investigates how two prospective mathematics teachers integrate technology into
their lessons to address student difficulties with radian concept. To do that, considering the
relevant research on the learning of radian, three areas of student difficulties were specified.
First, students’ difficulties with recognising real numbers as radian measure are
reported in the literature. Radian of an angle can be described as the ratio of two lengths: the
length of the arc of a central angle of a circle and the radius of the circle. Therefore, a radian
angle is expressed as a real number such as sin 30 while angles in degrees are expressed with
degree notation such as sin 30º. However, research findings indicate that students find it
difficult to make sense of angles if they are expressed without degree notation such as sin30
even though the absence of degree notation was emphasised (Akkoç and Akbaş-Gül 2010). If
the expression does not include π, students tend to reject it as an angle in radian.
Second difficulty is concerned with describing radian as a ratio of two lengths: the
length of the arc of a central angle of a circle and the radius of the circle. Research indicates
that students’ concept images of radian are dominated by the formula . They use this
formula instead of the definition of radian. In Akkoç and Akbaş’s (2010) study, some of the
students could relate the radian concept to the notion of an arc. They could only define one
radian: the length of an arc on a unit circle which is equal to the length of radius. However,
they could not describe radian in a general sense, that is, radian as a ratio of two lengths.
The third difficulty stems from recognising π as equal to 180. Since students’
understanding of radian might be limited to the use of the formula , they might
consider π as equal to 180 (Fi 2003). Akkoç’s (2008) study indicates that participants marked
π as the number 180 on a number line, not as a number around 3.14. Students have two
different concept images of π in two different contexts: one in the context of angle and one in
the context of number.
The aim of this study is to investigate how two prospective mathematics teachers
integrate technology into their lessons to address student difficulties with radian concept
which were reported above. For this investigation two research questions are specified: (i)
What kinds of student difficulties do prospective teachers foresee during lesson planning and
how do they evaluate their lessons with this respect? (ii) How do prospective teachers address
these difficulties?
Methodology
This case study focuses on two prospective mathematics teachers enrolled in a teacher
preparation program in a university in Istanbul, Turkey. Forty prospective teachers
participated in the program and they will be entitled to a certificate for teaching mathematics
in high schools for students aged between 15 and 19. During the program they take courses

related to mathematics, pedagogy and content specific pedagogy. The data of this study was
collected during two courses: “Teaching Methods in Mathematics” and “Instructional
Technology and Material Development”. As part of these courses, prospective teachers
participated in workshops which aimed to develop TPCK of derivative and function concepts
conducted by the author of this paper. The workshops attended to the five components of
TPCK which were mentioned above. Following these workshops, prospective teachers
conducted their own workshops during which they discussed student difficulties with various
mathematical concepts such as limit, continuity, definite integral, probability and radian with
their peers. Each concept is discussed by a group of eight prospective teachers. This study
focuses on the workshop on radian concept. To guide prospective teachers for their
preparation for the workshop, they were provided with a review of literature on students’
difficulties with radian. They were given an MSc thesis on the learning of radian in Turkish
language (Akbaş 2008). In the workshop, four prospective teachers discussed student
difficulties with radian and how these difficulties could be addressed during a lesson using
technological tools. Prospective teachers used Cabri Geometry and Geogebra software. Their
TPCK were evaluated before and after the workshop. They prepared and taught two lessons
on radian: one before the workshop and one after the workshop. They taught these lessons as
part of a micro-teaching activity. In other words, they taught these lessons to their peers as if
they were in a real classroom environment. They were also interviewed at the end of the
lesson. Lesson plans, teaching notes, micro-teaching lesson videos, interview transcripts were
analysed to reveal how two prospective teachers integrate technology into a lesson to address
student difficulties with radian which were reported above.
Findings
In this section, findings obtained from the data analysis will be presented in three sub-
sections. Each sub-section will report how two prospective teachers (Mutlu and Gamze) take
each student difficulty into account before and after the workshop.
Difficulties with describing radian as a ratio of two lengths

Before the workshop, during their first micro-teaching lessons, both prospective
teachers introduced radian concept by defining one radian only: a central angle facing an arc
which has a length of the radius. Neither of them defined radian in a general sense: ratio of
the length of the arc of a central angle of a circle and the radius of the circle.
For their second lesson planning, they took this difficulty into account as they
mentioned during the interviews. During their second micro-teaching lessons, Gamze and
Mutlu not only gave the definition of one radian but also explained radian as the ratio of two
lengths.
How shall we find an angle when the length of the arc and radius are known. How many
radiuses does the arc include? Then the angle is L/R (where the L is the length of the arc
and R is the length of the radius). Is this really true? Let’s run the Geogebra software (see
Figure 1) (Gamze).

Mutlu first defined one radian and used Cabri Geometry to show that the round angle
is approximately 6.28 radians (6+0.28=6.28) which is 2π (see Figure 2).
During the interviews, both prospective teachers evaluated software they used in their
second lessons. They both emphasised that defining one radian only might prevent students
from understanding the radian concept in a general sense, that is radian as the ratio of the
length of the arc of a central angle of a circle and the radius of the circle. They both thought
that the software they used could enhance students’ understanding of radian in that sense.
Difficulties with recognising real numbers as radian measure

Before the workshop, neither of prospective
teachers considered this difficulty in their planning.
However, some aspects of their lessons related radian
to real numbers. Both prospective teachers explained
that there is approximately 6.28 radians around a
circle. Gamze used a piece of string to measure the
radius of a circle which she made from card board and
then measured the circumference to find how many
pieces of string are there on the circumference.
However, she did not make any emphasis on real
numbers. For example, as she was explaining the sine
function, she did not mention that the elements of the
domain of sine function (which is the set of real
numbers) are in radian measurement not in degrees. Figure 3. Mutlu’s activity with Cabri Geometry
Mutlu used Cabri Geometry to show that there are during her first lesson
six 57.3’s and one 16.2 degrees in a round angle (see
Figure 3) and she evaluated 16.2/57.3 nearly as 0.28. She then concluded that there are 6.28
radians in a round angle. Although she expressed radian as a real number, she reached that
conclusion using the degree measurement. Furthermore, for all the other examples in her first
micro-teaching lesson, she used angles in radian which includes π only. This might lead
students to reject angles in radian if they do not include π.
After the workshop, both prospective teachers took students’ difficulties with seeing
radian as a real number into account as they mentioned during their reflections for their
second lesson planning. Likewise, the analysis of their second micro-teaching lesson videos
indicates that they integrate technology into their lessons to address this difficulty. Mutlu

asked her peers to construct 2 radians using Cabri
Geometry as shown in Figure 4. During the
interview, she said:
I deliberately asked them to find 2 radians. Radian
could be any number, not just π. It could be any
real number” (Mutlu).
Gamze similarly emphasised that “π is not
a symbol for radian angle. It’s a special kind of
real number used to avoid using big numbers”. In
summary, both prospective teachers addressed this
difficulty using technology in their second lesson.
Figure 4. Mutlu’s activity with Cabri
Recognising π as equal to 180 degrees Geometry during her second lesson
Before the workshop, neither of prospective
teachers considered this difficulty in their planning. During their first micro-teaching lessons,
both Gamze and Mutlu constructed the formula by direct proportion (If 2π radians is equal to
360 degrees, then how many radians do 30 degrees equal to?). They wrote 360=2π on the
board. However, this might lead students to think that π is equal to 180. They also emphasised
π as 3.14 as well. In other words, they focused on two different images of π: π as an angle and
π as a number. However, they did not relate these two images in their first lessons. They used
a similar approach during their second micro-teaching lessons but related two different
images of π by emphasising that the length of the arc on a unit circle is two times 3.14.
Discussion
As the data indicated, the way participants integrate technology into their lessons to address
student difficulties with radian has improved considerably. The workshop conducted by
prospective teachers during the course was helpful for participants to become aware of
student difficulties with radian which were reported in the literature. Participants tried to
integrate technology into their lessons during their micro-teaching sessions before the
workshop. However, the way they integrate technology was more effective during their
second micro-teaching lesson. This situation revealed itself especially during Mutlu’s lessons.
Before the workshop, she used Cabri Geometry to show that there are six 57.3’s and one 16.2
degrees in a round angle using the fact that one radian is 57.3 degrees. She evaluated
16.2/57.3 nearly as 0.28 and concluded that there are approximately 6.28 radians in a round
angle. Although she expressed radian as a real number, she reached that conclusion using the
degree measurement. On the other hand, during her second-micro teaching lesson after the
workshop, she used Cabri Geometry software to find the measure of the angle in radian and
express it as a real number by finding the ratio of the length of the arc and the length of the
radius. This way, she used the potential of the software to address students’ difficulties with
recognising real numbers as radian measure.
From the data, it can be concluded that content specific coursework had a strong
impact on prospective teachers’ TPCK with regard to student difficulties. Effectiveness of
content specific teacher preparation is also reported by Fennema and Franke (1992). In their
study elementary teachers were able to gain knowledge about their students’ thinking and this
knowledge favourably influenced their teaching and the students’ learning. For prospective
teachers, since they do not have much experience with students, one of the ways of gaining
this knowledge is to examine the research findings on students’ difficulties. This study
indicated that this could be a useful method for helping prospective teachers gain the

knowledge of students’ difficulties. Furthermore, this knowledge helped prospective teachers
to integrate technology into their lessons more effectively.
Acknowledgement
This study is part of a project (project number 107K531) entitled as “Developing a program
for pre-service mathematics teachers which aims to develop technology pedagogical content
knowledge” funded by TUBITAK (The Scientific and Technological Research Council of
Turkey).
References
Akbas, N. 2008. Onuncu sınıf ögrencilerinin radyan kavramına iliskin sahip oldugu
yanılgıların giderilmesine yönelik bir ögretim sürecinin incelenmesi. Marmara
Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Yüksek Lisans Tezi.
Akkoç, H. 2008. Pre-service mathematics teachers' concept images of radian. International
Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology 39, no. 7: 857 – 878.
Akkoç, H. and N. Akbaş-Gül. 2010. Radyan Kavramına İlişkin Öğrenci Güçlüklerinin
Giderilmesine Yönelik Tasarlanan Bir Öğretme Yaklaşımının İncelenmesi. Ankara
Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Dergisi 43, no. 1: 97-130.
Fennema, E., and M. Franke. 1992. Teachers’ knowledge and its impact. In Handbook of
research on mathematics teaching and learning, ed. D. Grouws, 147-164. New York:
Macmillan.
Fi, C., D. 2003. Preservice Secondary School Mathematics Teachers’ Knowledge of
Trigonometry: Subject Matter Content Knowledge, Pedagogical Content Knowledge
and Envisioned Pedagogy. PhD diss., University of Iowa.
Grossman, P., L. 1990. The making of a teacher: Teacher knowledge and teacher education.
New York: Teachers College Press.
Mishra, P., and M. J. Koehler. 2006. Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A
Framework for Teacher Knowledge. Teachers College Record 108, no. 6: 1017–1054.
Niess, M.L. 2005. Preparing teachers to teach science and mathematics with technology:
Developing a technology pedagogical content knowledge, Teaching and Teacher
Education, 21, 509–523.
Pierson, M. E. (2001). Technology integration practice as a function of pedagogical expertise.
Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 33(4), 413-429.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational
Researcher 15: 4–14.

Investigating the impact of a developmental research project on teachers’ teaching
practice: Listening to mathematics teachers’ reflections
Claire Vaugelade Berg
University of Agder, Kristiansand, Norway
The impact of participating in a research project on mathematics teachers’ teaching

practice is analyzed. Results presented in this article uncover the influence of the
research project on many aspects of the teachers’ practice and contribute to the
development of a better understanding of the complexity of the teaching practice.
Teachers’ professional development, implication for teachers’ practice, community

of practice theory, cultural historical activity theory.
Introduction
The research reported here presents results from my ongoing study concerning the impact on
mathematics teachers’ teaching practice of a developmental research project , the TBM
project (Teaching Better Mathematics), conducted at the university of Agder (UiA) from 2007
to 2010. In the project we collaborated with teachers from 4 kindergarten, 6 primary and
lower secondary schools, and 3 upper secondary schools. Our collaboration was organised
around workshops where the teachers and researchers from UiA had the opportunity to
explore a specific mathematical theme and to engage collaboratively in chosen tasks. In
addition each member of the research team had the responsibility to establish contact with the
schools and to visit the teachers. The aim of this current research is both to investigate and to
categorise the nature of the influence of the TBM project on the different aspects of the
teachers’ practice. The structure of the article is as follows: first I present the main aspects of
the TBM project. Then I explain how the theoretical framework is elaborated and offer a
justification of the methodological assumptions. Then I turn to the results of the analysis of
teachers’ reflections from focus group interviews. I conclude by discussing implications of
this research for future programs concerning teachers’ professional development.
The main aspects of the TBM project
One of the focuses of the TBM project is to use an inquiry approach to the teaching and
learning of mathematics as a means to achieve better mathematical understanding and higher
level of competence for pupils. Here an inquiry approach is understood as asking questions
and seeking answers, recognising problems and seeking solutions, inventing, wondering,
imagining and looking critically both at the tasks we, as learners, are engaging with and at the
teaching practice we, as teachers, are adopting (Jaworski et al. 2010). Thereby we use inquiry
as a tool to achieve Teaching Better Mathematics, that is we seek to develop better
understandings of, and competency in mathematics for pupils in school. Likewise, we aim at
exploring and developing approaches to Teaching Better Mathematics, as a means to achieve
our first goal. Our collaboration with teachers is organised according to a co-learning
agreement (Wagner 1997). This implies that we recognise both the teachers and our own
expertise and, at the same time, we develop a better understanding both of our own world, as
researchers, and of the teachers’ challenges in their teaching practice. The aim of this article is
to uncover aspects of the ‘teachers’ world’ and to explore what co-learning agreement means

within the TBM project. Within the project our collaboration with teachers is organised as
follows: researchers from university organise workshops regularly (4 – 5 per year) where a
specific mathematical theme is presented during a plenary presentation and then discussed in
group sessions as all participants (teachers and researchers) engage collaboratively in some
mathematical tasks. In addition, each of the researchers had the responsibility to follow up
one or two schools and to visit regularly the teachers engaged in the project, discussing with
them the possible implementation in their teaching practice of ideas and tasks, and observing
lessons (Berg 2910a, 2010b). In order to gain insights into the consequences for teachers of
engaging in the TBM project, focus group interviews were conducted by the project leader
from December 2008 to November 2009. In the research reported in this article I am
addressing the following research questions:
• What evidence of change in teaching practice can be found in the teachers’
reflections from focus group interviews?
• What can we, as researchers, learn from this study?
By addressing these questions, my aim is both to identify and to categorise evidence of
change in teaching practice which can be identified in the teachers’ reflections. In addition,
the results of this research might be useful in uncovering the nature of the challenges teachers
met as they engaged in professional development and thereby making visible aspects of their
professional world. In the next session I present the theoretical approach underpinning this
research.
Theoretical approach
The theoretical approach adopted in this research is rooted in Community of Practice Theory
(CPT) with Wenger’s (1998) community of practice, where the idea of practice refers both to
the teachers’ teaching practice at their respective school, and to our own practice as
researchers. Furthermore, the idea of inquiry plays a central role in the TBM project and we
use the notion of community of inquiry (CoI) as a means to describe and characterise a shift
toward critical paradigm (Berg et al. submitted). In our project, inquiry is used both as a tool
and as a way of being (Jaworski 2007). Thereby, within the proposed theoretical frame,
learning is understood as social participation in practice where mutual engagement, joint
enterprise and shared repertoire define the community where the practice is situated. In
addition to CPT, we consider Cultural Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) where emphasis is
on object oriented activity and goal directed action. At the same time, we consider that it is
important to recognise the individual’s expectations (Lave 1988). Therefore, I propose to
introduce the idea of convergence between the individual’s expectations and the goals of the
practice. As a consequence, teaching development might be understood either as
extrapolation, that is as enhanced convergence between teachers’ expectations and the goals
of the practice, or as expansion, that is as introducing creative innovation that is oriented
towards future and transforms the activity system (Berg et al. submitted). I consider that
within the adopted framework it is possible to explore in depth the meaning and implications
of a co-learning approach and to develop a better understanding of each other “world and its
connections to institutions and schooling” (Wagner 1997, 16). In addition since this research
aims at studying the implications for teachers’ teaching practice of participating in a
developmental research project, the data are taken from the teachers’ practice and this
position follows Ball’s (2000) recommendation as she argues that “Instead of beginning
solely with the curriculum, our understanding of the content knowledge needed in teaching
must start with practice. We must understand better the work that teachers do and analyze the
role played by the content knowledge in that work” (p.244, my emphasis). Thereby studying
the development of the teachers’ content knowledge allows me to address the issue of

Teaching Better Mathematics and it starts with studying the development of the teachers’
practice as reported during focus group interviews.
Methodological considerations
In the TBM project we adopt a developmental research approach. According to Goodchild

(2008), central aspects of this approach are as follows: a cyclical process between a
development cycle and a research cycle where development nutures research and research
guides development. Furthermore, the research cycle consists of a cycle between global and
local theories, while the development cycle consists of a cycle between thought experiment
and practical experiment. Within the TBM project, global theories refer to CPT and CHAT,
while local theory consists of CoI. Furthermore, we understand the development cycle as
referring to our engagement with teachers where thought experiment refers to the preparation
of the workshops we regularly organise with the teachers (about 4 – 5 per year). Practical
experiment refers to the actual realisation of these. Moreover, feedback from participants is
informing the next step of thought experiment. While we, as researchers, are engaged in
developmental research, as described above, our goal is that the teachers will gradually
engage in developing their teaching. This development is referred to as a shift from a teaching
cycle to an inquiry cycle, where this transition implies a shift from planning, teaching,
reflecting and feedback to planning and re-planning, teaching and observing, reflecting and
analysing, and feedback to the planning step (Berg in press). By focusing on the implications
of engaging in a developmental research project, this current research aims at uncovering
which aspects of the teachers’ practice are modified as the teachers moved from a teaching
cycle to an inquiry cycle. Thereby I consider that the adopted approach follows Ball’s
recommendation to start by investigating teachers’ practice.
The research setting
In this current research I analysed focus group interviews, designed as semi-structured

interviews, of both primary and lower secondary schools participating in the TBM project.
These focus group interviews were conducted by the project leader from December 2008 to
November 2009. The aims of the focus group interviews were to offer the teachers the
opportunity to reflect on their engagement within the TBM project and to make visible the
challenges and the demands they met both at their own school and in relation to the
collaboration with researchers as they participated in the project. Each interview was
conducted at the teachers’ school and lasted for one and a half hour. Two to five teachers
were participating in the interviews in addition to the project leader. An important aspect of
the focus group interviews concerns the fact that three of the schools also have been
participating in a previous developmental research project, the LCM project (Learning
Communities in Mathematics) which lasted from 2004 to 2007, while the three other schools
have only engaged with the TBM project. All focus group interviews were transcribed and
during the process of reading and re-reading the transcripts several codes gradually emerged
from the analytical process. These codes were grouped and categories were defined. In the
next section I present these categories and the main results from the analysis of the focus
group interviews.
Results
After engaging in the analytical process, as described above, the following categories were
identified: attitude to mathematics, changes in teaching practice, challenges met by the start of

the project, systemic aspects, cooperation with UiA, and sustainability. Furthermore a salient
feature of the analysis relates to the recognition of significant differences between the schools
who participated in both projects (LCM and TBM) and the schools who took part only in the
TBM project. Particularly the challenges they met and the experiences gained from
participating in the projects were expressed differently in these schools. Therefore, it seems
relevant to present the results from the analysis according to this dichotomy. For clarity
reasons I choose to label the former schools (participating both in LCM and TBM) as
“oldtimers”, while I refer to the later (participating only in TBM) as “newcomers” to the
TBM project. Due to limitation of space in this article I present the results of the analysis
related to the following dimensions: attitude to mathematics and changes in teaching practice,
and systemic aspects.
Attitude to mathematics and changes in teaching practice
Considering first the three “newcomers” schools, the teachers reported on an

increasing awareness concerning the nature of mathematics, they mentioned questions like
“what is the nature of mathematics” and “how do I want to present mathematics to my
pupils?” In addition several teachers indicated a desire both to become more independent of
the textbook and a willingness to look for inquiry tasks, such as the tower in Hanoi.
Furthermore, they also reported on and discussed how they tried to modify and adapt already
existing tasks, as in textbooks, in order to include an inquiry approach. As these tasks were
implemented, the teachers characterised their approach as following an “inquiry spirit”, and
they reported on a different kind of interaction during the lesson. Furthermore, the teachers
explained how inquiry tasks facilitated the communication and discussion between pupils,
offering the opportunity for all pupils to explain their own thinking and comment on each
others’ work. According to the teachers, it was possible to ask questions, to wonder, to have
time to investigate a problem. However, a teacher reported on some tension between a desire
to involve all pupils in inquiry tasks and the challenge of presenting tasks which are relevant
both to low and high achieving pupils. In addition, an important aspect concerned the
opportunity, for the teacher, to address mathematical terminology. My interpretation of the
teachers’ reflections is that they were able to express a desire to achieve convergence between
their own expectations, as they participated in the TBM project and aimed at implementing an
inquiry approach, and the goals from their teaching practice. At the same time teachers
recognised the limitations and challenges belonging to their current teaching practice.
Concerning “oldtimers” schools, the teachers reported on engaging with mathematics in a
different way and developing a repertoire of tasks they could use and develop further. In
addition, they mentioned that they were able to find tasks by themselves. Based on their
experience of using an inquiry approach in their own teaching practice, the teachers shared
with the project leader their increased awareness of the complexity of teaching. In addition,
they observed that the whole culture in class changed, allowing all pupils to participate,
including low achievement pupils. According to these teachers, an advantage of inquiry tasks
was that all pupils could start with the same task and then move on with different levels of
engagement. My interpretation of the teachers’ reflections from “oldtimers” schools is that
they were able to face the challenges, as described by the “newcomers” schools, and proposed
and introduced changes in their teaching practice. Thereby it seems that they were able to
achieve a degree of convergence between their own expectations and the goals of their
teaching practice.

Systemic aspects
The teachers’ reflections concerning this issue show a clear difference according to
either belonging to a “newcomers” or an “oldtimers” school. I start by referring to the
“newcomers” schools. According to these teachers, a central issue concerned the organisation
of the time schedule, and more specifically the possibility to have a double teaching period.
Teachers recognised that using an inquiry approach in teaching was time consuming and this
recognition implied that time issue became really important. Therefore they claimed that it
was necessary to have a different organisation of the teaching schedule, a one which allows
for double teaching period, in order to have the possibility to implement inquiry tasks.
Another central issue related to how to include colleagues. In each school there was a TBM
team including two or three teachers. The challenge consisted of having the opportunity to
share with others new teaching approaches and ideas. The issue at stake was about how to
organise the collaboration with colleagues at the same school and how to find time to discuss
about mathematics and the development of teaching practice. In addition, the focus on
mathematics might come in conflict with focus on other subject matters. Finally, the teachers
explained that they experienced a tension between, on one side developing an inquiry
approach in their lesson, and on the other hand, preparing pupils to the tests. Considering the
“oldtimers” schools, teachers’ reflections offered an illustration of the way they solved some
of the challenges “newcomers” teachers were experiencing. Teachers from all three
“oldtimers” schools reported on regular meetings at their school including all colleagues and
the school principal. The frequency of these meetings were approximately twice per semester.
In addition, teachers from one of the schools reported on a new organisation at their school
where a leader group, consisting of teachers from mathematics, Norwegian and English, was
looking at ways to implement an inquiry approach to other subject-matters. Some teachers
refer to developing and establishing a “new culture” among all teachers at their school. Other
initiatives were reported such as establishing contacts between schools participating in the
project and inviting and giving information to parents.
Discussion and conclusion
In this article I report on a first analysis of focus group interviews conducted at six lower
secondary schools, where three of the schools were participating both in the LCM and TBM
projects (oldtimers), while the three others only participated in the TBM project (newcomers).
The importance of this distinction emerged gradually from the analytical process and has been
used as a dimension in the analysis. Salient aspects of change which has been identified in
teachers’ reflections and presented in this article refer to their attitude to mathematics,
changes in teaching practice, and systemic aspects. Preliminary results show that because of
their participation in the project, teachers reported on changes in teaching approach and
classroom culture. Furthermore, the deep impact of the project on the school’s organisation
was made visible since teachers’ from “newcomers” schools explained their struggle in
achieving convergence between their own expectations in trying to follow an inquiry
approach to teaching, and the goals and routines of their practice. Reflections from teachers
from “oldtimers” schools reported on how they solved these issues by introducing changes in
the organisation of the school, such as a new time schedule, the creation of a team with
teachers from different subject-matters, the possibility to organise meetings between all
teachers and the school principal where they engaged with and discussed mathematical tasks.
Results from the analysis indicate that the establishment of such a team, involving all teachers
and the school principal is a key factor in relation to the project’s implementation in schools. I
consider that these insights, as presented in this article, into the consequences for teachers’

teaching practice of being involved in a development research project are relevant and need to
be taken into account for future preparation of professional development projects. More
specifically, this research makes visible the deep impact, not only on the teachers’ teaching
practice, but also on the school’s organisation of engaging in a developmental research
project. Thereby, this recognition helps us, as researchers, to get a better understanding of the
teachers’ world and to recognise central issues related to co-learning agreement (Wagner
1997).
References
Ball, D. L. 2000. Bridging practices: interwining content and pedagogy in teaching and
learning to teach. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(3), 241-247.
Berg, C. V. 2010a. Le projet TBM: un exemple de modalité de collaboration entre chercheurs
et praticiens en Norvège. In S. Kahn, M. Hersant & D. O. Ravachol (Eds.),
Recherches en Education, Hors Série n0 1, 130-146.
Berg, C. V. 2010b. Designing and implementing mathematical tasks: the T-shirt task.
Research in Mathematics Education, 12 (2), 151-152.
Berg, C. V. in press. Adopting an inquiry approach to teaching practice: the case of a primary
school teacher. Proceedings of CERME7 conference.
Berg, C. V., Fuglestad, A. B., Goodchild, S., and Sriraman, B. submitted. Extrapolation or
expansion?: Characteristics of impact exposed ina longitudinal study of one school’s
participation in successive mathematics teaching development projects. Journal for
Research in Mathematics Education.
Goodchild, S. 2008. A quest for “good” research. In International handbook on mathematics
teacher education:Vol.4, ed. B. Jaworski and T. Wood, 201-220. Rotterdam, The
Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
Jaworski, B. & Fuglestad, A. B. 2010. Developing mathematics teaching through inquiry : a
response to Skovsmose and Säljö. Nordic Studies in Mathematics Education, 15 (1),
79-96.
Lave, J. 1988. Cognition in practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Wagner, J. 1997. The unavoidable intervention of educational research: a framework for
reconsidering researcher-practitioner cooperation. Educational Researcher, 26 (7), 13-
22.
Wenger, E. 1998. Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge
University Press.

Calculating: What can Year 5 children do?
Alison Borthwick and Micky Harcourt-Heath
University of East Anglia
In 2006 we collected and analysed answers from a Year 5 Qualifications and Curriculum
Authority (QCA) test paper to explore the range of calculation strategies used by a
sample of children. Two years later in 2008 we repeated this research using the same
questions with a new cohort of Y5 children from the same group of schools. In 2010 we
carried out a third set of research. This paper reports on the findings from the 2010 data
and examines the range of strategies used by the children. We conclude by considering
if we are clear about which strategies lead children to success.
Introduction
Despite changes of emphasis within the teaching of primary mathematics in England over the
past eleven years, relating particularly to the use of appropriate and effective calculation
strategies (DfEE, 1999; DCSF, 2006), the research that we reported on previously (Borthwick
& Harcourt-Heath, 2007) indicated that many children still failed to use a strategy that
enabled them to reach the right answer.
Calculation strategies in the UK have been well-documented by researchers such as
Ginsburg (1977), Hughes (1986), Thompson (1997, 1999) and Anghileri (2000, 2007). Our
study focuses on a comparison between different strategies for each of the four calculations,
for example, number lines and decomposition for subtraction. The thrust of this research is
related to the relative merits of a range of strategies. Some, as will be demonstrated through
the outcomes of this research, are more effective for children because they demonstrate
transparency, build on mental calculations strategies and are efficient as they result in a
correct answer. What seems to be lacking is research relating to the effectiveness of these
suggested strategies, built on empirical studies. Our work is a contribution to this field.
Our interest in this is not just because the ability and performance of these children
contributes to overall standards when they reach the end of Key Stage 2, but also because, as
Bynner identifies:
Literacy and numeracy skills carry the means by which children are equipped for the
education processes on which their location in the adult world will depend (Bynner 2004,
1)
Methodology and context
Data was collected from test papers completed by Year 5 children from 22 schools throughout
Norfolk. A range of primary and junior schools were selected. Responses to four questions
from each of the papers were analysed for their calculation strategies. One question each for
addition, subtraction, multiplication and division was used.
Calculation Question
Addition 546 + 423
Subtraction 317 – 180
Multiplication 56 x 24
Division 222 ÷ 3
Table 1. Questions from QCA Year 5 test paper

The four questions we selected were chosen as they had no context, and required
children to perform a calculation as opposed to less abstract problems that involve children in
some interpretation before a calculation can be carried out. The categories used for analysis
were determined by the National Numeracy Strategy (DfEE, 1999) and other research
(Anghileri, 2000; Plunkett, 1979; Thompson; 1999).
Findings and discussion
This section looks at the number of children using each of a range of strategies and the
proportions using these successfully. We also include some examples of children’s work.
Addition
90% correct / 10% incorrect

546 + 423 Number Number Percentage Percentage
Correct Incorrect Correct Incorrect
Not attempted 12
Standard
algorithm 269 8 97.1 2.9
Number Line 27 12 69.2 30.8

Partitioning 251 21 92.3 7.7
Expanded vertical 151 8 95.0 5.0
Answer only 166 30 84.7 15.3
Other 11 7 61.1 38.9
Totals 875 98
Table 2: Results from 973 children for addition question.
Of the four questions, this was the least useful in terms of providing information about
effective calculation strategies because it did not require children to bridge across the tens or
hundreds boundaries. According to the data, for correct responses it appears that the standard
algorithm is still a significant strategy but the nature of the question masks the difficulties
associated with the standard algorithm when ‘carrying’ is involved. Almost a fifth of children
giving a correct response only recorded the answer, therefore disguising the strategy
employed.

Subtraction

317 – 180 Number Number Percentage Percentage
Not attempted 28
Standard Algorithm –
decomposition 69 52 57% 43%
Standard Algorithm –
equal addition 3 0 100% 0%
Number Line 367 71 84% 16%
Negative Number 3 0 100% 0%
Counting Up 23 2 92% 8%
Counting Back 18 22 45% 55%
Answer only 47 103 31% 69%
Other 39 126 24% 76%
Totals 569 404
Table 3: Results from 973 children for subtraction question.
While just over half of the children in the study answered this question correctly, this
data shows that 4 out of every 10 children are still unable to reach a correct solution. A range
of strategies were chosen, with almost 45% of pupils selecting the number line as their
method and of these children 84% gained a correct answer.
It is interesting to note that the responses in the ‘other’ category included some where
children had added the numbers together. The most random answers were given in the
‘answer only’ category; these ranged from close to the correct answer to what appeared to be
guesses, often bearing little or no relationship to the question. The examples below show a
typical successful number line strategy and an error made by some children involving
partitioning of both numbers and then merely subtracting the smaller from the larger with no
regard for the original numbers.
Figure 1 Figure 2

Multiplication

56 x 24 Number Number Percentage Percentage
Not attempted 125
Standard Algorithm
4 15 21.1 78.9
Grid Method 329 206 61.5 38.5
Expanded Vertical 4 6 40.0 60.0
Two partial products
only 0 126
Answer Only 1 40 2.4 97.6
Other 13 104 11.1 88.9
Totals 351 622
Table 4: Results from 973 children for multiplication question.
Over half of the children chose to use the grid method for completing the
multiplication calculation. We were surprised to note that this category had both the highest
number of correct (330) and the highest number of incorrect (206) responses.
In terms of numbers of children, the next three most significant amounts of responses
appeared under incorrect in the ‘not attempted’, the ‘two partial products’ and the incorrect
‘other’ categories. The two examples below show a fairly typical correct use of the grid
method and a representation of the ‘two partial products’ category that more than 10% of the
children used.
Figure 3 Figure 4
Division

222 ÷ 3 Number Number Percentage Percentage
Not attempted 191
Standard Algorithm
24 18 57.1 42.9
Chunking Down 41 25 62.1 37.9
Chunking Up 98 52 65.3 34.7
Number Line 89 77 53.6 46.4
Answer Only 24 150 13.8 86.2
Other 42 142 22.8 77.2
Totals 318 655
Table 5: Results from 973 children for division question.

This calculation was the least well answered. Almost a fifth of children did not even
attempt the question despite it being Question 16 out of 27 on the paper. In addition 18%
recorded only the answer without any workings so, whether they were successful or not, there
was no indication of the strategy they had employed.
Fewer children selected the standard algorithm over chunking up, chunking down or
the number line strategies. Of the children choosing chunking up or chunking down, almost
twice as many gained the correct answer as the incorrect one. We were disappointed to note
that the number line strategy was less successfully used with almost as many children getting
a wrong answer as the right one.
The two examples below show a successful but inefficient strategy and a similar one
where the child demonstrates less understanding about what division means.
Figure 5 Figure 6
Conclusion
The results of this research demonstrate that the more successful strategies are those based on
mental calculations, for example, subtraction using counting up and recorded on a number
line.
This research shows that children demonstrate higher levels of competence when
dealing with addition and subtraction than multiplication and division. It demonstrates for
multiplication and division in particular, that children do not seem to have a particular
strategy to use. This has implications for schools in terms of what they are including in a
Calculations Policy and whether this is being consistently adhered to across the primary
years.
In summary, it would appear that many children, at the end of Year 5, still do not
appear to have what Anghileri (2000, 1) refers to as, ‘number sense’.
References
Anghileri, J. 2000. Teaching Number Sense. London, Continuum.

Anghileri, J. 2007. Developing number sense. London, Continuum.
Borthwick, A. and M. Harcourt-Heath. 2007. Calculation Strategies used by Year 5 Children.
Proceedings of the British Society for Research into Learning Mathematics, 27(1), 12-17.
Bynner, J. 2004. Literacy, numeracy and employability: evidence from the British birth
cohort studies. Literacy and Numeracy Studies 13(1), 1-48.
Department for Education and Employment. 1999. Framework for Teaching Mathematics
from Reception to Year 6. London, DfEE.
Ginsburg, H. 1977. Children’s arithmetic: the learning process. New York, D. Van Nostrand
Company.

Hughes, M. 1986. Children and number: difficulties in learning mathematics. Oxford,
Blackwell.
Plunkett, S. 1979. Decomposition and all that rot. Mathematics in school, 8 (3), 2-7.
Thompson, I. ed. 1997. Teaching and learning early number. Buckingham: Open University
Press.
Thompson, I. ed. 1999. Issues in teaching numeracy in primary schools, Buckingham: Open
University Press.

Measuring Students’ Persistence on Unfamiliar Mathematical Tasks
Sinead Breen, Joan Cleary, Ann O’Shea
CASTeL, St Patrick’s College, Dublin; Institute of Technology, Tralee; National University of Ireland,
Maynooth
182 students responded to a number of Likert-scale items regarding their persistence on

mathematical tasks. Rasch analysis was then used to construct a measure of persistence
from their responses and to assign persistence scores to each student. The same students,
all of whom were enrolled in the first year of a third-level programme, also completed a
30-minute test involving mathematics items from PISA. The latter, although
commensurate with the students' level of mathematical education, represented largely
unfamiliar tasks to the students and required the transfer of previously learned
mathematical knowledge and skills to a new context. The students' performance on these
items was used to construct a second measure of persistence. Initial findings indicate that
although the correlation between the self-reporting measure and the evidence provided
by the PISA-type test is statistically significant, there are some inconsistencies between
the self-reported data and observed behaviour.
Keywords: persistence, unfamiliar tasks, self-reporting measures
Introduction
Dweck (1986) put forward a theory on the relationships between students' beliefs concerning
the nature of intelligence, their goal orientation, their confidence, and their willingness to seek
challenges and to persist when faced with difficulties during their learning of mathematics.
The authors undertook a study to test this theory for students studying mathematics in their
first year at third-level. Findings on some aspects of the role of confidence, theory of
intelligence and goal orientation in determining students’ persistence have been discussed in
O’Shea, Breen and Cleary (2010). This paper focuses on a comparison of self-report and
behavioural measures of a student’s persistence on unfamiliar mathematical tasks –that is,
tasks involving familiar skills but presented in an unfamiliar context, or tasks invoking skills
not typically required in students’ prior experience. An account of the results and the
reliability of the self-reporting measure will be presented.
Sample
The study was conducted in the second semester of the 2007/2008 academic year and the
participants were all in the first year of their respective programmes at one of three third level
institutions: namely St Patrick’s College, Drumcondra (BEd or BA (Humanities)
programme), the National University of Ireland, Maynooth (BA or BA (Finance)) and the
Institute of Technology, Tralee (Higher Certificate in Engineering or BSc). All students had
either chosen to study Mathematics or were required to study it as part of their programme.
The survey was administered during class and students were invited to participate in the
study. 182 students completed the survey; of these 82 (45.3%) were male.

Questionnaire
The students anonymously completed a 20-minute questionnaire in which they were asked to
respond to sets of rating scale items addressing Confidence, Theory of Intelligence, Goal
Orientation (Learning or Performance) and Persistence. The items for the first three traits
were gathered from a number of sources (for full details see Breen, Cleary and O’Shea 2009).
However, the Persistence items were constructed for this study, based on hypotheses put
forward by Dweck and Elliott as to the behaviour of, and strategies employed by, students
when presented with mathematical tasks (Dweck 1986; Dweck and Elliott 1988). These are
shown in Table 1. All items used a 5-point Likert scale (with 1 representing ‘disagree
strongly’, 2 representing ‘disagree’, 3 ‘not sure’, 4 ‘agree’ and 5 ‘agree strongly’). Personal
information (including gender and level of mathematics achievement at post-primary school)
was also collected from the participants.
Persistence
1. When presented with a mathematical task I cannot immediately complete, I
increase my efforts.
2. When presented with a mathematical task I cannot immediately complete, I persist
by changing strategy.
3. When presented with a mathematical task I cannot immediately complete, I give
up.
4. When presented with a choice of mathematical tasks, my preference is for a
challenging task.
5. When presented with a choice of tasks, my preference is for one I know I can
complete.
Table 1: Rating scale items for Persistence
Critique of self-report measures
Fulmer and Frijters (2009) detail a number of concerns with respect to the use of self-report
measurement scales (in measuring motivation) such as the application of existing scales to
different subject areas without proper validation, the use of existing scales with different age-
groups without regard for developmental differences in traits of interest, the assumption of the
unidimensionality of a rating scale without verification, the use of responses to ordinal level
Likert scale as interval level data, and the presence of positively and negatively worded items
increasing cognitive demands and reducing reliability. However, the use of Rasch analysis in
analysing Likert scale self-reported data, as was undertaken here, addresses these concerns.
Other weaknesses of self-report measures, as outlined by Fulmer and Frijters (2009)

remain. For instance, there may be inconsistencies between observed behaviour and self-
reported data, a respondent’s interpretation of items may differ from the researchers’, or items
containing contextual references as well as references to the construct may result in
inconsistencies in responses. Also, the neutral category in Likert scale items used may be
chosen by respondents for different reasons (e.g. feeling unsure, indifferent); yet Fulmer and
Frijters also highlighted problems with Likert scale items with an even number of response
categories. In light of these concerns regarding the use of self-report measures, the authors
decided to construct a second measure of persistence by measuring students’ overt behaviour
when presented with unfamiliar mathematical tasks. This was achieved by measuring the
students’ choice to pursue and their level of engagement with the tasks. A PISA-style test was
constructed using 10 items released from PISA 2000 and 2003 (OECD 2006), covering all 4

subdomains and 3 competency clusters, but not all levels of difficulty. The test contained a
larger than usual number of items at levels 5 and 6 in order to facilitate measurement of
persistence and to reflect the fact that the participants in this study were older than those
involved in PISA and had (in general) achieved a higher level of mathematical attainment.
The particular PISA items used are listed in Table 2. Students were given 30 minutes to
complete the test, as is the practice in PISA assessments.
Item Level Subdomain Competency

Walking 1 5 Change & Relationships Reproduction
Walking 2 6 Change & Relationships Connections
Apples 6 Change & Relationships Reflection
Continent Area 6 Space & Shape Connections
Exchange Rate 1 1 Quantity Reproduction
Exchange Rate 2 2 Quantity Reproduction
Exchange Rate 3 4 Quantity Reflection
Test Scores 5 Uncertainty Connections
Carpenter 6 Space & Shape Connections
Earthquake 4 Uncertainty Reflection
Table 2: PISA items used
Students were also asked to rate their confidence in performing different types of
mathematical tasks, correspoinding to the processes involved in solving these PISA questions
(see Cleary, Breen and O’Shea (2010) for further details).
Analysis and results
Rasch analysis and self-report persistence measure
Rasch analysis is a means of constructing an objective fundamental measurement scale from a

set of observations of ordered categorical responses (to assessment items or rating-scale
items). The scale produced is an interval one centred at 0 (Bond and Fox 2007). Analysis of
the responses to the Persistence items in this study resulted in 40% of students being awarded
negative Persistence scores. Following the assumption that useful measurement involves the
consideration of a single trait or construct at a time (i.e. assumption of unidimensionality), the
Rasch model incorporates a quality control mechanism using error estimates and fit statistics
to verify this. Fit statistics for the Persistence scale here indicate that all items are contributing
to the measurement. Moreover, the person reliability of the scale was found to be 0.7, while
the item reliability was 0.98. (Supporting evidence of reliability was provided by a
Cronbach’s alpha measure of 0.732.) Furthermore, the model facilitated the production of an
item-person map which determined that the range of trait levels observed matched well with
the range of participants, ensuring the appropriateness of the instrument for the sample.

Behavioural measure
Overall there was a wide spread of results on the PISA style test of 10 questions. In particular,
not one of the 182 students had all 10 questions correct, and at the other end of the scale
nearly 9% of the students got fewer than 3 correct. In PISA, scores are assigned to six literacy
levels to distinguish between different levels of proficiency. For a description of these six
levels see OECD (2009, 122). For example, at level 1 students can carry out routine
procedures when given direct instructions, while at level 6 students display deep
understanding of the subject and are creative problem solvers. Participants’ scores on the
PISA-style test were converted to the scale used by PISA - the range of these scores was from
199 to 783, with an average of 588.12, indicating an average literacy level of 4 (OECD 2009).
To measure persistence, the number of questions, and in particular, the number of

level 5 and 6 questions, each student attempted was recorded. The table below shows that all
participants attempted at least one level 6 question. In fact almost 87% of students attempted
at least three of these four questions.
No of Level 6
questions attempted Frequency Percentage
1 4 2.2
2 20 11.0
3 56 30.8
4 102 56.0
Total 182 100
Table 3: Number of level 6 questions
The most difficult question for this group of students was the level 6 question labeled
Continent Area: 37% of students made no attempt, a further 16% were awarded no credit for
their attempts and only 7% scored full marks.
Comparison of Measures
Correlations were computed between the self-report Persistence measure constructed using
Rasch analysis and the behavioural persistence measures mentioned above. Results are shown
in Table 4.
PISA score Total of number of Number of Level 6

questions attempted questions attempted
Correlation coefficient 0.314 0.195 0.187
Significance Level 0.01 0.01 0.05
Table 4: Comparison of self-report and behavioural measures

In order to allow further comparison of results by means of chi-squared tests the self-report
Persistence scores were recategorised into low, moderate and high levels of persistence using
the 33rd and 67th percentiles. Students with high persistence were more likely to have
• achieved highest literacy levels (5 and 6) on the PISA-style test: 61% of those
showing high persistence achieved literacy level 5 or 6 compared with 43.4% of those
displaying low persistence (p=0.002);
• attempted all level 6 questions: 69.5% of students with high persistence compared
with 45.3% of those exhibiting low persistence (p=0.083);
• attempted the most difficult question on Area: 74.6% of students in the high
persistence category compared with 54.7% of those in the low persistence category
(p=0.069).
Discussion
While the correlation coefficients computed between the self-report Persistence measure and
behavioural measures used are statistically significant, they are not as strong as might be
expected. The sample was also divided by gender and no significant differences were
observed between male and female subgroups. The correlations between self-reporting and
behavioural measures might be improved if students had been allowed more time to complete
the PISA-style test or if students had greater incentive to persist on the test.
At first it may seem that many students have a very false impression of their own
levels of persistence, deeming themselves more persistent than is merited. In fact the self-
reporting items resulted in a wide range of persistence scores being awarded, with 40% of the
sample being awarded negative scores. An anomaly arises in the students’ responses to the
self-efficacy items related to the mathematical tasks presented. The majority of students were
very confident in their abilities to successfully complete the tasks involved in the level 6
items: such as, to compute the perimeter and area of 2-dimensional shapes, to make use of
quadratic functions, and to explain in writing a simple mathematical concept that they
understand. But the number of students failing to persist with the corresponding PISA items
did not appear to reflect these levels of confidence.
It may be that the tasks were so far removed from students’ usual experience of
mathematical tasks at school that they did not recognise them as being within their
capabilities. There is some evidence that in post-primary schools in Ireland a procedural
rather than conceptual or problem-solving approach prevails in the teaching of mathematics,
and that teaching for examinations is an overriding preoccupation (Lyons et al. 2003).
Moreover, while the Mathematics syllabus for the senior cycle of post-primary school
includes in its list of objectives that students should be able to analyse information presented
in unfamiliar contexts and should be able to create mathematics for themselves, supporting,
communicating and explaining their findings, it is acknowledged that the formal written state
examinations taken by students at the end of post-primary do not assess these objectives. It
may be that this system contributed not only to the students’ behaviour when presented with
the mathematical tasks from PISA but also to their view of what was expected of them in
attempting the tasks.

References
Dweck, C. 1986. Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist

41: 1040-1048.
Elliott, E. and C. Dweck. 1988. Goals: an approach to motivation and achievement.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 54 (1): 50-12.
Lyons, M., K. Lynch, S. Close, E. Sheerin and P. Boland. 2003. Inside classrooms:
The teaching and learning of mathematics in social context. Dublin: Institute of Public
Administration.
OECD. 2006. PISA released items – Mathematics. Available at
http://www.pisa.oecd.org/dataoecd/14/10/38709418.pdf
Bond, T. G. and C.M. Fox. 2007. Applying the Rasch model – Fundamental
measurement in the human sciences (Second edition). New Jersey, Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
OECD. 2009. PISA 2009 Assessment framework: Key competencies in reading,
mathematics and science. Available at http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/11/40/44455820.pdf
Breen, S., J. Cleary and A. O’Shea. 2009. Constructing and validating an instrument to
measure students’ attitudes and beliefs about learning mathematics. In Proceedings of the
Third Conference on Research in Mathematics Education, ed. D. Corcoran, T. Dooley, S.
Close and R. Ward, 333-343. Dublin: St Patrick’s College.
Fulmer, S. M. and J.C. Frijters. 2009. A review of self-report and alternative
approaches in the measurement of student motivation. Educational Psychological Review 21:
219-246.
Cleary, J., S. Breen and A. O’Shea. 2010. Mathematical literacy and self-efficacy of
first year third-level students. MSOR Connections 10:41-44.
O’Shea, A., S. Breen and J. Cleary. 2010. Exploring the role of confidence, theory of
intelligence and goal orientation in determining a student’s persistence on mathematical tasks.
In Proceedings of the British Congress of Mathematics Education, ed. M. Joubert and P.
Andrews, 30(1): 151-158. BSRLM.

Snapshots from a classroom: an analysis of patterns of interaction over an academic
year in one year 7 mathematics class
Alf Coles
University of Bristol, Graduate School of Education
This case study draws on data collected in one secondary mathematics department in the
UK in the academic year 2007-8. I took six video recordings of Teacher A working with
her year 7 class. In line with the enactivist methodology that informed the research, in
this paper I look at the final recording of the year and trace the patterns that can be
observed back through the rest of the data. The analysis of two patterns offers a partial
lighting on how a particular way of working developed, and demonstrates how the
patterns that can be seen at the end of the academic year are observable at the beginning
of September.
Keywords: patterns of interaction, enactivism, linguistic ethnography
Introduction
The data from this case study comes from one secondary department in the UK. I took video
recordings of lessons in the academic year 2007-8 in the classroom of Teacher A, who has
regularly been appraised as ‘outstanding’ in terms of her approach to developing students’
mathematical thinking skills. In this article I analyse the six recordings, four taken between
14th September ‘07 and 3rd October ‘07 the fifth on 30th January ’08 and the sixth on 28th June
’08 (I label these videos chronologically and refer to them as lesson 1 through 6). I took the
video recordings as part of a Studentship study funded by the Economic and Social Research
Council (ESRC); I was Head of department at the time. I wanted to explore the role of the
teacher in establishing a classroom where students are able to be independent and creative in
their work in mathematics; hence the high proportion of recordings from the beginning of the
academic year, when I assumed classroom norms are established.
Enactivism and linguistic ethnography
I bring an enactivist stance to the research design and analysis of data (e.g., see Varela,
Thomson and Rosch 1993, Reid 1996). While enactivism has its roots in a radical view of
cognition, as a research methodology it also carries implications for the analysis of data. A
key enactivist technique for analysis is to look at the end point, identify patterns and attempt
to trace these patterns back through the data. The aim is not to make any statement of
causality, but rather to trace the emergence of a feature that is recognisable by the end of the
data collection. Gattegno (1987, 32) writes of the power of human intuition to offer different
‘lightings’ on the complex ‘whole’ of phenomena, and it is in this sense that tracing the
development of particular patterns in a classroom offers a lighting on the development of the
way of working as a whole.
My methodology is also influenced by the broad school of linguistic ethnography
(e.g., see Rampton 2007). Linguistic ethnography draws on the literature of discourse
analysis, for example Sinclair and Coulthard (1975) or Levinson (1979), in assuming that
language in classrooms follows predictable patterns. I use Levinson‘s (1979) notion of
‘activity-type’ to denote ‘socially constituted bounded events, with constraints on

participants, setting and so on’ (p. 368) – constraints being needed for a pattern to be
observable. Levinson also identifies ‘episodes’ (1979, p.369) within activities, giving the
example of a seminar (an activity-type) that might be split into episodes of: introductions,
presentation, discussion.
Data analysis
In analysing the video recording data, as stated above, I began with the final lesson (lesson 6).
I initially segmented the recording into activity types (broadly distinguishing between periods
of whole class discussion and individual, group or paired work) and selected only times of
‘whole class discussion’. I then looked for transition points within whole class discussions to
identify and mark episodes. I analysed the predominant patterns of interaction in each
episode, for example there might be episodes that closely resemble the Initiation-Response-
Feedback (IRF) pattern identified by several authors (e.g., see Sinclair and Coultard 1975,
Mehan 1979 and Mercer 1995). An initiation is typically a question, or a turn in a dialogue
that introduces a new issue that is not a response to, or evaluation of what has just been said.
The issue of who initiates a sequence of interaction has become an important feature of my
analysis, as I distinguish episodes where the teacher initiates and ones where a student
initiates. Once I have identified episodes of interaction I look at patterns both within and
across episodes, and patterns in the transition points. The patterns identified in lesson 6 were
then used as a lighting on the rest of the data. I have chosen to follow through two patterns
from lesson 6 in this paper, which were the first two patterns identified in lesson 6 when
looking at the lesson chronologically.
Two features of lesson 6
The lesson begins with a series of sums for students to do; these sums were displayed on the
board as the students entered the classroom and Teacher A instructed them to engage in this
task as soon as they sat down. After time to work on the sums there was a brief discussion of
the answers, and then Teacher A told the students to put their pens down and look at a new
image she displayed on the board, which she had chosen as her starting point for an activity
the department called ‘Both Ways’.
x5
x2 x2
x5
Figure 1: Teacher A’s starting image for ‘Both Ways’
There was a episode of interaction following the display of this image, in which
Teacher A asked for a ‘starting number’ to go in the top left hand circle, and students worked
out what numbers should go in the remaining circles by performing the operations indicated
on the arrow. The two circles at the bottom right of the diagram end up with the same
number, and at this point the pattern of Teacher A asking for responses was broken by the
dialogue below. Teacher A wrote a number in the last circle, which was the same as the
number she wrote in the neighbouring circle; she paused, looked at the numbers and said ‘oh
right okay’.
Transcription notation: … indicates some dialogue skipped; (.) is a pause of less than a second; (3) is a pause for
the number of seconds in the brackets; italics indicate a voice that implies words said by someone else; (text)

indicates unclear speech and the best guess at transcription; ( ) indicates undecipherable speech; // //
indicates overlapping speech.
TA oh right (.) okay
S yeah but why (.) why does it come to that
S is that meant to happen miss
S yeah
S no
S oh yeah miss
TA um (4) any comments (.) any comments
Many of the student comments were overlapping and I have not been able to capture
anything like the range of statements that were made. The students here are raising questions
about the mathematics.
Following Teacher A’s request for any comments, I identify a new episode as the
interaction pattern alters to one where students are offering ideas and agreeing or disagreeing
with each other. A pattern across interactions in this episode is the use by students (three
times in four minutes) of the word ‘because’, for example:
S the two answers in the little circles no matter what you start with will always be the
same (.) because if you times five times two it’s like times ten
There was no prompting by Teacher A for students to use a word such as ‘because’;
students spontaneously justify their ideas with reasons to help explain their thinking. A
contrast to this pattern occurs later in the lesson, during a similar episode of students offering
ideas and commenting on each others’ ideas, this time in relation to a ‘Both Ways’ sum with
x5 and +2 on the branches where the final answers are found to be eight apart. The students in
this episode do not offer any explanations of their thinking, and Teacher A comments:
TA does anybody think they’ve got any reasoning they can do here as to why we’re
getting eight (4) any reasoning (.) why are times five add two and add two times five bigger
and smaller (.) and particularly why are they eight apart
In the absence of students providing explanations of their thinking, Teacher A
prompted it, with an explicit request for reasoning.
There are, of course, many more patterns observable within the final lesson but due to
restrictions of space I will stick to tracing the emergence of the themes identified here,
namely: students asking questions about the mathematics; students justifying their thinking
without prompting; Teacher A prompting justification of students’ thinking. The last two
themes are clearly linked and I will trace their emergence together under the label ‘student
reasoning’.
Students initiating discussion of mathematics
In lesson 1 (students’ second mathematics lesson of the year, and hence their second
mathematics lesson in secondary school) there is the following interaction:
S1 could I say what I was going to say about number 2
TA I'd love you to say (what you were going to say on number 2)
This is the first instance in the recording of a student initiating a sequence of
interaction and also the first instance of a student asking a question. In watching the video
recording with Teacher A, she remembered having an individual conversation with this
student, during a paired work episode of the lesson just before this interaction, in which the

student had told her an idea, and Teacher A had replied ‘that’s the kind of thing you might
want to raise when we are talking as a whole group’. The pattern of whole class interaction
shifts following this statement, with students continuing to take an initiating role. The
discussion about the issue raised by S1 takes up the majority of the whole class discussion
time in lesson 1, at the end of which students are told to work in pairs or individually on
issues raised by the discussion by Teacher A saying:
TA right (.) I want you to now (.) write down the conjecture you’re going to work on …
I put there things that you can do (2) so try lots of different examples (.) can you disprove
the conjecture … (.) can you prove it … (.) can you give reasons to back up your opinion (.)
… I’d like you to work on the conjecture you want to work on
The first instance, in lesson 2, of a student making an initiating comment is:
S2 if ‘a’ is only one bigger than ‘c’ then the answer will always be 99
As in lesson 1 there is an extended period of whole class discussion centred around
this statement from S2 at the end of which students are invited to work in pairs or individually
in a similar manner to lesson 1.
Also, in lesson 3 there is a student-initiated comment:
S1 you know (the ones on the board ) I’ve got another one (.) one two three four
(.) and I turned it around and I couldn’t do it
Discussion focused on this point until the following interaction:
S4 it’s not about that
TA yeah go on
S4 at the end of last time it’s a conjecture that I had
TA yes
S4 if the first and last digit are different by one
As in the first two lessons, discussion continues of S4’s conjecture until Teacher A
invites the class to continue work on these ideas in pairs or on their own. This pattern is not
evident in lesson 4, in which Teacher A offers a proof related to work they have been doing,
and their task is to attempt to reproduce the proof.
In lesson 5 students are working on finding ways of calculating the areas of polygons.
There is, again, the same pattern of a student initiated comment being discussed for a
prolonged period, leading to Teacher A setting the class individual or paired work, linked to
the discussion. In this lesson a student comments:
S3 wouldn’t it be easier to just split it up into four
There is discussion of this idea until this interaction:
S4 with the rhombus or kite whatever one we were doing //TA: yeah// you could um
cut it in half and then one the sides you get a little box and it’s like half of the […]
TA do you want me to cut it towards in half or across
S4 um downwards (.) and then (.) then you could like draw a little box and then half of
that so it would be easier […]
This students’ idea is discussed for a further ten minutes, with six other students
offering ideas and suggestions, before Teacher A closes off that episode of the lesson and gets
students working in pairs on issues raised in the discussion.
The pattern, in four of the first five video recordings, is striking – it seems as though
Teacher A is waiting for a student initiated comment, to then be able to discuss it and draw
out the questions, tasks or issues for students to continue work in pairs or on their own. Given

how student contributions are seemingly so valued, and central in directing discussions and
the work that ensues, I find myself unsurprised that all six of Teacher A’s students that I
spoke to in interview in 2008 commented on how much they enjoyed and felt they learnt from
class discussion.
Student reasoning
In lesson 1, following the student comment ‘could I say what I was going to say about
number 2’, which was reported above, the next five student comments are as follows – I have
edited out the content and left the structure of what was said:
S5 you don't necessarily have to …
S6 … on that one if no one never … all the answers would be …
S6 so (.) it doesn't really matter what number it is so long as …
S7 … I reckon you should actually … because …
S8 no (.) because …
In the second lesson of the year (lesson 1) there is evidence of students justifying their
thinking (e.g., in the use of ‘because’), as in lesson 6 without prompting from the teacher.
In lesson 2 the first mention of explanations or reasons comes from Teacher A after 40
minutes (of the sixty minute lesson):
TA … what I’m impressed with is firstly those of you trying to explain their conjectures
(.) so I had similar discussions going round (.) I can’t prove it it’s always working… if
you’re going to prove something … try every single number … or try explaining why
something works (.) okay try and prove it (.) why does it always work … not got enough
time to try every single three digit number what we can do is we can try and put our
thoughts together and try and come up with some convincing explanations (.)
Following this comment three different students offer explanations of their
conjectures.
Lessons 3 and 4 both have times where the explicit focus of discussion is on proof;
Teacher A demonstrates an algebraic proof, linked to conjectures the students had been
making both at the end of lesson 3 and start of lesson 4. In both instances students are invited
to try and recreate the proof in pairs, and then extend it to try and prove different conjectures
that had been developed in previous lessons.
In lesson 5 the students’ task is to find rules for calculating the areas of different types
of quadrilateral and there are several comments suggesting methods:
S3 times the length by the width
S5 on the trapezium you should really make it into a rectangle
Although the focus at the board is on particular instances of, for example, a trapezium,
I interpret students in the comments above as sharing their reasoning for why areas of such
shapes in general can be calculated in particular ways.
Emerging themes
The pattern of Teacher A running class discussions is that she continues until a student takes
the role of initiator and asks a question or offers an idea, which is then the basis for prolonged
debate until either a different student initiates another idea, or Teacher A judges that the class
are at a point when they can work on the ideas of conjectures that have been raised. This
pattern only became apparent to me through the enactivist technique of analysing the final
piece of data and tracing back themes.

The fact that in lesson 1 students are heard using ‘because’ and offering explanations
of their thinking implies that these students came to secondary school equipped with the skills
to do this kind of reasoning. Many discussions of skills such as ‘reasoning’, for example in
the literature on metacognition, take a deficit model where it is assumed that students need
educating in certain metacognitive skills or knowledge (e.g., see Veenman et al 2006). In the
study reported here, some students exhibit unprompted reasoning skills at the beginning and
end of the academic year suggesting that Teacher A’s expertise may not have been so much in
teaching students this skill, but in providing contexts for them to exercise a skill at least some
of them already had. Of course the situation is not simple and the evidence from the data is
also that Teacher A has an on-going focus with this class of prompting and supporting their
reasoning, for example in offering students a proof in lessons 3 and 4.
In this paper I have reported on two of the many patterns that are evident in Lesson 6
(e.g., another is talk of ‘conjectures’). I am struck by the complexity of the overlapping
themes and threads that can be traced through these six hours of video recordings, and how,
so far, every pattern observable at the end of the academic year can be traced back to the very
beginning of September. The converse does not appear to be true – i.e., with a different
teacher in the department whose lessons I also video recorded, there are some patterns
observable in lesson 1 not evident from then on. Hence it may not be possible to tell from a
first lesson what patterns will become the significant ones that persist; but it does appear that
patterns that survive are established early. Hence this study supports the intuition that the
early meetings with a class of students are critical for establishing norms and expectations of
participation.
References
Gattegno, C. 1987. The Science of Education. Part 1: Theoretical Considerations. New York:
Educational Solutions.
Levinson, S. 1979. Activity types and language. Linguistics 17:365-399.
Mehan, H. 1979. Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Mercer, N. 1995. The guided construction of knowledge: Talk amongst teachers and learners.
Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Rampton, B. 2007. Neo-Hymesian linguistic ethnography in the United Kingdom. Journal of
Sociolinguistics 11 (5):584-607.
Reid, D. 1996. Enactivism as a methodology. In Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual
Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education.
Valencia.
Sinclair, J., and M. Coulthard. 1975. Towards an analysis of discourse. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Varela, F., E. Thompson, and E. Rosch. 1991. The embodied mind: cognitive science and
human experience. Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
Veenman, M., B. Van Hout-Wolters, and P. Afflerbach. 2006. Metacognition and learning:
conceptual and methodological considerations. Metacognition and Learning 1 (1):3-14

Benchmarking Mentoring Practices for Effective Teaching of Mathematics and Science
Francis Kwaku Duah
University of Southampton, fkd1g08@soton.ac.uk

(Loughborough University, f.k.duah@lboro.ac.uk, from January 2011)
Pre-service mathematics and science teachers’ perceptions of their mentoring

experiences were investigated using the five factor model of mentoring practices as a
lens through which mentoring practices can be benchmarked for improvement. The
Mentoring for Effective Teaching instrument was used to collect data from 68 pre-
service mathematics and science teachers on school placements in two Local Education
Authorities (LEAs) in the South East region of England. The results of the data analysis
indicate that mentors in the two LEAs overwhelmingly exhibit personal attributes for
effective mentoring, provide adequate mentoring in pedagogical knowledge
development, model effective teaching and professional practices and provide effective
feedback to pre-service teachers. Yet, the results also indicate mentors did not provide
adequate mentoring on systems requirements in relation to the national curriculum and
school policies.
Keywords: Mentoring, Teacher Preparation, Pre-service Teachers
Introduction
Mentoring is thought to play a key role in the professional development and success of pre-
service teachers on Initial Teacher Preparation (ITP) programmes. Hence it is used in ITP
programmes throughout the world to support pre-service teachers on school placement
(Mtetwa and Thompson 2000; Hobson et al. 2009). Yet, some pre-service teachers withdraw
from ITP programmes either due to poor mentoring relationships or lack of success during
school placement (Hobson, Giannakaki, and Chambers 2009). One way to improve on the
quality of mentoring relationships is to evaluate mentors’ practices at the end of school
placement in order to provide feedback to mentors and mentors trainers.
Pre-service teachers’ perceptions of their mentoring experiences have been studied
using case study or other qualitative research methods (Hayes 2001; Hobson 2002; Maynard
2000). However, in England, there seems to be a dearth of large scale quantitative study of
mentoring practices using a statistically validated survey instrument. This study aims to fill
this gap in mentoring research in England and it is the initial phase of an intended large scale
national survey of pre-service mathematics teachers. Such a study will enable much broader
generalisations to be made about the mentoring experiences of pre-service mathematics
teachers. Furthermore, it will provide benchmarks for comparing mentoring practices within
ITP institutions.
The Five Factor Model of Mentoring
Hudson’s (2004) five factor model of mentoring provides a framework for analysing mentors’
personal attributes and mentoring practices. The five factor model identifies five categories of
mentoring practices which were derived from the mentoring research literature. The five
factors are: Personal Attributes, System Requirements, Pedagogical Knowledge, Modelling

and Feedback. The model suggests that mentors need to exhibit personal attributes that enable
them to support mentees by instilling positive attitudes and confidence in them, be
encouraging, friendly, take keen interest in the work of the mentee and be able to listen
attentively to the problems that the mentee may face during their school based training
(Hudson 2004).
Hudson (2004) also argues that mentors need to articulate System Requirements, that
is, school and national policies and curriculum documents, so that pre-service teachers can
plan quality lessons and implement curriculum requirements and policies. Furthermore,
Hudson (2004) appears to suggest that mentors must have good pedagogical knowledge and
practices not only for teaching in their own classroom, but also in educating the mentee in
both the subject content knowledge as well as the pedagogical practices. Mentoring practices
associated with Pedagogical Knowledge can “focus on planning, timetabling, preparation,
implementation, classroom management strategies, teaching strategies, [mathematics]
teaching knowledge, questioning skills, problem solving strategies and assessment techniques
in [secondary mathematics] education context” (Hudson 2004). Effective modelling involves
the mentor displaying enthusiasm for teaching the subject. It involves the mentor using
effective hands-on activities, good classroom management strategies and having good rapport
with students.
Feedback is an essential element in the mentoring process (Hudson 2004). Feedback
may involve pedagogical discourse prior to and after the delivery of a lesson. The provision
of constructive feedback has the potential to instil confidence in the mentee and requires the
mentor to employ the personal attributes and characteristics that support the mentee’s
emotional and psychological wellbeing.
Using factor analysis, Hudson (2005) developed the Mentoring for Effective Primary
Science Teaching (MEPST) instrument which was subsequently adapted to develop the
Mentoring for Effective Mathematics Teaching Instrument (MEMT) (Hudson, 2007). Both
instruments were used to evaluate mentor attributes and practices in Australia. Since then, the
instruments had been adapted and employed in analysing mentoring practices in teacher
education in two other countries, Turkey (Hudson, Usak, and Savran-Gencer 2009) and
Vietnam (Hudson, Nguyen, and Hudson 2008). In Turkey, the instrument was used to analyse
mentoring practices in primary science teaching while in Vietnam it was used to analyse
mentoring practices in English teaching. In these two countries the instruments were found to
be valid and reliable in evaluating mentors’ attributes and practices for effective teaching
practices.
Aim and Objectives
The aim of the current study was to evaluate the mentoring practices in two Local Education
Authorities (LEAs) in the South East region of England. The evaluation was undertaken by
replicating Hudson’s (2007) study using secondary pre-service teachers as participants.
Hudson’s study was replicated in order to ascertain the efficacy of the MEPST and MEMT
instruments in a different cultural and educational context such as England. The research
questions for the study were:
What effective personal attributes and mentoring practices are perceived to be
exhibited by the mentors of pre-service mathematics and science teachers during their school
placement?
Are there differences between pre-service teachers of different gender, age groups or
placement location in relation to the perceived effective personal attributes and mentoring
practices of their mentors?
To what extent do mentors model effective use of ICT during school placement?

Methodology
109 pre-service teachers following the postgraduate certificate in education (PGCE)

programme in two LEAs were approached at the end of a lecture and asked to volunteer to
take part in the study. Of the 109 pre-service teachers, 74 responded by filling in a paper
based questionnaire or an online version giving a response rate of 68%. However, only 68
pre-service mathematics and science teachers completed the questionnaires fully. The MEPST
and MEMT instruments were adapted as Mentoring for Effective Teaching (MET)
instrument. The questionnaire had three sections. Section 1 had 34 likert scale type items with
responses items ranging from strongly disagree, disagree, uncertain, agree and strongly agree.
Section 1 also had three open–ended questions which were aimed at obtaining responses
which could not be captured by the likert scale items. Section 2 had ten items that collected
the demographic data bout pre-service teachers. Section 3 had ten items that collected
demographic data about participants’ mentors. The data was analysed in SPSS using
descriptive statistics and ANOVA to ascertain any differences between groups including age,
gender, and placement location. This paper discusses the results of the data analysis relating
to the first research question; differences between pre-service mathematics and science
teachers in relation to their mentoring experiences.
Results and discussion
The five factors of mentoring attributes and practices were analysed separately for pre-service
mathematics (n=38) and science teachers (n=30). Table 1 shows acceptable Cronbach alpha
scores for the five factors in relation to the perception of the mentoring experiences of pre-
service mathematics and science teachers. Although the Cronbach alpha score for System
Requirements for pre-service mathematics teachers was lower than 0.7, the difference was
considered insignificant to invalidate the results of the study. The results in Table 1 also
shows that while pre-service mathematics teachers typically perceived their mentors to exhibit
effective personal attributes (M=4.03, SD=0.66), pre-service science teachers indicated
feedback (M=4.05, SD=0.77) as the commonly perceived mentoring practice.

Table 1 Five factors of mentoring
Mathematics Science
(n=38, Females=20, Males=18) (n=30, Females=19, Males=11)
Mean Cronbach Mean Cronbach
Five factors of mentoring Score SD alpha Score SD alpha
Personal Attributes 4.03 0.66 0.89 3.97 0.90 0.93
Systems Requirements 3.25 0.79 0.67 3.14 0.92 0.79
Pedagogical Knowledge 3.69 0.74 0.93 3.76 0.80 0.91
Modeling 3.93 0.49 0.79 3.83 0.85 0.94
Feedback 3.73 0.66 0.86 4.05 0.77 0.87
Table 2 shows that more mathematics mentors (95%) were comfortable in talking
about their subject than science mentors (90%). Similarly, more mathematics mentors
appeared to instil confidence in pre-service teachers during their school based training than
science mentors (60%). Nonetheless the results indicate that overall most mathematics and
science mentors exhibit personal attributes that enable effective mentoring of pre-service
teachers. In relation to systems requirements, table 2 also showed that more science mentors
(60%) discuss policy documents with their pre-service teachers than mathematics mentors
(53%). While slight more mathematics mentors than science mentors shared knowledge of the
curriculum with their pre-service teachers, the results for both groups are below 40% (See
Table 2).
More science mentors were found to exhibit effective Pedagogical Knowledge than
mathematics mentors although the difference was small. For example, more science mentors
(90%) were found to assist with timetabling than mathematics mentors (82%). Fifty-seven
percent of science mentors were thought to discuss content knowledge with their pre-service
teachers compared to 52% of mathematics mentors (52%). However, the difference between
the percentage of science mentors (70%) who assisted with assessment and percentage of
mathematics mentors (43%) was much bigger. This suggests that perhaps within the LEA in
question, science mentors may be encouraged to share their mentoring practices with
mathematics mentors during mentor training days.
In relation to modelling, the results from the data analysis also suggest that more
mathematics mentors appear to display enthusiasm and used the language of the subject than
science mentors. However, 80% of science mentors were thought to have well designed
activities for use in their lessons compared to 61% of mathematics mentor.
In terms of feedback, overwhelming majority of mathematics mentors (90%) and
science mentors (97%) were thought to provide feedback after lesson observation. Although
the nature and form of feedback still needs investigating, it often relates to a lesson that the
mentor may have formally or informally observed. Often this may be given orally or in
written form. More than half of mathematics and science mentors did not review the lesson
plans of their mentees before they were taught (see table 2). It is not clear whether mentors
are not reviewing lesson plans given to them or pre-service teachers are not getting the lesson
plans to the mentors for them to review. Interview data could have revealed the reasons
behind this high percentage of mentors who did not review lesson plans. However, one reason
may be time factor although good time management on the part of pre-service teachers should
ensure mentors receive lesson plans in good time for review.

Table 2 Differences in Mathematics and Pre-service Teachers' Perception of Mentoring
Mathematics Science
(n=38, Females=20, Males=18) (n=30, Females=19, Males=11)
Percentage of participants
who agreed or strongly Mean Mean
agreed Score Score
%* SD %* SD
Personal Attributes
Comfortable in talking 95 4.39 0.68 90 4.43 1.04
Instilled confidence in me 66 3.61 0.92 63 3.50 1.08
System Requirements
Discussed policies 53 3.37 0.82 60 3.43 1.04
Outline curriculum 34 3.03 1.15 30 2.87 1.20
Pedagogical Knowledge
Assisted with timetable 82 4.13 0.99 90 4.30 0.75
Discussed content knowledge
with me 52 3.29 0.98 57 3.23 1.17
Assisted with assessment 43 3.47 0.92 70 3.67 1.18
Modelling
Displayed enthusiasm 95 4.24 0.54 77 3.83 1.02
Used subject knowledge 74 3.89 0.65 57 3.57 1.07
Had well designed activities 61 3.63 0.82 80 3.77 0.86
Feedback
Observed me before feedback 90 4.18 0.80 97 4.63 0.56
Reviewed lesson plans 42 2.39 0.97 36 3.00 1.26
Conclusion
The results discussed above indicate that, overwhelmingly, mentors in the two LEAs have
personal attributes and mentoring practices for effective teaching of mathematics and science.
However, there are specific areas that need further professional development to ensure that
variation in the quality of mentoring in partnership schools is minimised. Clearly, for the
mentors in the two LEAs, an urgent action in the form of training is needed to develop
mentors’ practices in relation to an overt discussion of the national curriculum and school
policies, training of pre-service teachers in content knowledge and assessment. Moreover, the
review of lesson plans prior to their live delivery is essential in order to avoid the negative
impact that inappropriate lessons may have on pupils especially. Both mathematics and
science mentors will therefore benefit from an overt training programme that ensures that
practices are as good as those related to the provision of feedback after lesson observation.
References
Hayes, D. 2001. The Impact of Mentoring and Tutoring on Student Primary Teachers'
Achievements: a case sudy. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning 9, no.1:
5-21.
Hobson, A. J. 2002. Student Teachers' Perceptions of School-based Mentoring Initial Teacher
Training (ITT). Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning 10, no.1: 5-20.

Hobson, A. J, P. Ashby, A. Malderez, and P. D. Tomlinson. 2009. Mentoring beginning
teachers : What we know and what we don't. Teaching and Teacher Education 25, no
1: 207-216.
Hobson, A. J., M. Giannakaki, and G. N. Chambers. 2009. Who withdraws from inititial
teacher preparation programmes and why? Educational and Research 51, no 3: 321-
340.
Hudson, P. 2004. Specific mentoring: A theory and model for developing primary science
teaching practices. European Journal of Teacher Education 27, no 2: 139-146.
_________ 2007. Examining mentors' practices for enhancing pre-service teachers
pedagogical development in mathematics and science. Mentoring &
Tutoring:Partnership in Learning 15, no 2: 201-207.
Hudson, P., T. M. Nguyen, and S. Hudson. 2008. Mentoring Vietnamese pre-service teachers
in EFL writing. In Proceedings JALT2007 : The Japan Association for Language
Teaching 33rd International Conference, edited by K. Bradford-Watts. Tokyo, Japan.
Hudson, P., M. Usak, and A. Savran-Gencer. 2009. Employing the five-factor mentoring
instrument:analysing mentoring practices for teaching primary science. European
Journal of Teacher Education 32, no 1: 63-74.
Maynard, T. 2000. Learning to Teach or Learning to Manage Mentors? Experiences of
school-based teacher training. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning 8, no
1: 18-30.
Mtetwa, D. J., and J. J. Thompson. 2000. The Dilemma of Mentoring in Mathematics
Teaching: Implications for Teacher Preparation in Zimbabwe. Journal of In-Service
Education 26, no 1: 139-152.

Perceptions of symmetry: A window into how 13 year old students appear to understand
symmetry.
Sue Forsythe
School of Education, University of Leicester
This study describes Year 8 students in England (aged 12-13) using Dynamic Geometry
Software (DGS) to investigate triangles and quadrilaterals which can be generated by
dragging two rigid perpendicular lines within a shape. The dialogue and the dragging and
measuring strategies employed by the students seem to illustrate that they viewed the
shapes through the lens of symmetry. On being questioned about the meaning of
symmetry their notions of it were process based rather than coming from an esoteric
understanding of the meaning of symmetry.
Keywords: Dynamic Geometry Software, dragging, measuring, symmetry
Dynamic Geometry Software and its affordances
Dynamic Geometry Software (DGS) has tools based on the Euclidean elements of points,
lines and circles. The menus in the software allow geometric constructions to be performed on
the basic elements. In this way the properties of a geometrical figure constructed in DGS can
be programmed into the figure. The dynamic nature of the software stems from the affordance
of the dragging mode ( Holzl, 1996). Any figure which has been constructed on the screen can
be dragged to demonstrate many examples of such a figure (Laborde, 1993, Olive, 2000).
The facility of DGS to allow geometric properties to be programmed into a figure is an
important affordance of the software.
Other important affordances of DGS are the drag mode, which keeps the designed-in
properties of the geometric figure as constants while the figure is dragged, and the Measures
menu. Measurements of lengths and angles of a geometric figure, for example, can be made
and these update when the figure is dragged (Hollebrands, 2007).
A number of strategies for dragging and measuring have been identified. Students may
use random dragging to investigate the properties of a figure on the screen or they may use
dragging in order to maintain certain properties of a figure (Arzarello et al, 2002). There is
also the dragging test which is used to check that a constructed figure keeps its properties
when dragged and many studies have been reported which concentrate on how students learn
to construct geometric figures which are resistant to dragging (for example, Holzl et al, 1994,
Jones, 2000).
Using dragging and measuring strategies can help students to move between the
spatio-graphical field of geometry (ie the experimental practical side of geometry) and the
theoretical field (Olivero and Robutti, 2007). For example, students might make some
measurements in an isosceles triangle constructed in DGS and observe what happens to the
measures of the sides as the figure is dragged. This could help them to form a conjecture that
two sides are equal in length and so help the students move from the spatio-graphical to the
theoretical field. Another example could be when the students have used deductive reasoning
to prove that the diagonals of a rhombus bisect each other at right angles. If they then
construct the rhombus and use dragging and measuring to check the proof works in DGS then
they are moving from the theoretical to the spatio-graphical field (Olivero and Robutti, 2007).

Moving between the two fields may help to support students as they develop their geometrical
reasoning.
Hollebrands (2007) also noted different strategies students use when working with
DGS: a reactive strategy is used when the student performs an action on the screen without
being able to predict the result and then performs the next action depending on the result. A
proactive strategy is used when the student predicts what will happen before they perform the
action based on their knowledge of the software and the geometry. Although Hollebrands was
writing about any kind of action performed in DGS it is obvious that she included dragging
and measuring actions in this. In this study I have also observed students using a further
dragging and measuring strategy which will be described later.
Research methods
In this study pairs of year 8 (12-13 years) students worked on a prepared task using one
computer and the Geometers Sketchpad (Jackiw, 2001). The students were identified as
having average achievement and were chosen by their class teacher as being confident to
work with an adult they do not know (the researcher) and willing to talk about what they are
doing. The on-screen activity and dialogue were recorded using image capture software.
The students worked in files set up by the researcher in the Geometers Sketchpad, The
first file contained two rigid lines: a vertical 8 cm line and a horizontal 6 cm line which were
constructed to maintain their orientation and length when dragged. These were referred to as
bars to differentiate them from other line segments in the figure. The students were asked to
drag one bar over another (which generated their intersection) and to join up the ends of the
bars to complete the shape. They then constructed the interior of the shape thereby filling it
with colour and helping with visualisation of the shape especially when it is concave. The
students were then asked to drag the bars inside the shape and investigate which different
shapes they could make. In essence the bars are the given constants in the task. The dragging
mode is being used to generate different shapes whose diagonals are the bars (for
quadrilaterals) or whose base and height are the bars (for triangles).
The students’ use of dragging and measures
At first the students dragged fairly randomly to see what shapes they could make. This may
be akin to the random dragging described by Arzarello et al (2002) or the reactive dragging
described by Hollebrands (2007). After they had spent some time investigating shapes the
students were asked to drag the bars in order to make a shape of their choice. Usually at this
point, the students dragged the bars purposefully, whilst attending to the measures displayed
on the screen so that the shape looked fairly accurate by eye. This may be akin to the
proactive strategy mentioned by Hollebrands (2007).
When the students used the software to measures lines and angles in the figure they
usually found that measurements which they expected to be equal, for example adjacent sides
in a kite, were not exactly equal (see figure 1). The students were then observed to make fine
adjustments to the position of the bars whilst they attended to the measures in order to get
them as close as possible. I have named this dragging strategy ‘dragging to adjust measures’
as this describes what the students were trying to do.

The students were rarely able to drag the
bars so that the measures were exactly equal
but they seemed to accept this and
understand that they could not get the figure
to be perfect. The reasons for not being able
to make the measures read in such a way as
to suggest the figure was perfect may stem
from issues with the software itself. The
computer image of the figure is a screen
representation of the theoretical figure so,
whilst it may embody certain properties (in
this case perpendicular diagonals of 8 cm
and 6 cm), it still has imperfections which
may be the result of the size of the pixels and
the curvature of the screen.
figure 1
The measures are calculated according to an algorithm in the program which is based on the
co-ordinates of the end points of the line segments and thus may have small inaccuracies built
in (Olivero and Robutti, 2007). Whilst we understand that figures we draw on paper are likely
to be inaccurate, we tend to think of the computer image as being accurate and this is not
necessarily the case.
The students’ understanding of symmetry
The students had an understanding of symmetry which was processed based and seemed to
stem from the way they had been taught to recognise symmetrical shapes in school. The
following conversation took place after two girls had generated a concave kite and then stated
that it had symmetry. They were asked what this means.
Tilly: It's got a line of symmetry

Res: So if that's the line of symmetry what must be true? Can you tell me anything
true about that shape
Tilly: Erm, not sure
Res: What does a line of symmetry mean?
Alice: It's the same on the other side
Res: What do you mean by 'you have the same either side'. Can you tell me some
things which might be the same?
Tilly: Well the shape of it. If you look where BD is, it's got the same like points and
everything on the same, like point.
Alice: I've done it before but, I'm trying to think. Did we trace it and then checked if
it there were lines of symmetry?
Res: When you traced it and you were checking lines of symmetry what did you
do?
Tilly: Traced half of it and folded it over.
Alice: and then the lines were like you could see. whether the lines were the same

Dragging to maintain symmetry
Arzarello et al (2002) have described how students sometimes drag to maintain certain
properties of a figure and symmetry may be such a property. Students in this study were
observed to use dragging to maintain line symmetry. For example, Tilly and Alice were
observed to drag the horizontal bar along the vertical bar such that it was bisected by the
vertical bar. They did this whilst trying to generate an accurate kite. They moved the
horizontal bar AC so that it touched the end of the vertical bar BD (figure 2), then moved it
down to generate a concave kite (figure 3) and then up, thus generating a kite (figure 4).
Figure 2 Figure 3
When the girls were asked what they

were trying to do they said
“we’re trying to get BD in the middle of

the shape”
“one er B and D vertically in the middle
of the shape”
Figure4
Clearly the girls were attending to the vertical axis of symmetry. In fact very few of the
students in the study have used the horizontal bar as a line of symmetry although some have
mentioned it, usually as a second line of symmetry. This could be a natural result of the fact
that, as Pinker (1997) suggests, human beings are reasonably symmetrical about the vertical
axis and we tend to use the vertical axis as our frame of reference.

Half a rectangle?
At one point the girls dragged the bars to

make a right angled triangle (Figure 5). A
discussion followed as to whether this shape
is half a rectangle or half a square. This was
interesting because the girls clearly visualised
that if the right angled triangle was copied
and then the copy was transformed the result
would be a rectangle (or square, until they had
argued it through).
Figure 5
Tilly: Cos if you get another one of them, and turn it round and make a
Alice: It would make a rectangle
Res: So you think it would make a rectangle?
Tilly: And if you put A er D at the top, join it with the B point then put BC on
the other side then it would be a same I think.
Res: What do you think Alice?
Alice: er, er, wait, I need to
Tilly: no actually it would be a rectangle
Alice: It would because, if you think about it, if you did, if you flipped that over
the other side so it was like symmetry, you would get the same, and if
you had both of them, then it would be a rectangle
When Alice talked of flipping the shape it would suggest she thought of reflecting it
and that would have resulted in a kite rather than a rectangle. However Tilly talked of
turning it round which would result in a rectangle. Nevertheless this suggests that the
girls were able to visualise the right angled triangle and its transformation making a
complete rectangle.
Discussion
The nature of the task requires the drag mode to be used to generate different
geometric shapes. This has led to a newly observed dragging strategy where the
students ‘drag to adjust measures’.
It appears that the students viewed the shapes through a lens of symmetry.
Clearly the task, with a longer vertical bar and a shorter horizontal bar is likely to
influence the way that the students viewed the shapes.
Symmetry and transformations may be involved in the way that humans
visualise objects. Battista (2008) has surmised that unconscious visual transformations

including rotations might be used as a mechanism for visualising spatial structures.
Pinker (1997) claims that, as a way of limiting cognitive load, humans memorise
figures in their normal upright orientation and use mental rotation in order to
recognise figures in other orientations. He even suggests that reflections are visualised
as 180 degree rotations in the plane perpendicular to the frame of reference.
There could be implications for the way in which geometry is taught. Many
children currently learn about the properties of right angles, congruent sides and
angles, and parallelism before the properties of symmetry. However it may be more
intuitive for children to learn about symmetry first and to develop other properties
from it.
References
Arzarello, F., F. Olivero, D. Paola and O. Robutti. 2002. A cognitive analysis of dragging practices in
Cabri environments. Zentralblatt fur Didaktik der Mathematik 34(3): 66-72.
Battista, M.T., 2008. Development of the Shape Makers Geometry Microworld. In Research on
Technology and the Teaching of mathematics: vol 2, ed. Heid, M.K. and G.W.Blume, 131-
156. NCTM, USA
Hollebrands, K. 2007. The role of a dynamic software program for geometry in the strategies high
school mathematics students employ. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 38,
(2): 164-192
Holzl, R., L. Healy, C. Hoyles, and R. Noss. 1994. Geometrical relationships and dependences in
cabri. Micromath 13(3): 8-11.
Holzl, R. 1996. How does ‘dragging’ affect the learning of geometry. International Journal of
Computers for Mathematical Learning 1: 169-187
Jackiw, N. 2001. The Geometers Sketchpad (version 4.0) [Computer software]. Emeryville, CA: Key
Curriculum Press
Jones, K. 2000. Providing a foundation for deductive reasoning: students’ interpretations when using
dynamic geometry software and their evolving mathematical explanations. Educational
Studies in Mathematics 44 :55-85
Laborde, C. 1993. Do the Pupils Learn and What do they Learn in a Computer Based Environment?
The Case of Cabri-geometre, In B. Jaworski (Ed) Proceedings of Technology in Mathematics
Teaching: A Bridge between Teaching and Learning. University of Birmingham
Olive, J. 2000. Using Dynamic Geometry Technology: Implications for Teaching, Learning and
Research. In M.O.J.Thomas (Ed) Proceedings of TIME 2000 – An International Conference
on Technology in Mathematics Education, 226-235. Auckland, New Zealand
Olivero, F., and O. Robutti. 2007. Measuring in dynamic geometry environments as a tool for
conjecturing and proving, International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning 12:
135-15
Pinker, S. 1997. How the Mind Works. New York:W.W.Norton

A week with secondary mathematics through history and culture
Ioanna Georgiou
Institute of Education, University of Warwick
This paper is about the mathematics lessons I delivered during the last week of the
previous school year at a secondary school, years seven to ten. The lessons involved
history of mathematics as well as sociocultural elements. The material chosen are
described and briefly examined. The students' reactions to the idea and whether they
engaged with the lesson is also looked at. The kind of questions students asked in class
and what these revealed is discussed. Another area of discussion is students’ answers as
well as their interpretations of the issues raised in class. As each of the four classes was
of different achievement (from bottom to top sets), I comment on whether achievement
seemed to have any effect on students’ reactions. Finally, some teaching issues I
encountered when attempting to teach with this approach are raised.
Introduction
The series of lessons described in this paper is the last cycle of an one-year action research
project I started in 2007-08. Three years ago, I had worked with a group of 12 academically
challenged students teaching them mathematics through history and culture. The one-year
course I taught was called Cultural Mathematics and relevant information can be found in
Georgiou (2008). The lessons that are described here were informed by this action research
project, as well as by my general experience as a mathematics teacher and an action
researcher.
What does mathematics through history and culture mean?
It has been extensively identified that mathematics curricula are more often than not
disconnected from real life situations thus making it harder for the students to make sense of
it (Frankenstein 1994). Zaslavsky (1994) pointed out that the students have minimum
opportunities to understand the origins of mathematics and the role of the various peoples in
its creation. Ascher and D'Ambrosio (1994) indicated that the lack of any emotion in
mathematics lead to the dislike of the subject on behalf of the students.
Anderson's (2010) work revealed that using material related to the students' reality
may not only introduce connections between mathematics and societal issues, but also help
students achieve agency and social empowerment. Bishop (2001) indicated the explicit value
teaching that is possible to take place in a mathematics classroom (in contrast to implicit
values coming up in the lessons). Acknowledging the values that may emerge can give the
mathematics teachers the chance to be mathematics educators and not just trainers. In this
way they may also contribute to the moral and spiritual growth and maturation of their
students.
Ethnomathematics was coined by D' Ambrosio (1985) and it is a discipline that
encompasses the study of mathematical evolutions from the peoples' and cultures' point of
view. This point of view may include ways in which mathematics can be used to help people
in their lives, and show how it is or was used by different cultures. Shirley (2006) supports
that Ethnomathematics can be used to teach students the mathematics that needs to be covered
according to the curricula and at the same time inform the students about the contributions

and the practices of the various cultures around the world. Swetz (2000) shows that concrete
examples of using mathematics may enable students' learning and understanding.
Katz (1993) pointed out that history of mathematics can help students understand the
origin of this science and how it evolved. Furinghetti (2000) discussed the benefits the
students received when themselves or their teachers used the journal Il Pitagora, a journal
about the historical evolution of mathematics. Radford and Puig (2007) support that teachers'
awareness and use of historical sources may facilitate the understanding of their students. The
work of Lawrence (2006) revealed that using history when teaching mathematics to KS3&4
students may help in the increase of the students' motivation, initiatives for investigations and
communication skills. Rogers and Fairchild (2010) worked with students on solving quadratic
equations using the Mesopotamian and early Hindu method that later lead to the completion
of the square. The students' interest and involvement had increased and Rogers and Fairchild
(2010) pointed out that looking at a problem from an historical perspective, reveals aspects
such as “conjecture, justification and generalisation”.
Background, material and data
The lessons that will be described here took place during the last week of school, with KS3&4
students, years seven to ten. The abilities of the four groups were ranging from top to bottom.
Their attitudes were generally positive, although two of the classes displayed a more passive
style of learning, and the other two were more active and excited. Again, the setting did not
have to do with their willingness to participate and share responses and ideas. The years will
be named as N, B, V, C, for anonymity purposes. The discussion will involve the specific
year's material, without revealing whether it is a top, middle or bottom set.
The material was chosen according to the syllabus covered in the year that was
coming to an end and in relation to the expressed interests of the students, if any. Ideas were
taken from a variety of sources like Addison-Wesley (1993), Lumpkin and Strong (1995),
Katz (1993), NCTM (1989) and Wright (1999). I prepared booklets with the activities for all
the students, which I was collecting at the end of every lesson and also at the end of the week.
The booklets were kept for analysis purposes.
For year seven, I chose to use worksheets on Egyptian numerals and Egyptian
multiplication. Some further problems using Egyptian numerals were taken from Eagle
(1999). I also included an activity from Smile, related to the power of two and how fast a
(positive) number grows when doubling it. The booklet concluded with instructions on how to
play oware.
For year eight I used an activity about people's right for fair employment and
specifically fairly-traded coffee and fluctuation of prices. Wright (1999) proposed a series of
activities starting with an article from the declaration of the human rights, followed by the
description of a situation. Mathematical tools are then employed to examine whether the
specific article was violated in the case described and fairly-traded coffee was one of these
activities.
For year nine I chose some texts on Babylonians and the Plimtpon 322 tablet, an early
artefact of the use of Pythagoras' theorem, before Pythagoras. Some problems taken from the
Chinese nine chapters and the Indian Sulbasutras were added in the booklet, as well as a text
on Hypatia, the first known woman mathematician and some exercises with number patterns
related to her work. For the last lesson, I arranged for the students to watch a 20-minute
excerpt from the BBC documentary “The story of maths” (2008), that was related to the
discussions we had during that week. Musto (2010) also refers to the specific documentary
and how he used this, in collaboration with the head of art, to motivate the students become
involved in an art-mathematics project of drawing portraits of mathematicians. The students

created paintings of a mathematician they chose and added some mathematical elements
relevant to the mathematician's work.
For year ten, I included a text on Al-Khowarizmi and some activities on his geometric
method for solving quadratic equations. A second text on Eratosthenes was also included,
with some activities explaining how he calculated the circumference of the earth, having very
few instruments available. I also presented the students with a form of Euclid's proof on the
infinitude of the primes. The week concluded with learning how to play oware.
Before commencing the lessons using historical and sociocultural elements, I
gave the students an initial questionnaire to capture their stances towards mathematics. A
second significant piece of data is the students' written work from the booklets, as well as
some transcriptions of lessons. After completing these “alternative” lessons, I distributed
another questionnaire to capture their stances towards the material used in that final week.
First questionnaire
Two of the questions of the first questionnaire will be used here to shed some light on the
general attitudes of the students. As it becomes apparent, the majority of the students thought
that “mathematics is very important”, rather irrespectively of whether they perceived
themselves as “good at maths”. Generally, the students appeared to recognise the utility of
mathematics, but their responses regarding “enjoyment” or “difficulty” of the subject, were
widely varied. The charts represent percentages of the students in each of the four classes.
Trends in the lessons
In this section, I will be discussing some patterns that emerged while analysing the data. It
must be noted that the analysis is still developing and these are only some initial observations.
The students displayed intense reactions when presented with different formats
of written text in mathematics. For example, some year eight and year nine students took
negative facial expressions, or made comments like “This is English!” when presented with
passages. On the contrary, when year seven students skimmed through the booklet and found
the Smile activity resembling a comic-book page, displayed exclamation and asked “When
are we going to do that?”. As historical and sociocultural issues require some form of written
text to be presented, such reactions can be anticipated as the students probably expect
numbers and formulae, otherwise it may not be mathematics for them.
Some of the questions the students raised, as well as some of their answers,
revealed some misconceptions or mere ignorance of what would maths encompass in the past.
For example, when discussing the Babylonian's sexagesimal system with year nine, a student
said that sixty would be easier to remember since it was “just a six and a zero”. When I
challenged them by asking if the Babylonians actually had a six or a zero, another students
asked if they wrote sixty in words. Although a picture of the Plimpton 322 tablet was in their
booklets and it contained the symbols the Babylonians used for numbers, the students did not
make the connection with the symbols. Another case that revealed some misconceptions,

emerged when comparing various numerals. The current Hindu-Arabic symbols were
described as 'unique' in contrast to the Roman ones, that repeated “I” for example, to show
bigger values. The repetitions in the use of 1 and 0 that were used to write ten, did not occur
to them as repetitions, perhaps because they were not accustomed in challenging what had
became habitual for them.
Another significant incident emerged again when dealing with the Babylonians
and the Pythagoras' theorem, that revealed students' confusion between two or more main
points covered in the lesson. As the students used their knowledge on Pythagoras' theorem to
check the patterns of the numbers on the Plimpton tablet, they had to choose which was the
column representing the hypotenuse. Although they were aware of the fact that the
hypotenuse is always the longest in any right-angled triangle, they suggested that the number
missing from the triple had to be divisible by 60. This was quite unexpected. The discussion
on the sexagesimal (base 60) system had probably diverted their attention to new issues and
caused the confusion.
In the written answers to the historical/critical questions after the class
discussion, some students demonstrated misunderstandings of what was discussed in the
class. For instance, they wrote that a difference between the Hindu-Arabic and the Egyptian
numerals was that the latter were shapes; it was made clear to them that the current ones can
also be described as shapes. Although some students insisted that “ours are numbers, theirs
are shapes”, I mistakenly thought that the extensive discussion that followed their suggestions
should have clarified the issue.
A significant category of incidences is the “teacher brought into a challenging
position”. As most maths teachers are not history or sociology experts, using such an
approach can easily lead the discussion to unfamiliar areas for the teacher. This occurred
when for example, when some students connected the measurement unit “stadium” with the
modern meaning of the word (incidentally the length of both is around 200m), while I was not
sure if such a connection was historically valid.
The students were not bothered when things I was not aware off came up. But
it must be acknowledged that there are challenges the teacher might face while working
within an area outside standard mathematics. Pompeu (1992) mentions that while preparing
an ethnomathematical approach to mathematics, some of the teachers in the team got
discouraged and wanted to abandon this approach and turn to the standard textbook to
complete their preparation. In other words, the challenges a teacher may face with such an
approach are either related to a tiring and sometimes daunting preparation or some
unexpected themes emerging during the lesson.
Second questionnaire
The four classes completed the second questionnaire on their last lesson; not all last lessons
occurred on the same day (e.g. some lessons were missed on the last day, and some classes
did not have maths lessons every day). The comparisons drawn here are on two of the
questions. What the chart shows is that only year C found the activities fun. Nonetheless, only
year V found that they did not learn much from these activities. In a sense, one of the aims
when using such an approach is to enrich students' mathematical experience and the students
acknowledged the fact that they did learn new things. Regarding the kind of new things they
learnt, there is no universal answer to that; some did agree, that what we did was more like
history. At the same time some students agreed that they did learn some more maths during
these activities.

Initial conclusions
The above observations allow for some initial conclusions to be drawn. As mentioned before,
these conclusions are drawn prior to the completion of the analysis and this is why they
should only be used as provisional.
Firstly, ability did not seem to affect how the students enjoyed the new
material. Although it was not made clear in this paper which class was of what setting, the
responses of the students were varied and both the upper and the lower sets included positive
and negative reactions.
What many students seemed to appreciate in their comments was the variety in
the approach. Doing something different than what was going on during the whole year
seemed to be motivating for most of them. On the other hand, working during the last week of
lessons probably affected the results in a negative manner, as some students explicitly said
that they did not want to have lessons and that we should do something more relaxing.
Lastly, it appears to be more challenging for the teacher to prepare and deliver
an alternative lesson. In a traditional maths lesson, not many surprises are anticipated. On the
contrary, in a historical/sociocultural approach, even if the material is ready-made,
unexpected issues may arise. Moreover, from my experience, it is far more difficult to prepare
this style of lessons. The preparation takes much longer and there is some element of
uncertainty on whether the material will be welcomed or not by the students.
The results so far are generally encouraging, in spite of the aforementioned
challenges. Further analysis is required. Extension of this research including more students
and trialling of more material is to be sought.
References
Addison-Wesley. 1993. Multiculturalism in Mathematics, Science, and Technology: Readings
and Activities Addison-Wesley Publishing Company
Ascher, Marcia, D'Ambrosio, Ubitaran. 1994. Ethnomathematics: a Dialogue For the learning
of mathematics 14(2):36-43 Montreal Quebec: FLM Publishing Association
Bishop, Alan. 2001. What values do you teach when you teach mathematics? Issues in
Teaching Mathematics 23-37 Gates, P.(ed.) Routledge Falmer
D'Ambrosio, Ubitaran. 1985. Ethnomathematics and its place in the history and pedagogy of
mathematics For the learning of mathematics 5:44-48 Montreal Quebec Canada: FLM
Publishing Association
Eagle, M.R. 1995. Exploring Mathematics Through History, Bicester, Oxon: Cambridge
University Press:
Frankenstein, Marilyn. 1994. Understanding the politics of mathematical knowledge as an
integral part of becoming critically numerate Radical Statistics V56 URL:
http://www.radstats.org.uk/no056/frankenstein.htm accessed on 04/10/09
Furinghetti, Fulvia. 2000. The Long Tradition of History in Mathematics Teaching: an Old
Italian Case Using History to Teach Mathematics; an International Perspective 49-58
Katz, V. (ed.) The Mathematical Association of America

Georgiou, Ioanna. 2008. Approaching mathematics through history and culture: A suggestion.
Proceedings of the Conference of five cities: Nicosia, Rhodes, Bologna, Palermo,
Locarno “Research in Mathematics Education”, 253-264, Nicosia-Cyprus
http://math.unipa.it/~grim/RDM_ciprus_proceedings_1_08.pdf#page=263
Katz, Victor. 1993. A history of Mathematics; an introduction New York: Harper Collins
College Publishers
Lawrence, Snezana. 2006. Maths is good for you: teaching mathematics in a historical
context National Teacher Research Panel URL:
http://www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/ntrp/lib/pdf/lawrence.pdf accessed on 10/10/10
Lumpkin, Beatrice, Strong, Dorothy. 1995. Multicultural Science and Math Connections;
Middle School Projects and Activities J. Weston Walch Publisher Portland, Maine
Musto, Garrod. 2010. Mathematical timelines BSHM Bullettin 25 pp.162-167 Taylor and
Francis Group
NCTM. 1989. Historical Topics for the Mathematics Classroom The National Council of
teachers of Mathematics
Pompeu, Geraldo Junior. 1992. Bringing ethnomathematics into the school curriculum: an
investigation of teachers' attitudes and pupils' learning. Unpublished PhD thesis,
University of Cambridge, Department of Education
Radford, L., Puig, L. 2007. Syntax and meaning as sensuous, visual, historical forms of
algebraic thinking Educational Studies in Mathematics 66:145-164 Springer
Rogers, Leo, Fairdhild, J. 2010. Mediaeval Mathematics in the Modern Classroom
Mathematics in School 39:3
Swetz, Frank. 2000. Mathematical pedagogy: an historical perspective Using History to
Teach Mathematics; an International Perspective 11-16 Katz, V. (ed.) The
Mathematical Association of America
Thomaidis, Yannis, and Tzanakis, Constantinos. (2009) The implementation of the history of
mathematics in the new curriculum and textbooks in Greek secondary education
Proceeding of CERME 6 Lyon France
Wright, Peter. 1999. (ed.) The Maths and the Human Rights Resource Book; Bringing Human
Rights into the secondary mathematics classroom UK: Amnesty International
Zaslavsky, Claudia. 1994. “Africa counts” and ethnomathematics For the learning of
mathematics 14(2):3-8 FLM Publishing Association Vancouver British Columbia
Canada

The affordances and constraints of turn-taking in the secondary mathematics classroom
Jenni Ingram
University of Warwick
This paper discusses the affordances and constraints of the rules of turn-taking in
classrooms. The study draws on conversation analytic studies of both classrooms and
ordinary conversations as well as data from a collection of sixteen secondary
mathematics lessons with 12-13 year old pupils. Examining McHoul’s (1978) rules for
turn-taking in the classroom alongside examples from the data in this study where
interactions deviate from these offer alternative ways of interpreting the actions of both
teachers and pupils in whole class interactions.
Keywords: turn-taking; affordances; conversation analysis; constraints.
Introduction
There has been extensive research into the structure of turn-taking in a wide variety of
contexts, including classrooms (Drew and Heritage 1992a; Mehan 1979; Seedhouse 2004;
Sinclair and Coulthard 1975). Many of the classroom-based studies have reported the
patterns that turns take in classroom interactions. Most well known perhaps is the Initiation-
Response-Feedback (IRF) pattern of turn-taking that is widely used in teacher-pupil
interactions (Mehan 1979; Nassaji and Wells 2000; Sinclair and Coulthard 1975). The
implications of this IRF pattern of interactions for teaching and learning has been widely
discussed (Cazden 2001; Wells 1993) and many argue that it is in fact an ineffective
interactional pattern that stifles pupils’ contributions to discussions and restricts opportunities
for higher level thinking (Cazden 2001; Lemke 1990). The majority of the studies into turn-
taking in classrooms have been conducted using some form of discourse analysis approach.
The current study takes a conversation analytic approach to the analysis of interactions,
examining the creation and shaping of meaning and context through sequences of turns (Have
2007).
The Systematics of Turn-Taking
In all interactions there are rules and practices that structure turn-taking: who can speak when,
how long they can speak for and what they can say. Sacks et al.’s (1974) detailed
examination of sequences of interactions led to the development of a system of rules (a
systematic) that govern all turn-taking. Sacks et al. noted that usually only one person speaks
at a time, yet the speaker changes frequently with minimal overlap or gap between the change
of speaker. Sacks et al.’s systematic includes an iterative hierarchy of rules that manage
speaker change. Firstly, where it would be relevant for there to be a change in speaker, the
current speaker can select the next speaker and they are morally obliged to take the turn. If
the current speaker has not nominated the next speaker, then another speaker can self-select to
take the next turn and the person who speaks first takes the turn. Finally, if the next speaker
has not been nominated or has not self-selected, then the current speaker continues with the
turn. These rules then apply again at the next place where it is relevant for the speaker to
change. Participants in interactions have been shown to orient to these rules in interactions
and in a variety of contexts. However, certain activities or institutional contexts can place
further constraints on the sequential structure of turn-taking.

McHoul (1978) examined turn-taking in whole class interactions in formal
(geography) classrooms and refined Sack’s et al.’s (1974) rules to reflect the differing roles of
the teacher and their pupils. When the teacher is the current speaker, then firstly the teacher
can nominate a pupil to be the next speaker. If the teacher does not nominate the next
speaker, then the teacher must continue the turn. If a pupil is the current speaker then they
select the next speaker and the teacher takes the turn. If the pupil does not select the next
speaker then anyone can self-select as next speaker, with the teacher taking the turn if they
self-select. If the teacher or another pupil does not self-select then the pupil continues the
turn.
There are several noticeable features of McHoul’s systematic. Firstly, it is the teacher
who controls and manages the turn-taking and the role of the pupils is limited. Secondly,
there are no options for pupils to self-select following a teacher’s turn. In McHoul’s data,
there are no instances where a pupil does self-select and is not sanctioned for doing so and
there are no instances where a pupil nominates another pupil. The conversation analytic
approach that Sacks et al. developed and McHoul utilised views context as being both created
and renewed through the participant’s interactions. Thus the teacher and pupils are orienting
to their institutional roles through their participation in the constrained turn-taking rules.
In formal classroom interactions, the teacher usually has some preformed idea or plan
of what should be said and done in the lesson. Teachers may also have some preformed ideas
about which pupils will participate in whole class interactions. Both the teacher and the
pupils will have goals tied to the classroom context, which they will orient to in their
interactions. Additionally, whole class interactions include several participants, so there is an
audience for any interaction. This aspect goes some way to explaining the frequent use of
nomination in changing speaker in order to minimise the possibility of overlap of turns.
In formal classrooms, it is the teacher who asks questions and the pupils who answer
(Drew and Heritage 1992b). This pre-allocation means that the teacher, as questioner, can
take long turns, constructed with a variety of turn types until the teacher produces a question
that is recognised as such by the pupils. The pupils, as answerers, are constrained to give an
answer to the teacher’s question and their turn ends as soon as an answer is given. The
dominance of teachers asking questions and pupils answering questions is often discussed in
terms of the power and dominance of the teacher (Richards 2006).
The Affordances of Turn-taking
The term affordance was originally defined as a relation between an animal and an object
(Gibson 1986), and the opportunities and constraints made available to the animal by the
object. These opportunities and constraints are dependent upon how the animal perceives the
object (Hammond 2010). Whilst the rules of turn-taking are not tangible physical objects,
they do provide opportunities and constraints for interactional actions. There has already
been much debate about the constraints that turn-taking imposes on whole class discussions
and the implications these may have on teaching and learning, but less of an emphasis on the
opportunities afforded by them.
The rules outlined by McHoul enable successful interaction to happen in the context
of classrooms. There are many potential participants and the rules minimise the possibility of
overlap. The rules also enable the teacher to maintain control over the topic and over which
pupils contribute to whole-class interactions. The rules also provide an “intrinsic motivation
for listening” (Sacks et al. 1974, p. 43) as participants need to monitor any interaction for
points where a change is speaker is relevant, and in particular for their own nomination as
next speaker. Finally, the control the teacher has over who can speak results in longer pauses
occurring in interactions that would normally occur in ordinary conversation. Once the

teacher has nominated the next speaker, the turn is theirs and they can take their time in
starting. In addition, as the turn returns to the teacher following a pupil’s turn or the pupil
continues the turn, a pause at the end of a pupil’s turn will not be filled by another pupil self-
selecting as next speaker. It is not the first self-selecting speaker who has the right to the next
turn in formal classrooms, but the teacher. Pupils need to wait to see if the teacher will self-
select before they self-select themselves, allowing for longer pauses at the end of a pupil’s
turn than would be possible in ordinary conversation. These opportunities for wait-time
(Rowe 2003; Tobin 1987) do not occur in ordinary conversation and are a consequence of the
rules of turn-taking in formal classrooms.
In order to examine further the affordances and constraints of the turn-taking system
further, extracts that deviate from the rules are explored. The data in this paper is taken from
a collection of sixteen video-recorded mathematics lessons from four mathematics teachers
and their classes of 12-13 year old pupils. These data include examples that deviate from the
rules outlined by McHoul and are not sanctioned. There are three situations where the teacher
is the current speaker and a pupil self-selects as next speaker. The first is when a pupil asks
their own question and the second is where a pupil is initiating or performing a repair
(McHoul 1990). Both these situations are very rare in the data and there are also examples
where the same actions of asking a question or initiating a repair in a self-selected turn are
sanctioned by the teacher. On the occasions where a pupil has self-selected to ask a question,
the question has occurred at a point where a change of speaker is relevant and the question
does not initiate a change in topic. Therefore, whilst the role of questioner and answerer has
changed, the teacher is still in control of the topic. Similarly, when a pupil self-selects to
initiate a repair the topic remains unchanged.
The final situation where a pupil self-selects as the next speaker is in response to a
question asked by the teacher, where a change of speaker is relevant but the teacher has not
nominated the next speaker. Here, by asking a question requiring a response but not
nominating the next speaker, the teacher is explicitly opening the next turn to a self-selecting
speaker. At this point McHoul’s rules for classroom interaction cannot apply; there is no
opportunity for pupils to self-select in his system. However, Sacks et al.’s rules for naturally
occurring conversation do apply. Here the first participant to speak has the right to the next
turn and any other pupil that begins to speak will usually cut-off the turn to allow the first
speaker to complete the turn. In the data, there are two situations where multiple speakers
self-select after the teacher’s undirected question. Firstly, where multiple pupils give the
same answer:
131 Teacher: what’s the probability?
132 Pupil1: a hal[f ]
133 Pupil2: [[a ha]lf ]
134 Pupil3: [fifty fifty]
Secondly, where the multiple pupils give differing answers:

176 Teacher: what total will go (5.4)
((draws diagonal boxes on the whiteboard))
177 Pupil1: seve[n ]
178 Pupil2: [six]
At the end of each extract, McHoul’s rules would then apply again as another relevant
place for the speaker to change occurs. As such, either the teacher would take the next turn or
the pupil who spoke first could continue their turn, with the option for the teacher to take the

turn applying first. In both the extracts above, the teacher in fact does take the next turn.
However, there are examples where the pupils who have self-selected to give different
answers then begin to alternate turns to offer explanations or justifications for why their
answer is correct. Here, two further situations arise. Firstly where the subsequent turns are
directed towards the teacher, which in effect nominates the teacher to take the next turn and
consequently enabling the control of the turn-taking to return to the teacher in the next turn.
Alternatively, the subsequent turns are directed towards other pupils in the class, in effect
creating an argument situation between two (or more) different answers. Here the pupils are
in effect nominating other pupils as the next speaker, another situation not considered by
McHoul. These argument style interactions only occur in one teacher’s lessons from the
collection, but all begin with multiple different answers to an undirected question from the
teacher. These questions include ‘what is the smallest prime number’ or ‘which (lottery)
ticket would you prefer’. The arguments that follow often involve several groups of pupils
holding interactions with each other across the room. However, this results in multiple
speakers at a time, and consequently makes it impossible to transcribe what is being said by
whom. The teacher no longer has control over the turn taking or over the information being
given as explanation or justification by the pupils; however, these pupils are still adhering to
Sacks et al.’s rules for turn-taking in naturally occurring conversation.
As discussed earlier, the teacher having control over turn-taking in their lessons
affords several pedagogic possibilities. The teacher can distribute turns across different social
groups, control the participation of particular individuals and control the topic of discussion.
The teacher can offer wait-time to pupils, both before their turn and at the end of their turn
without fear of interruption. The missing option of pupils self-selecting following a teacher’s
turn also allows the teacher to talk for as long as they want to, which may include significant
pauses, without fear of interruption. The rules for turn-taking in formal classrooms also allow
interactions involving many participants to run successfully. However, where this control of
the teacher has come under some criticism is in the activities that teachers use these
opportunities for. The last situation where pupils engage in a debate offers an indication of a
constraint that the turn-taking rules may place on the teaching and learning of mathematics.
This genuine debate between pupils involves not only the explanation and justification of
answers, but also attempts to convince others of their answer. Whilst pupils can be given the
opportunity to explain and justify their answers to the teacher, and indirectly to other pupils,
the need to convince others occurs when another pupil offers an alternative answer.
McHoul’s analysis is based on the interactions within the institutional context of the
formal classroom. However many authors argue that analysis should focus on the actions
utterances are doing as the institutional context. “Turn-taking systems are characterizable as
adapting to properties of the sorts of activities in which they operate” and not the contexts
within which they take place (Sacks et al. 1974, p. 696). Whole class discussions frequently
involve teachers asking pupils questions that they know the answer to, this act of asking the
question could be functioning on several levels. The teacher could be assessing what their
pupils already know, involving pupils in the presentation of presumed shared knowledge,
assessing whether pupils are understanding new information, or managing the actions of the
pupils. Many of the teacher’s questions could be viewed as indirect requests for the
information of whether the pupil knows the answer. The rules of turn-taking in formal
classrooms also allow pupils the time to think and develop their answers because of the
possibility of longer pauses and hesitation at the start of their turns than would normally occur
in ordinary conversation. Whilst there is plenty of research evidence that teachers are not
using this wait-time (Black and Wiliam 1998) the opportunity for wait-time to occur is a
consequence of the structure of turn-taking in formal classrooms.

Conclusion
Conversation analytic approaches to the analysis of classroom discourse have revealed a

relationship between the structure of discourse and the actions of participants. However, only
a detailed analysis of the implications of this relationship in language learning has been
undertaken (Seedhouse 1996). This paper argues that the structure of turn-taking in
classrooms offer opportunities for the teaching and learning of mathematics which are not
available in the structure of turn-taking in ordinary conversations. Whilst, the structure also
constrains the interactions in some ways, other research indicates that the affordances appear
not to be utilised (or perhaps perceived) by teachers. The turn-taking rules support wait-time,
thinking time and the distribution of turns amongst pupils.
Transcription Conventions
. falling intonation contour

? rising intonation contour
[] onset and end of overlapping talk
(1.5) pause, timed in seconds and tenths of a second
(( )) additional information including non-verbal actions
References
Black, P. and D. Wiliam. 1998. Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom
assessment. Phi Delta Kappan 80, no. 2.
Cazden, C.B. 2001. Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning. Westport:
Heinemann.
Drew, P. and J. Heritage. 1992a. Analyzing talk at work: An introduction. In Talk at work:
Interaction in institutional settings, ed. Heritage, Pdj, 3-65. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Drew, P. and J. Heritage. 1992b. Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hammond, M. 2010. What is an affordance and can it help us understand the use of ict in
education? Education and Information Technologies 15, no. 3: 205-17.
Have, P.T. 2007. Doing conversation analysis: A practical guide: SAGE.
Lemke, J.L. 1990. Talking science: Language, learning and values. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex
Publishing.
Mchoul, A. 1978. The organization of turns at formal talk in the classroom. Language in
Society 7: 183-213.
Mchoul, A.W. 1990. The organization of repair in classroom talk. Language in Society 19:
349-77.
Mehan, H. 1979. Ed. Anonymous. Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Nassaji, H. and G. Wells. 2000. What's the use of 'triadic dialogue'?: An investigation of
teacher-student interaction. Applied Linguistics 21, no. 3: 376-406.
Richards, K. 2006. 'being the teacher': Identity and classroom conversation. Applied
Linguistics 27, no. 1: 51-77.
Rowe, M.B. 2003. Wait-time and rewards as instructional variables, their influence on
language, logic, and fate control: Part one--wait-time. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching 40: 14-S32 2003.

Sacks, H., E.A. Schegloff and G. Jefferson. 1974. A simplest systematics for the organization
of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50, no. 4: 696-735.
Seedhouse, P. 1996. Learning talk: A study of the interactional organisation of the l2
classroom from a ca institutional discourse perspective. Unpublished PhD
Dissertation: University of York.
Seedhouse, P. 2004. Ed. Young, R. The interactional architecture of the language classroom:
A conversation analysis perspective. Vol. 51 of Language learning monograph series.
Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Sinclair, J. and M. Coulthard. 1975. Towards an analysis of discourse : The english used by
teachers and pupils. London: Oxford University Press.
Tobin, K. 1987. The role of wait time in higher cognitive level learning. Review of
Educational Research 57, no. 1: 69-95.
Wells, G. 1993. Reevaluating the irf sequence: A proposal for the articulation of theories of
activity and discourse for the analysis of teaching and learning in the classroom.
Linguistics and Education 5: 1-37.

Engineering Students’ Understanding Mathematics ESUM
Barbara Jaworski
Loughborough University
ESUM is a developmental research project concerned with innovation designed to

improve the teaching of mathematics to first year materials engineering students in a UK
university. The main aim of the project is creating a culture to foster students’ more
conceptual engagement with mathematics. Here I mean “more” in the sense of more
than they have previously had in their earlier studies; more than just an instrumental
understanding (Skemp 1976) and more than previous cohorts of students that I have
taught in the past. An important question here is how such understanding can be seen and
recognized and this is part of the study. In this short paper, I focus on organizational,
theoretical and methodological aspects of the study.
Background and Organisation
Standard provision for Materials Engineering students (49 in the current cohort) in
their first year mathematics module is two semesters each involving 2 lectures and 1 tutorial
per week for 13/14 weeks; each tutorial is timetabled in a computer laboratory. The first
semester curriculum is pre-calculus, including functions and equations (polynomial, rational,
trigonometric, exp and log etc.), vectors, complex numbers and matrices. In their second
semester they focus on the calculus.
The research described here is taking place in the first semester of their module. It
involves implementation and study of an innovation which encompasses a more coherent,
integrated use of the following:
 Inquiry-based questions
 GeoGebra representation of functions and equations
 Small group activity in tutorials
 A small group project
Here, the “more” implies “more” than in the last two years during which I have taught
this module. During this time I have tried to introduce inquiry-based questions and GeoGebra,
in order to promote a more conceptual approach to mathematics. In doing this, I have
perceived a rather limited level of success (Jaworski 2010). It is therefore my intention here
to integrate the four elements mentioned above and study their implementation. In addition,
there is continued use of a Virtual Learning Environment (VLE) LEARN; a series of
workbooks known as HELM (Helping Engineers Learn Mathematics) as baseline notes
(reference); and exposition/explanation of topics using PowerPoint. Assessment includes
Computer Aided Assessment (CAA) tests and a final examination after the second semester.
Thus, the innovation involves the following resources:
In lectures (using powerpoint/OHP/GeoGebra)
 use of questions, closed and open (inquiry-based), to involve students
 encouragement of student response/participation
 use of GeoGebra for visualisation of concepts
In tutorials (taking place in a computer lab)

 small group structure
 use of inquiry-based questions and GeoGebra
 project work with inquiry-based tasks
In assessment
 CAA tests (2 rather than, previously, 4) and final examination
 Group project report and poster
Students are also expected to engage in self study, reviewing and working further on
material introduced in lectures and tutorials, all available on the LEARN server, and working
themselves from the HELM materials.
Theoretical Perspectives
Key concepts relating to ways of working and approaches used are inclusion, engagement,
participation, interaction, collaboration, environment, and culture. I seek to include all
students in activity, engage them with mathematics, encourage participation, interaction and
collaboration within the educational environment of the university and to create a culture
conducive to conceptual learning of mathematics. This speaks to a sociocultural basis for
theorising activity and justifying approaches. It derives from Vygotskian principles that
“Human learning presupposes a special social nature and a process by which children grow
into the intellectual life of those around them (Vygotsky 1978, 88), and from Vygotsky’s
proposal that learning takes place first in the social plane and only later in the individual
mental plane.
In accordance with these sociocultural underpinnings I try to create a community of
practice (Wenger 1998) and extend it to a community of inquiry (Jaworski 2006; Wells 1999)
in which
 students engage with mathematics (both instrumentally and conceptually) with
a focus on meaning and understanding
 “practice” means doing and understanding mathematics
 “inquiry” is intended to engage, raise awareness, draw students into a more
conceptual frame.
Rogoff, Matusov and White suggest that “learning involves transformation of
participation in collaborative endeavour”. (1996, 388). This can be seen as a basic definition
of a “learning community”. Wenger (1998) talks particularly of a community of practice
premised on three elements: mutual engagement, joint enterprise, shared repertoire. Our
community of practice in the mathematics module can be seen to have mutual engagement in
that we engage together in mathematical activity; joint enterprise in that we seek the
mathematical understanding of the students who are involved; and shared repertoire in our
lectures, tutorials, and use of resources. Wenger emphasises the process of becoming a
member of the community in terms of a growing community identity and a subsequent
belonging involving engagement, imagination and alignment. We engage with the practice of
the community, use imagination in interpreting our own roles within the community and align
with the norms and expectations of the community.
In earlier work, I have proposed a community of inquiry, building on the basic ideas
of community of practice and incorporating inquiry ways of being and doing. Here inquiry
means questioning and seeking solutions, wondering, imagining, inventing, exploring. I
relate here particularly to the ideas of Wells (1999) who speaks of dialogic inquiry, leading to
meta-knowing – knowing more about what we do as we engage in doing it. We might begin

by using inquiry ‘as a tool’ and coming to encompass ‘inquiry as a way of being’ – taking on
an inquiry identity (Jaworski 2006). Inquiry allows us to question the norms and
expectations of the practices with which we align, a process of critical alignment (Jaworski
2006). We look critically at our practice, while we engage and align with it; ask questions
about what we are doing and why; reveal and question implicit assumptions and expectations;
and try out innovative approaches to explore alternative ways of doing and being to achieve
our fundamental goals. Practice therefore involves two main elements:
 Learning: seen as participation in a social setting and consequent reification (Wenger
1998)
 Teaching: seen as creating the social setting through which the desired learning can
develop. It includes developing a resource base through which knowledge and
resources inter-relate to create the social setting.
The teaching-learning ‘setting’ has to work within the broader environment in which
hard constraints (timetable, organisation, student numbers, lectures, tutorials, physical space,
…) limit what is possible. Soft(er) constraints (practices, expectations, beliefs, behaviours,
student and staff cultures, …) can possibly be re-framed (through a process of critical
alignment) to develop alternative awarenesses in both learners and teachers of what is
possible or desirable.
The project therefore brings together a range of elements:
 Resources: questions, tasks, GeoGebra files, small groups, group project;
 Knowledge/experience – forms of pedagogy: design of questions, inquiry-based tasks,
group activity;
 Theory: participation, reification, inquiry community;
 Dealing with constraints, hard and soft;
 Community collaboration and growth of awareness.
These elements can be characterised through the theory of Community
Documentational Genesis introduced by Gueudet and Trouche (e.g., 2009). Here a document
derives from a set of resources together with a scheme of utilisation. Genesis means
becoming: becoming a mathematics teacher; becoming a professional user of resources;
becoming a knowledgeable professional. In his book Communities of Practice, Wenger talks
of learning as “a process of becoming” (1998, 215). This, he claims, is “an experience of
identity” (1998, 215), where identity “serves as a pivot between the social and the individual,
so that each can be talked about in terms of the other” (1998, 145). Wenger suggests that
“learning as participation … takes place through our engagement in actions and interactions”
and “embeds this engagement in culture and history” (1998, 13). Documentational genesis, a
term which captures the process of the mathematics teacher becoming a professional user of
resources and, concomitantly, a knowledgeable professional, navigates the ground between
the personhood of the teacher and the teacher’s belonging (Wenger) to social structures and
communities in which resources take meaning.
In a book devoted to the roles of resources in mathematics curriculum material and
teacher development (Gueudet, Pepin and Trouche in press), Visnovska, Cobb and Dean
express the idea of documentational genesis as follows:
According to Gueudet and Trouche, teachers’ documentation work includes looking for
resources (e.g., instructional materials, tools, but also time for planning, colleagues with
whom to discuss instructional issues, and workshops dedicated to specific themes) and
making sense and use of them (e.g., planning instructional tasks and sequences, aligning
instruction with the objectives and standards to which the teachers are held accountable).
The products of this work at a given point in time are characterized as documents (e.g.,

records of the big mathematical ideas that are the overall goals of an instructional unit; a
sequence of tasks along with a justification of their selection). These documents can in turn
become resources in teachers’ subsequent documentation work. The process of
documentational genesis therefore foregrounds interactions of teachers and resources, and
highlights how both are transformed in the course of these interactions.
Developmental research methodology
It seems therefore, that theory of community documentational genesis both fits well
with activity in ESUM and offers a ways to make sense of the interplay between creating
learning opportunities for students and the concomitant development of knowledge and
understanding of the teacher in doing so. Research and development go hand in hand both to
chart progress and stimulate knowledge in practice. Below we see, on the left, a focus on
inquiry-based tasks, their use with students, and the teacher’s reflection on their use – a cyclic
process in which feedback from reflection leads to modification of the tasks to suit students
learning. Research analyses the process in its different stages.
In this analysis of ESUM in relation to inquiry-based tasks, I recognize the three

layers of inquiry designated in my previous research into teaching at school level (Jaworski,
2006):
A: Inquiry in learning mathematics:
Students engaging with inquiry-based tasks in mathematics to encourage conceptual
engagement, learning and understanding
B. Inquiry in teaching mathematics:
Teachers using inquiry in the design and implementation of tasks, problems and mathematical
activity with students, possibly in a project with other teachers
C. Inquiry in developing the teaching of mathematics:
Teachers, researching the processes of using inquiry in mathematics and in the teaching and
learning of mathematics – possibly together with outsider researchers.
Thus within the project we see two developmental (learning) levels:
 Student development: Through participation in lectures and tutorials and group project
work; inquiry in mathematics through questions and tasks, working together, being
drawn into the community of doing and understanding mathematics …
 Teaching/teacher development: Through engagement with the didactic process:
designing, using and developing resources; observing and responding to students;
discussing with colleagues; analysing data …

The STEM funding pays for an outsider researcher to collect and analyse data alongside
developments in teaching. The teacher is an insider researcher, being involved in practitioner
research through designing teaching, reflecting on teaching activity and contributing to
analysis of data. Data is collected from observations (and audio recording) of lectures and
tutorials, documents produced, student surveys and interviews. A first level of analysis,
involving analysis of student questionnaires and drawing on teacher reflections leads to
modifications to the module as the module progresses. At the time of writing, the module is
still in progress. A phase of qualitative analysis will follow completion of the module. This
analysis will relate to theoretical perspectives to analysis of data and issues arising.
Brief insights from ongoing practice
It is too early as yet to report on findings. However, a central focus of innovative practice so
far has been on questioning – on the kinds of questions that can be offered (and are offered) to
seek to promote student engagement with and understanding of mathematics. A number of
types of questions have been used – either as pre-designed tasks planned for use in a lecture
or tutorial, or as the teacher’s spontaneous questions to involve students and discern what
students are making of a lecture. The latter are sometimes of a rather more direct or closed
nature (focusing on immediate concepts) while those pre-designed take a more open or
investigative form. For example, the following account is taken from the teacher’s weekly
reflection on the week’s teaching, referring to one particular lecture:
In the first example on Tuesday, I asked students to draw a triangle of given dimensions
before going on to consider use of sine or cosine rules. In fact two triangles were possible
for the given dimensions. This turned out to be a very good question, since different
students wanted to approach it in different ways and we achieved a discussion across the
lecture with students in different parts of the room arguing their approach. This seems
worth analyzing to reveal the characteristics of a question which achieved this involvement
(especially on a Tuesday when students seem more sluggish).
I have included the last remark, since it points to one aspect of the wider environment that has
to be taken into account in analysis. We should analyse not only the questions but the wide
range of factors that influence their impact.
Task 1 below shows three pre-designed questions. The first was offered in a lecture for
students to tackle during the lecture; students were invited to talk with their neighbours to
suggest possible lines. The other two questions were offered in the succeeding tutorial in
which students were asked to work in groups of four, using GeoGebra to explore together.
Analysis of observational data will look at the nature of the spontaneous questions and
students’ responses to them and at the kinds of activity generated by the more exploratory
questions. Interviews are also planned to talk with students about their responses to such
questions and perceptions of their associated learning/understanding.
The use of GeoGebra has elicited differing responses as observed in tutorials or revealed
through responses to a questionnaire. Some students can be seen to explore and discuss as the
design of questions envisaged. In other cases students input functions and produce lots of
curves without evidence of real consideration of the mathematics behind their drawing.

Task 1
1a) Consider the function f(x) = x2 + 2x (x is real)
Give an equation of a line that intersects the graph of this function
 Twice
 Once
 Never (Adapted from Pilzer et al. 2003, 7)
1b) If we have the function f(x) = ax2 + bx + c.
What can you say about lines which intersect this function twice?
1c) Write down equations for three straight lines and draw them in
GeoGebra
Find a (quadratic) function such that the graph of the function cuts one
of your lines twice, one of them only once, and the third not at all and
show the result in GeoGebra.
Repeat for three different lines (what does it mean to be different?)
Returning briefly to theory; teacher and students here form a community within a complex
setting in which teaching and learning are constituted. Questions and GeoGebra are just two
of the many resources linking teacher and students, teaching and learning, and contributing to
satisfying teacher and students’ goals. The roles of the teacher in relation to such resources
will be explored further using Documentation Genesis as an analytical tool.
References
Gueudet, G. and L. Trouche. In press. Communities, documents and professional geneses:
interrelated stories. In Mathematics Curriculum Material and Teacher Development:
from text to ‘lived’ resources, ed. G. Gueudet, B. Pepin and L. Trouche. N.Y.:
Springer
Jaworski, B. 2010. Challenge and support in Undergraduate Mathematics for Engineers in a
GeoGebra medium. MSOR Connections 10: 1.
———2006. Theory and practice in mathematics teaching development: Critical inquiry as a
mode of learning in teaching. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education 9: 187-211.
Pilzer, S., M. Robinson, D. Lomen, D. Flath, D. Hughes Hallet, B. Lahme, J. Morris, W.
McCallum, J. Thrash. 2003. ConcepTests to Accompany Calculus, Third Edition.
Hoboken NJ: John Wiley & Son.
Rogoff, B., E. Matusov, and C. White, 1996. Models of teaching and learning: Participation in
a community of learners. In The handbook of education and human development, ed.
D. R. Olson and N. Torrance, 388-414. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Vygotsky, L. 1978. Mind in Society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Wells, G. 1999. Dialogic inquiry: Toward a sociocultural practice and theory of education.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Wenger, E. 1998. Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.

Why do GCSE examination papers look like they do?1
Ian Jones
University of Nottingham
GCSE mathematics examinations have been criticised for being too structured and not
adequately assessing process skills. Exam papers are produced by private awarding
bodies working to government regulations. A given paper and its mark scheme is usually
written by one individual, and then reviewed and revised by a Qualification Paper
Evaluation Committee (QPEC). As such, QPEC meetings have a significant role in how
the final published exam paper looks. Over the past year I have observed several QPEC
meetings across the three awarding bodies that publish GCSE papers. I describe how
what gets said in QPEC meetings bears on the structure and process skills assessed in
exam papers.
Keywords: Assessment, GCSE, examinations
Background
GCSE mathematics is assessed by exam papers published and marked by private, competing
awarding bodies. Several recent reports have questioned the fitness for purpose of current
GCSE mathematics exams (ACME 2007; EMP 2008; NCETM 2009; Ofsted 2008). The items
in exam papers are piecemeal requiring only procedural mathematics and short chains of
reasoning (EMP 2008). High-stakes assessment such as GCSE has a large impact on
classrooms, and so teaching and learning likewise tends to be fragmentary and procedural
(Ofsted 2008). There have been calls for the design processes of GCSE exams to be changed
to improve this situation (ACME 2007; NCETM 2009).
Over the past few months I have observed meetings at three English awarding bodies
in order to understand why GCSE exam papers look like they do. This has taken place during
a time of flux in the regulation of exams. New regulations for GCSE mathematics have come
into force as of September 2010, and several new mathematics GCSE qualifications are being
or have recently been piloted. This flux has shaken the awarding bodies’ processes somewhat,
thereby making them more observable, and so it has been an opportune time to research them.
The next section describes current GCSE exam papers by way of an example paper,
and the results of an analysis of pilot GCSE papers (EMP 2008). I then briefly describe the
government regulations, before focussing in some detail on the internal processes of the
awarding bodies that publish and mark exam papers.
What do GCSE papers look like?
The following two questions are from a GCSE practice paper published by one of the
awarding bodies that conforms to the new government regulations for September 2010. I offer
them as illustrative and representative of the kinds of questions that populate GCSE papers
more generally. The first question from the paper is shown in Figure 1a. (The format of the
questions has been compacted to save space.) Candidates are told what to do (“reflect”) and
1
This research was conducted as part of a Royal Society Shuttleworth Education Research Fellowship. The
author would like to thank the awarding bodies and examiners involved for their openness and hospitality.

given a diagram to complete. The question is worth one mark for a correct answer. The least
structured question, worth a total of six marks, is shown in Figure 1b. It is set in context, and
candidates must translate each advertisement into a calculation and find the smallest number.
Readers interested in further examples are directed to the awarding bodies’ websites where
past and practice papers are published.
Figure 1(a): The first question from the paper. Figure 1(b): The least structured question from the paper.
An analysis of pilot papers written to the new regulations was undertaken by the
Evaluating Mathematics Pathways project (EMP 2008). EMP’s purpose was to analyse
differences between the then current GCSE papers and the new pilot qualification that has
now come into force. It found the new pilots contained more questions set in context (e.g.
Figure 1b), and were slightly less structured. Overall, however, GCSE mathematics papers,
including those written to the new regulations, are highly structured and contain typically
around 80% one or two step items (e.g. Figure 1a). An analysis of the “process skills”
required by GCSE items showed an over-emphasis on procedure in pure and artificial
contexts, with little opportunity for interpreting, communicating and representing
mathematics (Figure 2). In sum, the change in regulations had only a minimal impact on the
design of exam papers.
Figure 2: Process skills and context in one awarding body’s live and pilot additional mathematics GCSEs for
2009.
How are GCSE papers made?
GCSE papers assess the Programme of Study for Key Stage 4 mathematics, and conform to
government regulations. Readers interested in the details of the regulations are directed to the
QCDA website. Particular to the new regulations are the three process-based “Assessment
Objectives” (AOs). Around half the questions in a paper must be recall and application of

knowledge (AO1, e.g. Figure 1a), and the other half must be set in context, or involve
problem solving, or both (AO2 and AO3, e.g. Figure 1b). Some of the questions must involve
“functional elements” of mathematics (for a discussion of functional mathematics, and its
ambiguities, see Roper, Threlfall, and Monaghan 2005)
For each GCSE the awarding bodies submit content specifications to the government
regulators for accreditation. A small excerpt from a specification document is shown in
Figure 3. Interested readers are directed to the awarding bodies’ websites to see their
specification documents.
Figure 3: A small excerpt from an awarding body’s specification document.

For each exam paper that is written the awarding bodies produce an assessment grid to
help ensure papers are balanced and conform to government regulations and the awarding
bodies’ own specifications. Assessment grids vary across specifications and awarding bodies,
and an excerpt is shown in Figure 4. Each row is a question, and the columns show its content
(Number; Manipulative Algebra; non-Manipulative Algebra; Geometry; Statistics), processes
(AO1; AO2; AO3; Quality of Written Communication; Functional elements) and difficulty
(grades D-A*).
Figure 4: An excerpt of an assessment grid showing the content, processes and difficulty for each question.
A given exam paper and its mark scheme is usually written by a single person (the
“setter”). The setter completes and refers to the assessment grid during this process to ensure
balance across the paper. Setters work to tight deadlines and are usually practicing or retired
teachers and are often experienced exam writers. Accordingly they draw on their knowledge
of past papers and questions, often recycling questions literally or with some tweaking. The
first draft of the paper is then reviewed by other examiners and feedback sent back to and
incorporated by the setter. Finally the paper is tabled at a meeting of a Question Paper
Evaluation Committee (QPEC) for further review and revision. The whole process is iterative
and a given paper may be QPECed (to use an awarding body verb) more than once. The
process described in this paragraph is illustrated in Figure 5. Note that GCSE questions are
not trialled before final publication.
Figure 5: The iterative exam paper writing process.

QPEC meetings
Over a period of ten months I attended twelve QPEC meetings at three awarding bodies. Each
meeting lasted a day, during which typically two or three papers were reviewed. They were
attended by up to a dozen people, mostly examiners, including the setter and revisers for each
paper, and chaired by a principle examiner. For each paper, revisers first provide some overall
feedback about the balance, difficulty and appropriateness of the paper. The QPEC then
works through the paper question by question, checking everything from punctuation and
formatting to mathematical content and coherence. This question proofing is demanding work
and takes up the bulk of time and energy in QPECs. The assessment grid is checked and often
amended for each question, and then checked again at the end of the paper for balance across
content, processes and difficulty. The next paper is then tabled.
The meetings are fast, efficient events in which a lot of work is achieved in short
amounts of time. They are somewhat intimidating events for setters as their papers are picked
apart and they have to decide when to concede and when to defend their work. Things
sometimes get heated, and personalities clash at times, but QPEC meetings are generally
underlined by a sense of comradeship and good humour.
In the remainder of this article I will report on some of the things I have heard said in
QPEC meetings. My role was as a non-participatory observer, and I made handwritten notes
made up mostly of verbatim quotes. The fast-paced nature of meetings meant it was not
possible to get everything down that was said, so the resulting notes were a somewhat
idiosyncratic sampling. Moreover, as I attended more meetings I became more orientated
towards the nature and pace of QPEC meetings, and so more attuned to getting down the
more insightful incidents and comments.
I present here some comments and incidents from QPEC meetings that bear on the
structure and (lack of) process skills assessed by GCSE papers. This narrow focus cannot and
is not intended to do justice to the range and richness of discussion in QPECs. Analysis is
ongoing to the broader aim of capturing and reporting the full impact of QPECS on exam
papers.
What gets said in a QPEC?
Much of what is said in QPEC meetings relates to the balance of content, mathematical
processes and difficulty across papers, as recorded in assessment grids. Overall, but by no
means always, this focus on balance tends to drive questions towards being structured and
procedural. For example, after all the questions in one paper had been reviewed and the
assessment grid was being checked, the committee decided the paper was short of AO1 and
AO2 marks, and had too many AO3 marks. The committee went back and reduced the
number of AO3 marks (i.e. questions like Figure 1b) and increased the number of AO1 marks
(i.e. questions like Figure 1a) and AO2 marks (AO2 questions lie somewhere between Figure
1a and 1b). In other words, the paper was fragmented a little by the QPEC process in order to
ensure it conformed to government regulations. Most examiners seem to find this
fragmentation process frustrating, and even absurd. In one QPEC a reviser said “It seems odd
we have to have so much AO1 on an ‘Applications’ paper”, to which the QPEC chair replied
“That’s the spec. Must have half the marks on recall of knowledge. Otherwise centres won’t
do it.”
Government regulations are somewhat subjective. The EMP analysis (see above),
conducted largely by academics, found that papers over-emphasise factual recall and
application (“AO1”), but this is incongruent with the common QPEC judgement that a given
paper needs more AO1 items to fit the regulations. Neither are examiners themselves in

unison about the meaning of regulations, however, and QPECs often robustly debate what
they mean. For example:
Chair: [Someone else’s] paper had the structure. When it didn’t have structure it was AO2,
AO3.
Examiner 1: Part a has no structure and that’s AO1.
Examiner 2: For me AO1 is not so much a question of structure.
This subjectivity enables examiners to adjust assessment grids rather than the
questions when the balance of a paper is judged to lie outside of the regulated balance. This is
notably so for the three new Assessment Objectives and sometimes an item will be re-
allocated from one Assessment Objective to another without any amendment just to balance
the grid. As one examiner said of a question: “Don’t mind muddling it up between AO2 and
AO3 do we?” This is somewhat analogous to drawing targets around bullet holes, and enables
awarding bodies to produce similar looking papers to different looking regulations.
Another constraint examiners work under is the need to ensure exam papers are
teachable and learnable within a competitive market. As one QPEC chair said of the new
regulations, “I’d imagine every Awarding Body will make AO1 as high as possible [up to
55%] because it’s straightforward, and we ought to be setting a similar standard. Because then
it’s more accessible.” Another examiner said of an unusually unstructured “Applications”
pilot item “It’s something great for kids in a lesson for 45 minutes, but it’s not a 6 minute
exam question”. This constraint can have a fragmentary effect on the content of a paper, with
QPECs often looking to increase the number of stand-alone easy questions, or add more
structure to questions. This is usually done with genuine concern for “weaker candidates”.
The pressure to maintain high marking reliability can also act to increase the structure
of questions. As one examiner said of a relatively unstructured question, “Last time we set a
question like this we had problems with marking. It needed five possible mark schemes just
for two items. This has three items and should be scrapped because we can’t reliably mark it
… This is five marks and most we can have for this sort of question is three marks.”
Despite this, GCSE pilot exams do offer opportunities for examiners to set less
structured, more process-oriented questions to a limited extent. One examiner expressed
concern that a pilot “Applications” paper was too similar to existing papers: “We’ll end up
destroying this pilot. If we put all the structure back in it’s not an application.” The
production of “Sample Assessment Materials” and “Practice Papers” for pilots is seen as an
opportunity to send messages to teachers that assessment is changing. For example, one
examiner said of a finance question that would be unfamiliar to teachers “That’s good. We
need to ensure such questions are in the mocks so teachers think ‘I better do that’”. However,
this effect towards more open, less predictable item types is limited as awarding bodies do not
want to lose market share by scaring teachers off when publishing sample assessments.
Discussion
GCSE mathematics exam papers are highly structured and procedural. They are produced by
awarding body examiners working to government regulations. In this paper I have reported
some of things said and done in Question Paper Evaluation Committee meetings that bear on
the structure and proceduralism of exam papers.
Examiners produce papers using their knowledge of past papers and their
understanding of the (new and changing) regulations. In particular they need to ensure a
balance of content, Assessment Objectives and difficulty across a paper. In QPECs it is
commonly judged that a paper contains too few structured, procedural (i.e. AO1) items and
that their number needs to be increased. However, regulations are also somewhat subjective

allowing examiners to re-allocate questions within the assessment grid without amending
them. It is perhaps unsurprising that exam papers across different regulations tend to look
only slightly different.
Examiners are also under pressure to produce predictable papers that will not scare
teachers away to competitors, will not be unfairly harsh on low achieving candidates, and that
can be marked with a high degree of reliability. This stifles innovation and concerns for
validity. However, pilot qualifications give examiners some limited scope for innovation and
to send messages to teachers that assessments will be less structured and more contextualised
than previously. For many examiners such pilot qualifications are a welcome opportunity to
try and produce slightly more creative, less predictable exam papers.
References
ACME. 2007. Position statement on functional mathematics. Advisory Committee on
Mathematics Education.
EMP. 2008. Evaluating Mathematics Pathways project: Interim report stage 3. Nottingham,
University of Nottingham.
NCETM. 2009. Mathematics matters final report. London, National Centre for Excellence in
the Teaching of Mathematics.
Ofsted. 2008. Mathematics: understanding the score. London, HMSO.
Roper, T., J. Threlfall, and J. Monaghan. 2005. Functional mathematics - what is it?
Proceedings of the British Society for Research into Learning Mathematics 25: 91–96.

Measurement: everywhere and nowhere in secondary mathematics
Keith Jones
University of Southampton
School mathematics is commonly structured into number, algebra, geometry and

statistics. This raises the issue of where to place ideas within the topic of measurement
since some aspects of measurement (such as measuring length or area) have a
geometrical component, while other aspects of measurement (such as time or money) are
about number. Furthermore, when actual measures are unknown, relationships between
measures can be expressed – and this is one of the roots of algebra. Additionally,
probability can be thought of as a form of measure (of uncertainty) and the various
measures of data variation, such as standard deviation, can also be viewed as a form of
measurement. All these considerations mean that the placing of measurement in the
mathematics curriculum can be problematic for curriculum designers and policy makers;
and equally tricky for teachers to teach in the most effective way. Informed by a review
of the research basis for teaching key ideas in secondary school mathematics, this paper
argues that measurement is both everywhere and nowhere in secondary mathematics; that
is, measurement occurs across the topics that comprise secondary school mathematics,
but the ideas of measurement are so scattered that the teaching of measurement in
secondary school mathematics may lack some focus that might store up problems for
learners as they progress with mathematics.
Keywords: teaching, learning, measurement
Introduction
Amongst the key ideas that comprise secondary school mathematics are those of
measurement. With the mathematics curriculum commonly structured within a manageable
number of headings such as number, algebra, geometry and statistics, the ideas of
measurements are inevitably spread across such headings. This is because some aspects of
measurement, such as measuring length or area, clearly relate to the geometric properties of
shapes and hence could be listed under the geometry heading, yet at the same time, other
aspects of measurement, such as time or money, are about number. Even when actual
measures are not known, a relationship between measures can be expressed; this being one of
the roots of algebra. What is more, probability can be thought of as a form of measure (of
uncertainty) and the various measures of data variation, such as standard deviation, can also
be viewed as a type of measurement.
Angle is an example of a mathematical idea that can be a property of a shape, and
hence be geometrical, while also being a measure. Decimals, which arise when things are
measured, are an example a form of number. Scaling, something which entails both
measurement and proportional thinking, is a critical factor for success when learning to use
maps.
All this means that positioning measurement in school mathematics curriculum
documents can be problematic for curriculum designers and policy makers and equally tricky
for teachers to teach in the most effective way. This paper utilises a review of the research
basis for teaching key ideas in secondary school mathematics (being funded by the Nuffield
Foundation at the time of writing) to examine the extent to which measurement occurs across

the secondary school mathematics and the consequences this might have for learners as they
progress with mathematics. Using the example of England, the paper begins by examining a
specific arrangement of the secondary school mathematics curriculum.
Measurement in the secondary school mathematics curriculum for England
For England, the current version of the National Curriculum (see QCA 2007a) states that the
study of mathematics for 11-13 year-olds should include the range of mathematics set out in
Figure 1 (for the specification of the curriculum for 14-16 year-olds, see QCA 2007b).
Figure 1: the secondary school mathematics curriculum for England for 11-13 year-olds
(an underscored term denotes that there is an explanatory note within the curriculum document)
As can be seen from the specification of the curriculum for 11-13 year-olds given in
Figure 1, the word "measures" occurs explicitly under the headings of "geometry and
measures" and "statistics". Further insight into the curriculum specification for England can
be found in the "Attainment Targets" (see QCA 2007a) that accompany the curriculum (the
"Attainment Targets" are in the form of output statements designed to capture the range of
knowledge, skills and understanding which pupils are expected to master as they progress
through school; with "level 4" being the expected attainment of the modal 11 year old and
"level 7" being a high-attaining 13 year old). Aspects of measurement that occur within the
"Attainment Targets" are shown in Figure 2.

National Attainment target Outcome statement
Curriculum
"level"
They calculate fractional or percentage
4 Number and algebra parts of quantities and measurements,
using a calculator where appropriate.
They choose and use appropriate units
and tools, interpreting, with appropriate
4 Geometry and measures
accuracy, numbers on a range of
measuring instruments.
When constructing models and drawing
or using shapes, pupils measure and
5 Geometry and measures
draw angles to the nearest degree and
use language associated with angles.
They make sensible estimates of a range
5 Geometry and measures of measures in relation to everyday
situations
They appreciate the imprecision of
measurement and recognise that a
measurement given to the nearest whole
7 Geometry and measures number may be inaccurate by up to one
half in either direction. They understand
and use compound measures, such as
speed.
They use measures of average and
range, with associated frequency
7 Handling data
polygons, as appropriate, to compare
distributions and make inferences.
They appreciate the continuous nature
Exceptional
Geometry and measures of scales that are used to make
performance
measurements.
Figure 2: measurement in the "Attainment Targets" for 11-13 year-olds
As Figure 2 demonstrates, measurement occurs across the three strands of the

mathematics National Curriculum for England (that is, across the strands of "Number and
algebra", "Geometry and measures", and "Statistics/ Handling data").
Greater detail on the coverage of measurement is provided by the "Progression Maps"
devised by the "National Strategies" for England; these "Progression Maps" start with
mathematics teaching objectives and provide guidance on the levels of difficulty described by
the objectives. The extract in Figure 3 is from the Progression Map for "Measures" (National
Strategies, n.d)

Measures
Work on measures involves understanding and using both metric and imperial
systems of measurement (length, area, volume, capacity, mass (weight) and time). It
also involves using measurements to calculate areas and volumes of common shapes
(triangle, square, rectangle, parallelogram, trapezium and circle) and solids (cube,
cuboid, pyramid and sphere). A crucial aspect of measurement is the ability to
estimate.
Children should be familiar with the following units of measurement:

• length: mm (millimetre), cm (centimetre), m (metre), km (kilometre), inch,
foot, mile
• area: cm² (square centimetre), m² (square metre)
• volume: cm³ (cubic centimetre), m³ (cubic metre)
• capacity: l (litre), ml (millilitre), pint, gallon
• mass (weight): g (gram), kg (kilogram), tonne (= 1000 kg), pound
• time: second, minute, hour, week, year
• speed: metres per second
• density: grams per cubic centimetre.
They should be able to convert from one metric unit to another. They should also be
able to convert between inches and centimetres, miles and kilometres, litres and pints,
and pounds and kilograms.
Figure 3: extract from the Progression Map for "Measures"
The extract in Figure 3 confirms the range of measures that are expected to be taught
to 11-13 year-olds in England (even though measurement of angle, for instance, is omitted,
presumably in error). This range of measures includes geometrical measures (such as length,
area and volume), non-geometrical measures (such as time), and compound measures (such as
speed and density).
The example of England illustrates the extent to which measurement occurs across the
secondary school mathematics. The next section considers the consequences that this might
have for learners as they progress with mathematics.
The progress of learners with ideas of measurement
As the TIMSS study (Schmidt et al, 1997: 64) reveals, in countries across the world the ideas
within measurement begin to be introduced in the early years of schooling, become a major
focus when pupils are 8 or 9, but are not completed until students are 16 or 17. It is only by
the age of 14 that the median pupil attainment across the world extends to understanding
measurement in several settings (Kelly, Mullis and Martin, 2000: 13). Not only that, but even
at the age of 14 it is only the top 10% of pupils internationally who can solve time-distance-
rate problems involving conversion within a system of measures.
In terms of measuring lengths, pupils generally do succeed with this prior to tackling
the measurement of area and volume. Even so, length measuring poses particular problems
for children despite them being likely to understand the underlying idea. One source of
difficulty for pupils is in grasping how to imagine correspondence between the iterated units
on the ruler and imagined equivalent units on the line being measured. One common mistake

is to set the 1 cm ruler mark at one end of the line segment rather than the 0 cm mark.
Research evidence (for example, Sowder, Wearne, Martin and Strutchens 2004) indicates that
pupils may apply a poorly-understood procedure when they measure length rather than
focusing on the correspondence between the units on the ruler and the length being measured.
Area measurement poses further challenges for pupils. In order to measure area,
spaces are divided into equal units and this turns out to be quite hard for pupils. A particular
source of difficulty is that area is often calculated from lengths, rather than “measured”. So,
although the measurement is in one kind of unit (e.g. centimetres), the final calculation is in
another (e.g. square centimetres). While calculations of area are generally multiplicative (to
find the area of a rectangle, one multiplies the figure’s base by its height), evidence suggests
(eg Hart, 1981) that many pupils attempt to calculate area by adding parts of the perimeter,
rather than by multiplying. One consequence of the multiplicative nature of area calculations
is that doubling a figure’s dimensions more than doubles its area - and this can be hard for
pupils to understand.
Volume introduces even more complexity, not only in adding a third dimension and
thus presenting a significant challenge to students’ spatial structuring, but also in the very
nature of the objects that are measured using volume. This leads to two ways to measure
volume (or capacity) - “packing” a space with cubic units, and “filling” with iterations of
units of a fluid that take the shape of the container. In the latter case, the process might seem
to pupils to be simple iterative counting that is not processed as geometric 3-D. This can
especially happen, for example, in filling a cylindrical jar in which the linear height of the jar
corresponds to the volume (see Curry and Outhred, 2005).
The formal concept of angle is another serious stumbling block for pupils - even
though they are familiar enough with angles in their everyday spatial environment. One of the
problems they have is that they find it hard to grasp that two angles in very different contexts
are the same, e.g. themselves turning 90 degrees and the corner of a page in a book. Similarly,
pupils can fail to see the connection between angles in dissimilar contexts, like the steepness
of a slope and how much a person has to turn at a corner.
Concluding comments
Research demonstrates that measurement is best taught not as a simple skill – rather, it is a
complex combination of concepts and skills that develops over years. The available evidence
indicates that the principles of measurement are difficult for many pupils, require more
attention in school than is usually given, and that the transition from informal to formal
measurement needs considerable time and care. The precision (or level of precision) of
measures may be encountered at the intuitive level, as might compound measures such as
speed, but all such coverage is likely to be limited.
Battista (2007) argues that measurement in secondary school mathematics lacks focus
and that this might be "the tip of a huge learning-difficulty iceberg" (p902). Battista’s
contention, given the pervasiveness of measurement across all the strands of the school
mathematics curriculum, is that "poor understanding of measure might be a major cause of
learning problems for numerous advanced mathematical concepts" (op cit), including graphs
of functions, locus problems, vectors, and so on.
This paper argues that measurement is both everywhere and nowhere in the secondary
mathematics curriculum. That is, that measurement occurs across the topics that comprise
secondary school mathematics, but that the ideas of measurement are so scattered that the
teaching of measurement in secondary school mathematics may well lack some focus that
might store up problems for learners as they progress with mathematics. Accumulated
research evidence, such as that being reviewed by the project examining the research basis for

the teaching of the key ideas in secondary school mathematics (being funded by the Nuffield
Foundation at the time of writing) could well usefully inform any subsequent revision of the
school mathematics curriculum. As Ainley concluded (1991: 76) "There is mathematics in
measurement; but it does not happen to be in the bits which currently get priority in
mathematics lessons".
Acknowledgements
This paper presents some work in progress from a project funded by the Nuffield Foundation
and being conducted with Dave Pratt (Institute of Education) and Anne Watson (University of
Oxford). Thanks are due to them and to the colleagues who attended the session at the
BSRLM conference for their comments and suggestions.
References
Ainley. J. 1991. Is there any mathematics in measurement? In Teaching and Learning School
Mathematics ed. D. Pimm and E. Love. London: Hodder & Stoughton.
Battista, M. T. 2007. The development of geometric and spatial thinking, in: F. Lester (Ed)
Second Handbook of Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning. Charlotte,
NC: NCTM/Information Age Publishing.
Curry, M., and L. Outhred 2005. Conceptual understanding of spatial measurement. In
Building connections: Theory, research and practice (Proceedings of the 27th
MERGA conference) ed. P. Clarkson et al. Sydney: MERGA.
Hart, K. (Ed.) 1981. Children’s Understanding of Mathematics: 11-16. John Murray, London.
Kelly, D. L., Mullis, I. V. S., & M. O. Martin 2000. Profiles of Student Achievement in
Mathematics at the TIMSS International Benchmarks Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston
College.
National Strategies, n.d. Measures. Online at (checked December 2010):
http://nationalstrategies.standards.dcsf.gov.uk/node/42619
Qualifications and Curriculum Authority 2007a. Mathematics Programme of study for key
stage 3 and attainment targets. London: QCA.
Qualifications and Curriculum Authority 2007b. Mathematics Programme of study for key
stage 4. London: QCA.
Schmidt, W. H., McKnight, C., Valverde, G. A., Houang, R. T. and D. E. Wiley 1997. Many
Visions, Many Aims: A cross-national investigation of curricular intentions in school
mathematics. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Sowder, J., Wearne, D., Martin, W. and M. Strutchens 2004. What do 8th grade students
know about mathematics? Changes over a decade. In Results and Interpretations of
the 1990 through 2000 Mathematics Assessments of the National Assessment of
Educational Progress ed. P. Kloosterman and F. Lester. Reston, VA: National
Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

Level 3 mathematics: a model for the curriculum
Peter Osmon
Department of Education and Professional Studies, King’s College London
Abstract: A model for a reformed Level 3 mathematics curriculum is derived, assuming

its prime purpose is to provide the mathematical foundations for several types of Level 4
courses. Then issues and practicalities along the way are explicitly identified and
proposals made for their resolution. Mechanisms for determining detailed content, based
on earlier work, are also proposed. The model is structurally similar to current GCE
Advanced Level, however routes preparing for the different types of Level 4 course are
explicit and the model is intended to be more encouraging for students outside the
mainstream and also more economical in its use of scarce teaching resources.
Keywords: Model, Level 3 Mathematics curriculum, Level 4 courses.
Introduction
(Smith 2004) suggests the mathematics 14-19 curriculum is unfit for purpose and proposes its
reform should begin with provision of a mathematics double award at Level 2. Preparations
for the introduction of Higher Tier and Lower Tier GCSE awards are now underway. Several
proposals for reform at Level 3 have been published, generally involving multiple learning
pathways aimed at improving take-up of mathematics at Level 3 which is lower in Britain
than in comparable countries, (ACME 2010) being the most recent. The author’s earlier
work, on Post-16 mathematics and the requirements of university courses, suggests a
statement of purpose in terms of these requirements and also suggests possible mechanisms
for determining and reviewing curriculum content.
The model developed in this paper is a working out of the consequences for the
curriculum of this statement of purpose, taking into account the range of university
requirements differentiated according to broad subject groups. These consequences are
intentionally constrained and focussed by the following considerations: providing
opportunities for learners with different abilities and motivations to progress, through Level 3
mathematics, at different speeds and to different extents; providing for part-time learners and
for those who have dropped out to readily return to mathematics learning; taking account of
the need to make good use of scarce Level 3 teaching resources; while retaining the current
A-level structure as far as possible.
Purposes and content
We begin by assuming that the primary purpose for Level 3 mathematics is to lay
mathematical foundations for Level 4 courses. This purpose drives our proposals for a
reformed curriculum. (Osmon 2009) identified a group of quantitative subjects where
Mathematics A-level is a required qualification for entry to all courses across the full range of
universities. These are all traditional STEM courses and were labelled Block I.. (Osmon
2010) labelled a further category of quantitative courses- in computer science, economics,
business and management- as Block II. Except at the most prestigious universities students
are admitted to Block II courses with just GCSE mathematics, but evidence was found for
mathematics “top-up” provision in the first undergraduate year, very similar in level and

content to the pure mathematics in GCE AS-level (except in the case of computer science
where the top-up content was entirely discrete mathematics). Another group of subjects-
including geography, biology, psychology, social and health sciences- might be described as
semi-quantitative since they may all be presumed to need statistics, but perhaps not any other
mathematics beyond GCSE. We give Level 4 courses in these subjects the label Block III.
(Actually, the author is aware from direct personal experience, that courses in Blocks I and II
also need their students to have knowledge of statistics at Level 3.) There is a further
category- the most prestigious universities require students applying for mathematics
particularly to take the more challenging Further Mathematics, as well as Mathematics at A-
level. This is a valuable option to stretch the most able and mathematically ambitious ten per
cent of students.
We can conclude that there is a requirement for four distinct levels of mathematical
provision at Level 3 in order to meet the foundational needs of Level 4 courses. Detailed
consideration of content is outside the scope of this paper. However, (Osmon 2010) proposes
a mechanism, extrapolated from the top-up observation for Block II, for determining
appropriate content by investigating the collective needs for pure mathematics across the
various Level 4 subject groups.
Curriculum issues: applied mathematics and choice of content
Applied within A-level mathematics

We can distinguish two categories of applied mathematics: generic applied mathematics is
needed across all quantitative and semi-quantitative Level 4 courses; subject-specific applied
mathematics is needed in courses in only some subjects or groups of subjects at Level 4.
Thus, for example, of the various applied mathematics modules offered by Edexcel, the
largest of the GCE examination boards, Mechanics (needed only in physics and some
engineering courses and perhaps mathematics) is evidently subject-specific applied whereas
Statistics (needed at least in principle in all quantitative and semi-quantitative Level 4
courses) alone is generic-applied.
This categorization prompts a refined statement of purpose: the role of Level 3
mathematics is to provide mathematical foundations at this level that are needed for all Level
4 courses in quantitative and semi-quantitative subjects. This refinement excludes subject-
specific-applied mathematics and the rationale is as follows.
There is a Level categorisation issue for applied mathematics, in relation to the pure
mathematics on which it relies. Thus, if the applied mathematics relies only on Level 2 pure,
should it be categorized as mathematically Level 3? Statistics provides an example.
Statistics can be taught in a more or less mathematical way- in the former formulae, for
example, are derived or at least presented as results valid only within specified conditions-
relying on Level 3 pure mathematics to do so- while in the latter case they are merely
introduced and used as rules of thumb for substitution of parameter values- a Level 2 activity.
Mechanics provides other examples: deriving the equations of motion requires Level 3
mathematics knowledge, but solving a particle dynamics problem by substitution of values is
at Level 2, although of course understanding the problem situation arguably requires physics
knowledge at Level 3, just as understanding statistics problem situations may require
contextual, ie particular subject, knowledge. This interpretation of what constitutes Level 3
applied mathematics would require rethinking of applied syllabuses.
Since there is limited space in the curriculum it is proposed that pure mathematics
needed generically at Level 4 should take priority over applied. (At this point it is worth
digressing to consider whether the allocation, to the mathematics curriculum, of responsibility
for mathematics applications is actually reasonable. The author proposes that, as with the

physics example, applications belong in subjects and courses where they occur. Similarly,
the mathematical applications in vocational courses should perhaps be taught at the point of
use. Perhaps also there is little or no requirement for Level 3 pure mathematics in Level 3
vocational courses, but this needs investigation.)
Choice of content within A-level mathematics

Freedom for individual learners to choose is surely good for their motivation. So is provision
of choice a good thing in principle? And do students have the information to make informed
choices? The issue of choice may be fogged because two quite different kinds of choice
within the curriculum can be envisaged: progression-choice (how much mathematics), and
specialization-choice (which branches of mathematics to study).
Progression-choice is not much of an issue if the curriculum structure allows learners
to defer their decision about how far to travel until they have done a year of mathematics.
Specialisation-choice however is more problematic. Its advocates would no doubt argue that
it is desirable in preparation for particular subjects at Level 4. This would only be
appropriate, even in principle, if learners were certain, at the time when they had to choose
special topics, where they were heading post-16, and this will not be the case for many
students. Besides which, some of those who are “certain” will, in the event, want to change
direction. And, because of limited teaching resources, students may well not, in practice, be
offered a range of specialization choices.
From our viewpoint, that the role of A-level mathematics is to lay the mathematical
foundations for Level 4 courses, it is hard to make a case for specialization-choice within the
curriculum (unless university admissions tutors specify course entry requirements at the
granularity of particular modules- and it must be acknowledged that this does occur
occasionally at present). HE courses benefit from their intakes having common foundational
mathematics knowledge. The optimal situation both for universities and for post-16 students
is to identify generic- across a range of courses- foundational mathematics and teach just this,
as proposed here.
Practicalities
Access
Currently only about 10% of the national Level 2 cohort continue to study mathematics at
Level 3 and, while this proportion is increasing, its low value is a major driver for curriculum
reform. (Smith 2004) identified weaknesses in the Level 2 curriculum as an important factor
and the recommended reform of GCSE with a double award in mathematics is ongoing.
Mathematics has a reputation as elitist and difficult and this is unhelpful for widening access.
(This is reinforced by requiring three modules rather than two for AS and A2 awards and
evidently there is a strong case for mathematics to fall into line with other subjects. The
author takes this as given in the development of the model.) Everything possible, without
lowering standards, needs to be done to encourage both full-time and part-time students to
embark on the study of Level 3 mathematics and support them on their journey. This has
implications for progression routes and progression stages, and also provision to facilitate the
re-entry of returners to Level 3.
Continuity
The disastrous fall in Post-16 mathematics numbers following the Curriculum 2000 reform is
a timely reminder of the law of unintended consequences and so the curriculum reform
proposed in this paper aims, so far as possible, to maximise structural continuity with current
arrangements.

Teaching resources
(Smith 2004) also identified a national shortage of well qualified maths teachers as a
constraint on student numbers and evidently reform should aim to make efficient use of this
potentially scarce resource.
Proposed Level 3 Highway Model
A Highway metaphor for Level 3 progression in mathematics is proposed rather than the
network of qualification pathways, characteristic of other models, some of which (for
example FSMQs) are actually cul de sacs. The Model assumes the outcome of GCSE reform
will be a mathematics double award. The Highway comprises three learning “lanes” as
shown in the Figure. Progression is from left to right. Entry requires a Level 2 qualification:
GCSE Lower Tier (LT), LT upgraded to HT via a Bridging Module (BM), or GCSE Higher
Tier (HT). LT provides access only to the Highway’s “slow lane” (bottom row in the Figure).
HT and BM give access to all three lanes. (The metaphor is inaccurate because learners may
travel on two of the lanes simultaneously!)
Five awards are envisaged at GCE Advanced Level: three at AS and two at A2, as
follows, with each award recognising achievement in two units:
Statistics Applications: GCE AS-level (2 units)
Mathematics: AS (2 units of Pure Mathematics)
A2 (1 unit of Pure Mathematics and 1 unit of Mathematical Statistics)
Further Mathematics:
AS and A2 (each 2 units, Pure Mathematics assumed).
Continuing with the highway metaphor, the middle lane is expected to carry the main learner
traffic- the Mathematics A-level course. It is envisaged that, as at present, the most able and
ambitious mathematicians will also take Further Mathematics (the fast lane). The slow lane
contains the mathematically least demanding course: Statistics Applications. It is envisaged
that some students in the middle lane may take Mathematics only as far as AS, but will then
take the Statistics Applications AS rather than Mathematics at A2. However, if they continue
with A2 Mathematics this includes a Mathematical Statistics module covering the Level 3
mathematical content of statistics. By these means the foundational mathematics and
statistics needs of HE courses in Blocks I, II and III are all covered.
A successful learner in the full-time education main stream will be able to complete
any of the AS and A2 courses in one year as at present. But the Model can also meet the
needs of those travelling more slowly, in part-time education, or whose progress has been
interrupted for some reason, since exit from and re-entry to any lane is assumed to be possible
between modules and after an AS. Such facility is important if the number qualifying in
maths at Level 3 is to be maximised. (The model offers two options to students with LT, who
complete the Statistics Applications AS and who want to do more Level 3 maths. These are
shown as dashed lines in the Figure: either take BM or, if they are now confident enough with
mathematics, take the Mathematics AS.)
The author has experience of modular schemes in higher education that meet the needs
of a variety of learner types: full-time, part-time, and returners. Attention to details of the
Highway’s implementation not shown in the Figure could help part-timers and also stragglers
to catch up and complete their course. These details include division of the teaching year into
two halves and, so far as resources permit, teaching each unit in both halves and with three
assessment points for each unit- at the end of each teaching term and at the end of the summer
break.

The Model is potentially more economical of teaching and examining resources than
present arrangements: ten GCE Advanced Level units instead of the eighteen currently in the
Edexcel catalogue, for example. The proposals, above, for multiple teaching and assessment
of units, to benefit learners outside the main stream, are potentially more expensive, but these
are qualified by the remark “so far as resources permit”. So, a more accurate claim for the
Model is that it facilitates multiple teaching and assessment provision on a cost-effective
basis.
Summary and conclusions
A model for Level 3 mathematics provision has been developed starting from the premise that
the primary purpose of Level 3 mathematics is to lay the mathematical foundations needed by
academic and vocational courses. The requirements of various subjects at Level 4 have been
identified and grouped accordingly into blocks with common requirements. The issue of
applied mathematics provision within Level 3 mathematics has been explored, with the
conclusion that statistics should have a place in the mathematics curriculum because there is a
generic requirement whereas perhaps subject-specific applications of mathematics properly
belong in the particular subjects where they arise. The related issue of choice relating to
specialist content, as distinct from choice relating to speed and extent of progression, has been
explored separately with the conclusion that it is unhelpful. And practicalities of access,
continuity with established Level 3 structures, and use of scarce teaching resources have all
been taken into account.
The model is more concerned with the structure of mathematics provision than
content. Content is assumed to be determined by the collective needs of the groups of Level 4
courses. Teaching and assessment issues, beyond the desirability of continuing the current
practice of unit assessment at A-level and having multiple assessment points in the year, to
help maximise mathematics take-up and success have not been considered.
The model for Level 3 mathematics provision that has been developed from these
premises and considerations arranges progression as a three lane highway. It offers a range of
GCE Advanced Level courses to meet the Level 3 needs of learners across the range abilities
while having a high degree of compatibility with present mainstream arrangements, and also
offering flexible opportunities for part-time students, including those returning to maths
learning as well as main-stream stragglers, all of whom need encouragement if the number
qualifying in mathematics at Level 3 is to be maximised.
For these proposed curriculum reforms to be effective, Universities must play their
part, by requiring that the students they admit have the appropriate minimal level of
foundational mathematics: A-level Mathematics for Block I courses, AS-level for Block II,
Statistics for Block III.

References
Smith, A. 2004. Making mathematics count: The Report of Professor Adrian Smith's Inquiry
into Post-14 Mathematics Education. London: The Stationery Office
ACME. 2010. Post-16 in 2016: Proposals for Mathematics in anticipation of the
review of qualifications scheduled for 2013 with resulting changes to be implemented
from 2016. London: The Royal Society
Osmon, P. 2009. Post 16 maths and university courses: numbers and subject
interpretation. Proceedings of the British Society for Research in Learning
Mathematics 29, no. 3: 73-78.
Osmon, P. 2010. What maths do you need for university? Proceedings of the British Society
for Research in Learning Mathematics 30, no. 2: 41-46.

Conceptions of ‘Understanding mathematics in depth’: What do teachers need to know
and how do they need to know it?
Mary Stevenson
Liverpool Hope University
In recent years there has been much debate about the preparation and supply of
mathematics teachers, e.g. Williams (2008), Smith (2004). There has been a
corresponding growth of interest in what constitutes subject knowledge for mathematics
teaching, and how this is developed. Much research has focused upon primary teachers,
whereas the nature of subject knowledge required by secondary mathematics teachers has
been relatively under-researched. In this paper I report on work in progress in an
investigation into what characterises ‘deep understanding of mathematics’ as understood
by two specific groups of secondary pre-service and serving mathematics teachers.
Additionally I comment upon data collected on degree classification and outcomes of
postgraduate initial teacher education.
Keywords: subject knowledge, Mathematics Enhancement Course, deep

understanding, secondary PGCE
National context, government initiatives
There seems to be an endemic problem with the supply of appropriately trained teachers of
secondary mathematics in Britain. Various writers have analysed the situation and proposed
remedies (eg Smith 2004, Tickly and Wolf 2000). Teacher shortages are linked to pupil
underachievement in the subject (HMI report, cited by Smith, op. cit. p 21). The UK
government has responded to the challenge of teacher supply by funding various schemes
such as extra bursaries for those training to teach in ‘shortage subjects’, financial incentives in
the form of the ‘golden hello’ for teachers of some shortage subjects, and a widening of routes
to achieve Qualified Teacher Status such as the Graduate Teacher and ‘Teach First’
programmes. The Mathematics Enhancement Course and the Mathematics Development
Programme for Teachers have developed in this context.
The Mathematics Enhancement Course (MEC) sits within a wider framework of
Subject Knowledge Enhancement (SKE) courses. The MEC is aimed at graduates who wish
to train as secondary mathematics teachers, whose mathematics background is insufficient for
entry to PGCE or other routes to Qualified Teacher Status, but who otherwise are suitable
candidates for initial teacher education programmes. It has a strong focus upon the
development of subject knowledge (Teacher Training Agency, 2003). Universities have
considerable freedom to interpret this, and perhaps unsurprisingly there is in many courses a
focus on pedagogical subject knowledge as well as pure subject knowledge.
The Mathematics Development Programme for Teachers (MDPT) is a part-time
course for serving teachers. It is aimed at teachers who are already teaching mathematics at
secondary level, but who did not originally qualify in the subject. It is primarily a subject
knowledge enhancement course, but like the MEC, there is an inevitable overlap with
pedagogical subject knowledge; indeed, course participants are very keen to pick up new
ideas for approaches to school mathematics topics.
Models of teacher knowledge

This study is informed by the work of a number of writers. Much contemporary research on
teacher knowledge refers to Shulman’s (1986) work, and the breakthrough idea of the
existence of pedagogical subject knowledge. In particular, Ball and colleagues have refined
Shulman’s model (e.g. Ball, Thames and Phelps 2008) and developed survey items designed
to measure teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge (Rowan, Ball, et al. 2001). The
Knowledge Quartet developed by Rowland et al (2009) provides another useful model, and
links can be made between this and the Shulman-Ball view.
Understanding mathematics in depth
In her articulation of the concept of ‘profound understanding of fundamental mathematics’,

(PUFM) Ma (1999) made a significant contribution to the development of theory, which
builds upon earlier work. Her theory has resonance with ideas of procedural and relational
understanding as expounded by Skemp (1976). Ma delves into this area to explore rich
examples of exactly what this profound understanding can mean for teachers, and the ways in
which teachers gain it. Within the original specification for MECs there was an emphasis on
the nature of subject knowledge that should be developed by the courses, which drew
explicitly on the work of Ma (1999), in particular the idea of
“profound understanding of fundamental mathematics, emphasising deep and broad understanding of

concepts, as against surface procedural knowledge” (TTA, 2003, p 3).
Adler and Davis (2006) report on a study of events and episodes in mathematics
teacher education courses in South Africa. They claim that there is an emerging discourse
about, and growing support for the idea that
‘there is specificity to the way that teachers need to hold and use mathematics in order to
teach [it] and that this way…differs from the way mathematicians hold and use
mathematics’(p272).
They find that in the context studied, compression or abbreviation of mathematical

ideas (in contrast to unpacking) is dominant practice.
‘There is a limited presence of interesting instances of unpacking or decompression of

mathematical ideas as valued mathematical practice’ (p271).
Adler’s recent work includes a study (the QUANTUM project) based partly in South
Africa and partly in the UK, in which the focus is on ‘understanding mathematics in depth’.
The UK strand of the project focuses particularly on Mathematics Enhancement courses in
England, and course tutors’ and students’ conceptions of ‘understanding mathematics in
depth’ (UMID). This context provides an interesting site for investigation, since MECs have
been devised specifically as subject knowledge courses for intending mathematics teachers
(Adler, Hossain et al, 2009).
Quantitative data: analysis of entry and exit grades
Tennant (2006) studied students on a secondary mathematics PGCE. He investigated the

relationship between formal academic qualifications, as measured by classification of first
degree, and effectiveness in initial teacher training as measured by level of performance in the
Standards for Qualified Teacher Status. Tennant found there was no correlation between his
students’ degree classification and their level of success in initial teacher training. Following

Tennant, and notwithstanding the limitations of the method, I analysed data from three
consecutive PGCE mathematics groups studying between 2006 and 2009 at one university.
Degree classifications on entry to PGCE were scored thus: a first class or higher degree as 1, a
2:1 as 2, a 2:2 as 3, a 3rd as 4 and a pass degree as 5. In England, student teachers’
performance across aspects of professional knowledge, teaching, planning and assessment
which constitute the Standards for Qualified Teacher Status (QTS), are graded on a five point
scale consisting of three pass grades (1,2,3) where 1 is the highest score, and two fail grades
(4,5). These provided the exit scores.
I found no relationship whatsoever between entry and exit grades. I then went on to
compare outcomes of former MEC students with those of non-MEC students. The data
revealed small but statistically insignificant differences in the means (Z-test, 1-tailed test, 5%
level).
Overall QTS grades Mean SD

MEC (n=43) 1.8 0.5
Non-MEC (n=63) 1.7 0.5
Subject knowledge QTS grades

MEC (n=43) 1.7 0.6
Non-MEC (n=63) 1.6 0.5
Comparison of QTS grades on exit from PGCE: MEC and non-MEC students
Tennant (op. cit.) suggests that students with a degree in mathematics may actually have
gained a very narrow understanding of some areas of the subject, with little sense of the
overview and connections between areas. Interestingly, this is where today’s bespoke subject
knowledge enhancement courses may become relevant. Tennant contends that in
mathematics, degree results cannot reliably be used as indicators of subject knowledge for
teaching. This begs the question of what indicators could or should be used, and how
admissions tutors might best make decisions about entry to PGCE. My results support
Tennant, and further they indicate no difference between MEC students and others in terms of
their outcomes upon completion of PGCE. In other words, MEC stands up to scrutiny when
compared with traditional degree pathways, and is doing its job as a successful alternative
route to PGCE.
Qualitative data: semi-structured interviews
This part of the investigation is being carried out by means of semi-structured interviews with
a sample of recent PGCE and MDPT course members from one university. Of the PGCE
students, roughly half are ex-MEC and half not. This is an interesting sample as it is made up
of a group of people who are at an early stage in developing their expertise as teachers of
mathematics. I suggest that they are all, for various reasons, at an early stage in their
encounter with the importance of understanding mathematics in depth for teaching. All have
recently completed training and/or subject knowledge enhancement courses, and this
experience is still fairly fresh with them.
The development of interview items has been informed by my involvement in ongoing
work by Adler, Hossain et al (2009) into understanding mathematics in depth. I am adopting
a hermeneutic approach to interpretation of participants’ responses. At the time of writing, 14
interviews have been carried out, each taking about 30 minutes. It is intended to carry out a
further 10 interviews. Questions probe, inter alia:

• participants’ experience of mathematics during their training/course and how this
prepared them for their own teaching,
• topics which the respondent understands well, and where this understanding came
from,
• what ‘understanding maths in depth’ means to the participant.
Emergent themes
Analysis of this qualitative data is still at an early stage, but some interesting responses have
been identified. The majority of respondents conceived ‘understanding mathematics in depth’
(UMID) as ‘knowing why’ and also in terms of being able to communicate ideas to others.
This emerged both through an open question about their conceptions of UMID, and via a
ranking exercise later in the interview in which participants were offered five different
interpretations of UMID and invited to rank them in order of importance.
Most teachers responded by relating the question about UMID to themselves, e.g.
“you have got to kind of get in there and explain why… and I suppose it’s just going that little bit
deeper. If you have got a deeper knowledge then they will trust you as well because they can sense that
you do know what you’re talking about”
“Explaining it to others, I just think that's probably one of the harder things to do. You understand it in
your head but if you can actually articulate it, explain it, demonstrate it, lead someone through a
process, however it works, the depth is really there”.
but some teachers responded by discussing how they identify UMID in their students,
e.g.
“So rather than just regurgitating things that they have been... tools and tricks that they have been
taught, they actually deeply understand every question and where it is coming from.
And they can also transfer skills. They don’t pigeonhole this is an algebra question, this is a
coordinates question, you know, they have got the ability to transfer the skills to right across all the
subject areas”.
and one identified how she knows if students do not exhibit UMID:
“I have taught a few of those groups… and I feel like I've got them through and they will get their C's
by just learning things, algorithms you do step one, you do step two, then you do step three and there's
your answer. And they know how to do it but they actually don't really understand what they're doing”.
Some other themes are emerging at this stage as a result of teachers commenting on their
experience of mathematics during their training/subject knowledge course. These include:
Identity, confidence:
“I am a much more confident teacher from being here and doing all the different things we have
done, taking them back with me and I actually feel like part of the mathematics department…and I
am comfortable with it, whereas two years ago if someone had said you will be teaching statistics
in year 11, I would have looked at them and laughed..” (MDPT, 09/10)
Transformation of teaching approach:

“…gave me a clear understanding of why things work… and I know how to think about those things now,
and I know how to draw it out of pupils rather than going in and saying, ‘this is how it works because it
does’.” (MDPT, 09/10)
Identity, change of approach:

“I have started to see things perhaps deeper and try to anticipate questions of why really - because I was
never the why person” (PGCE 09/10, non-MEC)
Understanding maths in depth

“With the MEC, I think that was really delving deep… spending two or three weeks on a certain
topic and really delving deep and grabbing it by its whatever…” (PGCE 07/08, MEC)
Conclusion
The lack of a relationship between degree classification on entry and success on a

postgraduate Mathematics ITE programme is no doubt well known to those working in the
field, and so my findings here serve merely to underscore this point. However, I suggest that
the data comparing PGCE outcomes of former MEC and non-MEC students does add
something new to the picture. This is despite the obvious limitations regarding conversion of
degree classifications to an interval scale, and reliability and validity of the QTS grading
system. Overall, discussion of quantitative data serves mainly to provide a context and
background for my qualitative study.
If one wishes to explore teachers’ conceptions of deep understanding of mathematics,
then it is necessary to hear their voices, and an appropriate way to achieve this is through
interviews and subsequent analysis of the data thus gathered. The role of the researcher is
complex. I am aware that one cannot ‘stand outside’ the domain of enquiry and look within;
one is a part of that domain. The researcher interacts with the subject matter through choice of
questions to be asked, through the way responses are interpreted, etc. In the interactive
context of interviews, the researcher is in relationship with the interviewee and this cannot be
neutral – there are shared understandings and interests, there is an underlying context and in
some cases, a history to that specific interaction. In the case of this study, all interviewees
were ex-students of mine. This itself provides a context which must be acknowledged.
The teachers interviewed are giving their espoused views of what understanding
mathematics in depth means, and I have not attempted to relate this to, for example, any
external judgement or my judgement of their depth of understanding. I seek merely to hear
their voices. I hope that as I become more skilled in attending to and interpreting what is
said, those voices will reveal some thoughts and ideas of ‘new’ mathematics teachers which
will be important for us all to hear.
References
Adler, J. and Z. Davis. 2006. Opening another black box: Researching mathematics for
teaching in mathematics teacher education. Journal for Research in Mathematics
Education 37(4): 270-296
Adler, J., S. Hossain, M. Stevenson, B. Grantham, J. Clarke and R. Archer. 2009.
Interpretations of, and orientations to, “understanding mathematics in depth”: students
in MEC programmes across institutions in Joubert, M. (Ed) Proceedings of the British
Society for Research into Learning Mathematics 29(3)
Ball, D.L., M. H. Thames and G. Phelps. 2008. Content knowledge for teaching: what makes
it special? Journal of Teacher Education 59 (5): 389-407
Ma, L. 1999. Knowing and Teaching Elementary Mathematics. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum
Rowan, B., S.G. Schilling, D.L. Ball, R. Miller with S. Atkins-Burnett, E. Camburn, D.
Harrison and G. Phelps. 2001. Measuring teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge in
surveys: an exploratory study. Consortium for Policy Research in Education

Rowland, T., F. Turner, A. Thwaites, and P. Huckstep. 2009. Developing Primary
Mathematics Teaching (Reflecting on Practice with the Knowledge Quartet). London:
Sage
Skemp, R. 1976. Relational Understanding and Instrumental Understanding. Mathematics
Teaching 77: 20-26
Shulman, L. 1986. Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational
Researcher 15: 4-14
Smith, A. 2004. Making Mathematics Count: Inquiry into Post-14 Mathematics Education.
London: The Stationery Office Ltd.
Teacher Training Agency. 2003. Specification for Mathematics Enhancement Course.
Unpublished
Tennant, G. 2006. Admissions to secondary mathematics PGCE courses: are we getting it
right? Mathematics Education Review 18: 49-52
Tickly, C. and A. Wolf. 2000. The State of Mathematics Education, in The Maths We Need
Now: Demands, deficits and remedies. London, Institute of Education
Williams, P. 2008. Independent review of mathematics teaching in Early Years settings and
Primary schools. London, Department for Children, Schools and Families

Analysing Secondary Mathematics Teaching with the Knowledge Quartet
Anne Thwaites, Libby Jared and Tim Rowland
University of Cambridge, UK
This paper describes how the Knowledge Quartet (KQ), which was developed with
mathematics teachers in primary schools, has been tested in a secondary mathematics
context. Aspects of this research are illustrated with reference to a lesson on completing
the square. First we exemplify the mapping of episodes in the lesson to the KQ, then we
report how one of these episodes, concerning the choice of examples, was subsequently
used in a secondary mathematics PGCE teaching session.
Keywords: secondary mathematics teaching, knowledge quartet
Introduction
A programme of research at the University of Cambridge (SKIMA: subject knowledge in

mathematics) from 2002 to the present has investigated the mathematics content knowledge
of primary trainee teachers, and the ways that this knowledge becomes visible both in their
planning and in their teaching in the classroom. From this research, a framework for the
observation, analysis and development of mathematics teaching was developed, with a focus
on the contribution of the teacher’s mathematical content knowledge. Rather than considering
the generic features of the lesson (behaviour management, classroom organisation and so
forth), the framework, the Knowledge Quartet, categorises events in mathematics lessons with
particular reference to the subject matter being taught, and the mathematics-related
knowledge that teachers call upon. While Shulman’s distinction between subject matter
knowledge and pedagogical knowledge underpins this consideration of mathematics teaching
(Shulman 1986), the Knowledge Quartet (KQ) identifies situations in which such knowledge
can be seen in the act of teaching. The origins of the KQ were in observations of primary
mathematics teaching, and grounded theory methodology (Glaser and Strauss 1967; Strauss
and Corbin 1990), in the context of one-year graduate primary teacher preparation.
From the perspective of the KQ, the knowledge and beliefs evidenced in mathematics
teaching can be seen in four dimensions, named foundation, transformation, connection and
contingency. Table 1 outlines these and their contributory codes which arose from grounded
analysis of the primary mathematics classroom data (Rowland et al. 2009). Each dimension is
composed of a small number of subcategories that we judged, after extended discussion, to be
of the same or a similar nature.
Over the past seven years, there has been a process of refinement of the
conceptualisation of the KQ, and enhancement of the constituent codes, both in response to
additional classroom data and in the process of application. This continued in primary
classrooms with early career teachers as well as trainee teachers. This paper describes how the
Knowledge Quartet (KQ) has been tested in a secondary mathematics context.

Table 1: The Knowledge Quartet – dimensions and contributory codes
Dimension Contributory codes

Foundation: awareness of purpose;
knowledge and understanding of adheres to textbook;
mathematics per se and of mathematics- concentration on procedures; identifying errors;
specific pedagogy, beliefs concerning the
overt display of subject knowledge;
nature of mathematics, the purposes of
mathematics education, and the theoretical underpinning of pedagogy;
conditions under which students will best use of mathematical terminology
learn mathematics
Transformation: choice of examples;
the presentation of ideas to learners in the choice of representation;
form of analogies, illustrations, use of instructional materials;
examples, explanations and
teacher demonstration (to explain a procedure)
demonstrations
Connection: anticipation of complexity;
the sequencing of material for decisions about sequencing;
instruction, and an awareness of the making connections between procedures;
relative cognitive demands of different
making connections between concepts;
topics and tasks
recognition of conceptual appropriateness
Contingency: deviation from agenda;
the ability to make cogent, reasoned and responding to students’ ideas;
well-informed responses to unanticipated use of opportunities;
and unplanned events
teacher insight during instruction
Research overview
Having previously considered the adequacy and relevance of the KQ to the secondary context,
in 2010 we began a systematic appraisal of the KQ with secondary mathematics trainee
teachers. The secondary trainees differ from their primary counterparts in two significant
respects. First, the secondary trainees are all specialist mathematics teachers, having studied
mathematics to degree level, in contrast to the generalist primary trainees. Secondly, the
secondary trainees are supported by mathematics specialists throughout their professional
placements. Additionally, the subject matter under consideration in secondary classrooms
becomes more abstract and complex.
The project participants were three volunteer trainee teachers from the secondary
mathematics Postgraduate Certificate of Education (PGCE) cohort at our university. Two-
thirds of their 36-week course is spent working in two schools under the guidance of
mathematics specialist, school-based mentors. The participants were based in different
schools.
Each trainee participant taught two ‘project’ lessons to the same class. These were in
May, towards the end of the PGCE year. Members of the research team (the authors)
observed and videotaped each lesson and, after each lesson, met to undertake preliminary
analysis of the videotaped lesson and to identify some key episodes in it by reference to the
KQ framework. Members of the team met with the trainee to view a selection of these
episodes from the lesson and for one of them to lead the discussion with the trainee in the
spirit of stimulated-recall (Calderhead 1981). An audio recording was made and transcribed.

In most cases, the observation of the lesson, preliminary analysis and stimulated-recall
interview all took place within two days.
In contrast with the earliest SKIMA research, where the framework was established,
this analysis was primarily theory-driven as opposed to data-driven. The analysis consisted of
fine-grained analyses of each of the lessons, both before and after the stimulated-recall
interview, against the theoretical framework of the KQ.
The next section of the paper outlines one mathematics lesson taught by John, and
summarises some of the episodes which were identified as mapping to the KQ framework.
John’s lesson
John graduated with a BA in Mathematics and Statistics from a UK university. He was placed
in an 11-18 school for his second placement on his PGCE course. For this lesson, John was
teaching the second set of twelve in Year 9 (age 13-14 years). There were 27 pupils present
(19 boys and 8 girls). The classroom had no interactive whiteboard but there was a data
projector and laptop computer.
The focus of this lesson (planned in four parts) was to solve quadratic equations by
completing the square (CTS) and to find the minimum point of a quadratic function by
completing the square.
Part 1: John reminded the class about the procedure for CTS by working an example (the
expression x2+6x+8); then he gave the pupils five expressions to do themselves:
x2 - 8x + 14, x2 + 2x - 8, x2 + 6x + 5, x2 + 3x - 1, 2x2 + 4x – 2. Later he worked through
each example on the board, drawing on suggestions from individuals.
Part 2: John demonstrated solving x2+8x+14=0 by CTS, then gave them examples to solve
(finding the zeros of the original expressions). While they were busy, he attempted to activate
Autograph on the laptop, but without success. Later he 'went through' some of the examples
(without technology).
Part 3: John explained sketching y=x2+6x+8, finding the minimum using CTS. He set the
class y=x2+6x+5 to sketch as an exercise, and reviewed it later.
Conclusion: an example of sketching a quadratic function where they all contributed one
piece of information towards the sketch.
Analysis of the lesson revealed that episodes could be matched to each of the
dimensions of the KQ and their constituent codes; a selection of these episodes is briefly
outlined below.
Foundation
John was careful with the use of language to distinguish between ‘expression’ and ‘equation’.
He emphasized that a factor of 2 can be taken out of the last expression (2x2 + 4x - 2) – this
arose when one pupil asked: “Do you cancel it all the way down?” (code: overt display of
subject knowledge).
Transformation
In a sense, the whole lesson was about working with two quite different representations of
quadratic functions – firstly symbolic and then graphical (code: choice of representation).
The six expressions that John used as examples (x2 + 6x + 8, x2 - 8x + 14,
x2 + 2x - 8, x2 + 6x + 5, x2 + 3x - 1, 2x2 + 4x – 2) were well graded and incorporated many of
the possible dimensions of variation (code: choice of examples).
In part 3, for his explanation of sketching quadratics using zeros and CTS, John used
the example x2+6x+8. For a second example, he considered x2+2x-8, hesitated, and opted for

x2+6x+5 instead. The interview revealed his reasons for making these choices, which were
rather different from the suppositions of the research team (code: choice of examples).
Contingency
The planned lesson was disrupted by the failure of the IT infrastructure in the classroom so
that John did not have a graph drawing package available when he considered the graphical
representation of the functions. This meant that John had to rapidly re-think his approach
(code: deviation from agenda).
Connection
When sketching quadratics, John had expected to use IT to assist in eliciting the connection
between (i) the zeros of the quadratic and the points where it crosses the x-axis and (ii) the
form (x-a)2+b and the turning point (minimum) (code: making connections between concepts)
The (high-attaining) pupils found this problematic, though we shall never know
whether this would have been the case had the technology not failed leaving John with only a
whiteboard and pen (code: anticipation of complexity).
Thus John’s teaching in this single lesson provided examples that correspond to each of the
four dimensions of the Knowledge Quartet. The next section of the paper focuses on the six
particular examples that John chose as the basis for the whole lesson and his use of
terminology (emphasising expression and equation). First we will outline our analysis of
John’s choice along with his explanation given in the interview. This is followed by an
account of how this choice became the basis of a teaching session on the secondary
mathematics PGCE course.
John’s choice of examples
One of the aspects that emerged from the earlier SKIMA research was the way in which
trainee teachers chose the examples that they would use in their teaching. There were
instances where this choice could give a well-graded and carefully considered progression. In
other cases the examples could obscure the intention of the learning or be presented in an
order which compounded the difficulty of the task (Rowland 2008).
John used six expressions as examples:
x + 6x + 8, x2 - 8x + 14, x2 + 2x - 8, x2 + 6x + 5, x2 + 3x - 1, 2x2 + 4x - 2
2
In our preliminary analysis we noted that the examples were well-graded and
incorporated many of the possible dimensions of variation (x2 coefficient: one/not one; x
coefficient: +/-, even/odd; expression factorises or not). This was one of the points that we
followed up in the interview.
TR: What made you pick those six/seven examples?
John: They all have real solutions was the first thing, umm, so that when sketching them they
can use the whole ‘oh I have got two solutions, it crosses twice, it’s a U-shape’ … got
one odd coefficient of x, cos they had had a bit of practice of that and if the focus was
going to be on sketching there’s no need to have sort of overly complicated, umm,
squaring point 5s and stuff in there cos they can already do that.
Umm and the bottom example [2x2 + 4x – 2] was chosen because you can take a factor
of 2 out, and I thought that might be good for when we were talking about the
difference between an expression and an equation; because if you are solving that you’d
say ‘I’ll divide both sides two’, whereas if you’re just putting it into a completing the
square form as an expression, you can’t say that and so you have to take 2 out as a
factor. And I think I spent a bit of time before that point, talking about. So that was
where the last one came from.

TR: So if you like, you kind of invented these, with those factors in mind.
John: Yes
TR: OK, OK. So what, what made you pick on the x2 + 6x + 8 for this particular …
John: That’s the only one, the only one that factorises, I think. Well I know it factorises but
I’m not sure if any of the others do. That factorises so that you get the solutions –1 and
–5 [incorrectly!] which means that they will be able to draw the graph more easily,
sketch it more easily, rather than getting a daft surd, to try and draw on their x axis, just
to make the ease of the drawing on their own for the first time.
John’s choice of examples was brought to the attention of the following year’s cohort of
secondary mathematics trainee teachers, in a PGCE subject teaching session on lesson
planning and evaluation. The subject lecturer, Libby, wanted the group to consider John’s use
of examples and his desire to distinguish clearly between the mathematical terms ‘expression’
and ‘equation’. The latter, along with the technique of completing the square, had both been
raised as queries following the subject knowledge audit that the trainees had completed. It
seemed an additional fortuitous opportunity to be able to consider each in this context.
From the post-lesson interview, we knew that John had not taken the examples from a
textbook but had devised them himself the previous evening; he had thought through the
examples again on his drive to school the next day, deciding that integer solutions would be
quite sufficient for the processes involved.
The trainee teachers were asked to complete the square for each of John’s six choices
and to consider why John may have made this choice and to comment on the appropriateness
of choosing such a set. They were told of John’s lesson objectives, outlined earlier in this
paper. John’s deliberate decision for an odd integer coefficient of x ‘got one odd coefficient of
x, cos they had had a bit of practice of that’ provided the group with the opportunity to
consider both a decimal and fractional representation of halving the coefficient and the ease
that each could be squared and subtracted from -1. This was the same emphasis that John
gave to his pupils and was captured on video.
The final example (vi) also had the desired effect of deliberating over the non-
possibility of dividing through by a common factor here but the common practice of doing so
when asked to solve the resulting quadratic equations when the expressions are equated with
zero (see interview dialogue above).
Conclusion
The purpose of this research was to test the ‘fit’ of the Knowledge Quartet to secondary
mathematics teaching. The analysis of John’s second lesson in this paper indicates the
potential of KQ as an analytical tool in the context of novice secondary mathematics teaching.
We may need to supplement the codes within existing KQ dimensions; for example, the
existing four transformation codes might not adequately capture the kind of explanation that
John had aimed for with his use of IT. So our analysis of the six lessons encourages us to pilot
the use of the KQ as a developmental framework for the observation and review of lessons
taught by secondary PGCE trainees during their school-based placements. This, in turn, will
create yet more opportunities for testing and refining the KQ in the field.
Libby found being able to make reference to such detailed data (plan, video of lesson
and post-lesson audio recorded interview) to be invaluable within a PGCE session. Discussing
this lesson provided the trainees with a fine example of careful planning that was all the more
powerful on account of reference to first-hand data and the fact that the teacher under scrutiny
had only a year earlier been in their own position (though admittedly towards the end of his

training year). Although time was spent on just one lesson, the points made are transferable in
a generic sense.
Postscript
We offer the following cautionary tale about how what appeared to us to be a sensible
interpretation of a part of this lesson was far from it, when we had the opportunity to follow it
up in interview.
As indicated earlier, in part 3 of the lesson John explained sketching y=x2+6x+8,
including finding the minimum using CTS on a whiteboard. Once the graph was drawn, John
considered which equation to use for the class to try on their own, suggested y=x2+2x–8
(example iii) hesitated, and then opted for y=x2+6x+5 (example iv). In the preliminary
analysis and before there had been an opportunity to talk to John, we had come up with our
own logical reasons impressed with his forethought in skipping (iii) as the next example had
the same coefficient of x and would thus reduce the complexity, the dimensions of variation.
This was not the case, however. In the interview, John revealed that in the heat of the
moment, he had thought (erroneously) that y=x2+2x–8 would not give integer solutions and
went on to one (y=x2+6x+5) that he knew would. Until we pointed it out, he had not realised
that the coefficient of x was the same as that in his first worked example. Indeed when it was
first mentioned, John said that had he realised, he would have chosen something else.
Nevertheless, after we said that we felt that retaining the 6x term helped with the minimum,
John came back to connect with this and said, with laughter, that the students had indeed been
more successful with it!
References
Calderhead, J. 1981. Stimulated recall: a method for research on teaching. British Journal of
Educational Psychology 51 no.2: 211-217.
Glaser, B.G., and A.L. Strauss. 1967. The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for
qualitative research. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
Rowland, T. 2008. The purpose, design and use of examples in the teaching of elementary
mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics 69 no.2: 149-163
Rowland, T., F. Turner, A. Thwaites, and P. Huckstep. 2009. Developing primary
mathematics teaching: Reflecting on practice with the Knowledge Quartet. London:
Sage.
Shulman, L. 1986. Those who understand: knowledge growth in teaching. Educational
Researcher 15 no.2: 4-14.
Strauss A., and J. Corbin. 1990. Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory procedures
and techniques (2nd edition) Thousands Oaks and London: Sage.

Snapshots From A Classroom An Analysis o PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

Snapshots From A Classroom An Analysis o PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ISSN 1463-6840

Proceedings of the British

Proceedings of the Day Conference held at

Published by the British Society for Research into Learning Mathematics.

Individual papers © contributing authors 2010

Other materials © BSRLM 2010

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be produced or transmitted

Editor: M. Joubert, Graduate School of Education, University of Bristol,

Volume 30 Number 3, November 2010

Proceedings of the Day Conference held at Newcastle

Investigating the development of prospective mathematics teachers’ technological

Marmara University, Turkey

Keywords: Mathematics teacher education; technological pedagogical content

From Informal Proceedings 30-3 (BSRLM) available at bsrlm.org.uk © the author - 1

From Informal Proceedings 30-3 (BSRLM) available at bsrlm.org.uk © the author - 2

Difficulties with describing radian as a ratio of two lengths

From Informal Proceedings 30-3 (BSRLM) available at bsrlm.org.uk © the author - 3

Difficulties with recognising real numbers as radian measure

From Informal Proceedings 30-3 (BSRLM) available at bsrlm.org.uk © the author - 4

From Informal Proceedings 30-3 (BSRLM) available at bsrlm.org.uk © the author - 5

From Informal Proceedings 30-3 (BSRLM) available at bsrlm.org.uk © the author - 6

Claire Vaugelade Berg

University of Agder, Kristiansand, Norway

The impact of participating in a research project on mathematics teachers’ teaching

Teachers’ professional development, implication for teachers’ practice, community

The main aspects of the TBM project

From Informal Proceedings 30-3 (BSRLM) available at bsrlm.org.uk © the author - 7

From Informal Proceedings 30-3 (BSRLM) available at bsrlm.org.uk © the author - 8

In the TBM project we adopt a developmental research approach. According to Goodchild

The research setting

In this current research I analysed focus group interviews, designed as semi-structured

From Informal Proceedings 30-3 (BSRLM) available at bsrlm.org.uk © the author - 9

Attitude to mathematics and changes in teaching practice

Considering first the three “newcomers” schools, the teachers reported on an

From Informal Proceedings 30-3 (BSRLM) available at bsrlm.org.uk © the author - 10

Discussion and conclusion

From Informal Proceedings 30-3 (BSRLM) available at bsrlm.org.uk © the author - 11

From Informal Proceedings 30-3 (BSRLM) available at bsrlm.org.uk © the author - 12

Alison Borthwick and Micky Harcourt-Heath

University of East Anglia

Methodology and context

From Informal Proceedings 30-3 (BSRLM) available at bsrlm.org.uk © the author - 13

Findings and discussion

90% correct / 10% incorrect

Number Line 27 12 69.2 30.8

From Informal Proceedings 30-3 (BSRLM) available at bsrlm.org.uk © the author - 14

58% correct / 42% incorrect

From Informal Proceedings 30-3 (BSRLM) available at bsrlm.org.uk © the author - 15

36% correct / 64% incorrect

33% correct / 67% incorrect

From Informal Proceedings 30-3 (BSRLM) available at bsrlm.org.uk © the author - 16

Anghileri, J. 2000. Teaching Number Sense. London, Continuum.

From Informal Proceedings 30-3 (BSRLM) available at bsrlm.org.uk © the author - 17

From Informal Proceedings 30-3 (BSRLM) available at bsrlm.org.uk © the author - 18

Sinead Breen, Joan Cleary, Ann O’Shea

182 students responded to a number of Likert-scale items regarding their persistence on

Keywords: persistence, unfamiliar tasks, self-reporting measures

From Informal Proceedings 30-3 (BSRLM) available at bsrlm.org.uk © the author - 19

Critique of self-report measures

Other weaknesses of self-report measures, as outlined by Fulmer and Frijters (2009)

From Informal Proceedings 30-3 (BSRLM) available at bsrlm.org.uk © the author - 20

Item Level Subdomain Competency

Analysis and results