Journal of Curriculum Studies, 2017

VOL. 49, NO. 2, 169–190

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2016.1141995

Mathematics engagement in an Australian lower secondary

school
Stephen Norton
School of Education and Professional Studies, Griffith University, Australia

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
The importance of actively engaging in mathematics discourse in Academic engagement;
order to learn mathematics is well recognized. In this paper, I use Basil mathematics; discourse;
Bernstein’s concepts of pedagogic discourse to document and analyse attitudes; motivations;
academic learning time of students in Years 8 and 9 at a suburban curriculum
lower secondary school: in particular, for what proportion of class time
students reported being academically engaged, their explanations for
this engagement and how they felt about the discourse. It was found
that many students had disengaged from mathematical endeavour as
a result of the failure of the instructional discourse either to engage
students or to serve the purpose of developing discipline-specific
content knowledge. The reasons for this relate to the overemphasis
on mundane mathematics resulting in some students lacking the
cognitive tools to engage with the concepts and having neither the
intrinsic nor instrumental motivation to persist with secondary school
esoteric mathematics. The implications for mathematics curriculum
development are discussed.

This paper will be of interest to readers other than those associated with mathematics teach-
ing and learning because in the main, curriculum reform in Western in science, technology,
engineering and mathematics (STEM) has become associated with a need for STEM subjects
to appear of immediate relevance and intrinsically motivating to students (Muller & Taylor,
1995). Accompanying this has been a shift towards more collaborative learning and power
sharing with students (Sfard, 2003). Interestingly, these assumptions have had little influence
in East Asian teaching and learning (Li, 2004). The data from this study give us an opportu-
nity to see how well the implementation of the assumptions underpinning mathematics
curriculum implementation is serving students in an Australian middle school.
In Australia, the release of the recent 2014 round of national literacy and numeracy (NAPLAN
– Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training & Youth Affairs [MCEETYA], 2014)
data and Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) standardized test
results has escalated media debate and discussion about students’ learning of mathematics, in
particular their active engagement in learning (see Hattie, 2009; Thomson, Hillman, Wernert,

CONTACT  Stephen Norton  s.norton@griffith.edu.au

© 2016 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
170    S. Norton

Schmid, & Munene, 2012). Some groups of Australian students are performing exceptionally
well on national and international standardized tests. However, it has been well reported that
East Asian students (e.g. from Singapore, South Korea, Hong Kong, Chinese Taipei) outperform
students from most Western nations on tests of mathematics, especially in the higher bands,
for example, in TIMSS (Thomson, Wernert, Underwood, & Nicholas, 2007; Thomson et al., 2012).
These differences have been reported for several decades (Fan & Zhu, 2004; Jensen, 2012)
involving a range of testing instruments – TIMSS, Educational Testing Service, International
Assessment and Educational Progress and Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD) tests – as well as Programme for International Student Assessment.
Other research has suggested that not only are Western students’ cognitive standards
slipping or stagnating, but that there has been a slide in student attitudes towards mathe-
matics study and the entry to high school may well be a tipping point (Attard, 2013; Noyes,
2012). This study was conducted upon request of a local head of Mathematics department
(HOD) of a secondary school in a middle-class suburb in Australia. She had concerns about
the nature of academic discourse, especially perceptions of low engagement. She wished
to explore this issue from the students’ perspective. The study was intended to document
the nature of classroom discourse and explore students’ explanations for this as well as their
suggestions of possible solutions. It was hoped such data would assist in local curriculum
implementation. Given the context of the study, the findings may have broader implications.
Many researchers recognize that non-cognitive predictors such as beliefs and attitudes are
central to general mathematical performance and participation (Attard, 2013; Boaler, 2002;
Nardi & Steward, 2003). OECD (2004) reported that analysis of the pattern of students’ interest
in mathematics was important since it could reveal significant strengths and weaknesses in
attempts by educational systems to promote motivation. Across OECD countries, only about
half of students at Year 8 level reported mathematics as ‘interesting’ and this attitude was
a cause for concern. Thomson et al. (2007) reported on TIMSS data that gauged student’s
attidue towards mathematics through their responses to three prompts; ‘I enjoy mathe-
matics’, ‘mathematics is boring’ and ‘I like mathematics’. These authors reported that 34% of
Australian Year 8 students had high postitive attitude towars mathematics (PATM), 27% had
medium and 39% had low PAMT with attiude significantly related to achievement. Students
had turned off mathematics study over the past decade and attitude in Year 4 was more pos-
itive (66% high PAMT). On the other hand, some suggest the relationship between attitude
towards mathematics and achievement in mathematics is not strong and ‘has no meaningful
practical application’ (Ma & Kishor, 1997, p. 39). These authors do however concede that at
the elementary (primary school) level the relationship, while not strong, may have practical
implications. Ma and Kishor noted that measuring student attitude is particularly imprecise
for younger students. Motivation is somewhat different from attitude, in that students may
apply themselves irrespective of the attitude they may hold. OECD (2004) categorized stu-
dent motivation as being either instrumental, for example, a recognition that mathematics
was important for future life options, or intrinsic. Intrinsic motivation related to interest in
the subject, including a perception that it was fun. OECD suggest the two motivations are
strongly associated and strongly predicative of learning.
In this paper I draw on the theory of Bernstein (1975, 1990, 1996, 2000) to provide a frame-
work for examining the nature of discourse. Classroom discourse is considerably influenced
by teachers. Hattie (2009) noted that not all teachers have powerful positive effects on stu-
dent learning. What happens in classrooms, what roles students and teachers adopt and how
 Journal of Curriculum Studies   171

they engage with each other and the curriculum have been described by Bernstein (1975,
1990, 1996, 2000) as classroom pedagogic discourse. Of particular interest to this study are
students’ reports of academic learning time (ALT), since it could be seen as a manifestation
of students’ commitment to mathematics learning as well as the extent to which they align
themselves with the instructional and regulative discourses of the school.

Pedagogic discourse and student engagement in learning

Bernstein (1975, 1990, 1996, 2000) has described pedagogic discourse as being comprised
of two components: instructional and regulative discourses, both acting to shape classroom
discourse. Instructional discourse refers to the formal curriculum and how it is enacted, and
is comprised of skills, knowledge and processes of mathematical disciplinary knowledge
that can be selected and organized (sequenced and paced). Regulative discourses constitute
the rules and rituals that support the moral climate within the school and define the nature
of power relationships among the stakeholders, and set the tone of interactions between
the teacher and students and indeed between the students themselves. Davis (2005, p. 21)
proposes that:
… pedagogic discourse is always faced with the problem of negotiating the student’s pleasure
and the manner in which that pleasure is negotiated is always historically-specific. From this
perspective changes in curriculum and pedagogy, in part, index changes in the manner in which
pleasure is (to be) negotiated.
As noted above, discourses are manifested in various subject positions, including commit-
ment, engagement, estrangement and alienation (Bernstein, 1975). The nature of classroom
discourse is shaped by the curriculum’s assumptions on the nature of knowledge and sub-
sequently teachers’ implementation of the curriculum, which in turn is influenced by their
personal beliefs about the nature of knowledge and its teaching.

Attaining mathematical knowledge: curriculum and pedagogic modes

Muller (2000) points out that for several decades there has been a struggle for a new math-
ematics curriculum and in the main (in the West) it has been dominated by a strong con-
structivist alliance. High school mathematics has historically been viewed as esoteric and
curricula associated with this view arranged vertically with the rules of arithmetic, algebra,
geometry and statistics taught sequentially. The emphasis on esoteric mathematics and
teaching of mathematics was challenged by reform movements and this continues to be
the case, particularly in how it is developed. The contrast to this is curriculum that is hori-
zontally structured in that the borders between school and community are broken down
and sequence is less important than what is needed to solve an authentic problem now,
Bernstein used the term mundane to describe these forms of knowledge. Much less emphasis
is placed on learning sequence.
The research companion to the Principles and Standards for School Mathematics (Hiebert,
2003) described ‘traditional’ teaching of mathematics as being dominated by teacher-di-
rected explanation and questioning followed by practice of similarly structured problems on
pencil-and-paper assignments with an emphasis on procedures, especially computational
procedures. Gregg (1995) notes that this discourse is resilient; he calls it the school math-
ematics tradition. This approach was criticized for being too passive, poor in developing
172    S. Norton

conceptual ideas and doing little creative work such as inventing procedures or analysing
new problems, hence having little process relevance. Further, traditional teaching was seen
as having the potential to alienate substantial proportions of students (Attard, 2013; Nardi &
Steward, 2003; Noyes, 2012; Sealey & Noyes, 2010). The traditional approach was considered
to be viewed as ‘boring’ by many students and lacking relevance to their lives. Sealey and
Noyes noted that different school communities were likely to have different views of what
constituted relevance, immediate practical relevance being less important for students likely
to value transferrable process skills or entry to specific professions.
From the late 1980s, there was a change in advice given to teachers about how students
were to learn. For example, teachers were advised to consider ‘alternative instructional pro-
grams designed with more ambitious learning goals in mind’ (Hiebert, 2003, p. 18). In essence,
teachers were encouraged to teach for understanding, and the general consensus was that
drawing on social–cultural theory offered the best hope for reform. A key attribute of the
reform movement was that mathematics ought to have immediate relevance to the lives of
students (e.g. Nardi & Steward, 2003; Sealey & Noyes, 2010). A further attribute of the reform
approach to mathematics and its teaching was the empowerment of students in classrooms.
Cooper (2007) notes that such a model dominates particularly in primary settings, in part
because primary teachers attempt to capitalize upon intrinsic motivational factors, and that
pedagogy based on more externally motivating factors may find greater acceptance in upper
secondary school. Attard (2013) made similar comments in regard to students transitioning
from primary to secondary mathematics study. Cooper describes lower secondary school as
a transitional state between the two pedagogical frameworks.
It is evident that, despite the research supporting instructional discourse forms likely
to be perceived by students as relevant and authentic, curriculum documents in the main
(e.g. Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority [ACARA], 2012; Australian
Education Council, 1990; National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 1989) show strong
tendencies to depict school mathematics at all levels as essentially hierarchically structured
in that the mathematical content is a highly ordered sequence with clear mathematical out-
comes at set stages; as students pass through lower secondary school, it becomes increas-
ingly abstract.
Irrespective of the nature of the instructional discourse, most educators would concur
that students are more likely to learn when they actively process information than when
they are superficially engaged or engaged in off-task behaviour. There are various factors
that are linked to engagement, including if the students have the cognitive tools to learn,
and this is especially important in a hierarchically structured discipline such as mathematics.

Engaged mathematics learning time

While there is some debate on the practical relevance of student attitude towards math-
ematics, the literature is much more in agreement with respect to ALT, which refers to the
time during which students are productively engaged in learning (Gettinger & Seibert, 2011).
In the 1980s, the importance of time as a variable in mathematics learning was a focus of
considerable research (e.g. Brown & Saks, 1986; Peterson, Swing, Stark, & Waas, 1984; Seifert
& Beck, 1984); more recently, Hattie (2009) has recognized the importance of time on task.
Almost uniformly, the research indicates that the more time students spend thinking, listen-
ing and being intellectually challenged, the better. ALT can be estimated by counting the
 Journal of Curriculum Studies   173

time allocated by the timetable and then taking away interruptions of various natures. ALT
can be substantially eroded when students are not focused or are engaged in non-productive
tasks that do not challenge their thinking or consolidate learning.
It is well reported that dissatisfaction with the instructional discourse of schools has man-
ifested itself in disruptive behaviours as well as low engagement associated with ‘resigned
acceptance’ (Nardi & Steward, 2003, p. 346) and overt disruptive behaviour. Disruptive behav-
iour inevitably reduces ALT. The accounts of this behaviour are more often reported from the
teachers’ point of view, but as van den Heuvel-Panhuizen (2008) has noted, there is a need for
student voice in guiding mathematics reform, a recommendation echoed by Attard (2013).

Streaming or ability grouping

Another factor to consider in terms of engagement is the provision of appropriate scaffolding,
and one response to this issue has been to stream mathematics classes according to ability
levels, ostensibly so the teacher can match task difficulty and support to student needs. The
practice of streaming, also called tracking or ability grouping, has had considerable public-
ity, with many arguing that it is an inequitable practice with negative impacts on students’
self-worth (Boaler, 2005; Forgasz, 2010; Hattie, 2009; VanderHart, 2006; Zevenbergen, 2003,
2005), especially for lower streamed classes. These authors also note that in lower stream
classes both ALT and the demand of tasks tend to be lower. The classes in this study were
streamed, however, they do not have different curricula.

An international perspective
The above literature has focused on reform in Western contexts. It is interesting that the
South-East Asian tradition for teaching mathematics is highly teacher centred and focuses
on esoteric and vertical knowledge forms; traditionally, much less weight has been given
to intrinsic motivational factors. South-East Asian attitudes are considered to be shaped by
Confucian values about learning and have profoundly influenced classroom discourse in the
East for thousands of years (e.g. An, 2004; Huang & Leung, 2004; Lafayete De Mente, 2009;
Lee, 1996). The consensus from most authors is that a range of variables interacts to promote
high achievement, and these variables include societal expectations, parental involvement
and text books; also, Asian students have been reported to have high levels of overall ALT, as
an accumulation of class, homework and extra tutorial time (Fan & Zhu, 2004; Jensen, 2012).
The East Asian attitude towards mathematics has been to value discipline knowledge,
whether it is fun or immediately useful or not. A further difference has been the shunning of
memorization in recent Western curricula, while it remains a central part of learning in the
East. Li (2004) explains this as being due to the Chinese (and East Asians in general) taking
a much longer term view of learning mathematics. Chinese students are expected to be
proficient in basic computation as a prerequisite for problem solving (Cai & Cifarelli, 2004;
Klein, 2007). East Asian classrooms as typified by Chinese classrooms tend to be teacher
centred and teachers are expected to tightly control classroom discourse (Gu, Huang, &
Marton, 2004; Li, 2004; Ma, 1999; Wang & Murphy, 2004; Zhang, Li, & Tang, 2004).
An almost identical methodology that was used in this paper was used to collect data from
a suburban middle school in a middle-sized city in China (Norton & Zhang, 2013). The find-
ings were consistent with the literature reported above. That is, in the main, most students
174    S. Norton

reported and were observed to remain highly engaged with the esoteric mathematics and
reported to be satisfied. They reported that they worked hard for self-improvement, to get
into a good school or university or to please their parents and repay the motherland (all
instrumental motivations). It was apparent that the nature of early years and primary school
study had developed in most students the expectation that it was normal to be diligent and
engagement was not dependent on either immediate authenticity or fun factor (Norton &
Zhang, 2013). These instrumental motivations were associated with intrinsic motivations.
This is consistent with the OECD (2004) finding that there is a strong association between
instrumental and intrinsic motivational factors.

Methodology
Background
Possibly, the most influential and widely used method of assessing student attitudes has
been the Fennema-Sherman Mathematics Attitude Scales (Fennema & Sherman, 1976). My
experience using these scales (9 scales, 90 items) (Norton & Rennie, 1998) as well as What is
Happening in this Classroom (7 scales, 56 items – Fraser, 1998) caused me to be cautious of
employing a similar methodology. I had found that lower secondary students could suffer
‘Likert fatigue’ and the instruments did not necessarily capture student voice. Ma and Kishor
(1997) have noted the challenges in documenting student attitudes and motivations and
used meta-analysis to overcome some of the difficulties. I did not have this option. Thus, in
this case study multiple data sources are used to mitigate the challenges in methodology
and to provide data to document engagement and understand the relationship between
instructional and regulatory discourse and its manifestations.

School context
The school selected for this study was one of twelve that had district meetings where the
HODs gathered to discuss issues relating to the learning of mathematics. HODs are senior
mathematics teachers who are ultimately responsible for the delivery of mathematics curric-
ulum within the school. The HOD had analysed the school’s subject-based tests as well as the
2009 NAPLAN Year 9 numeracy results (MCEETYA, 2009) and these indicated that significant
portions of students had significant gaps in basic numeracy. The 2009 and 2010 NAPLAN
data indicated that the school was a little below the state average in numeracy scores. The
school’s index of community socio-educational advantage (ICSEA) was 956 compared with
the national scaled mean of 1000 (ACARA, 2011). These data indicated that the school was
typical of many other suburban high schools situated in low- to median-socio-economic
areas across Australia and particularly across the state of Queensland. The subjects in this
study were the population of students in Year 8 (n = 160) and Year 9 (n = 125) at the school,
and their teachers. The collection of data from both year levels enabled an evaluation of
relative change in classroom discourse.
The researcher visited the study school at the invitation of the HOD at the school, fort-
nightly for most of a day over a two-year period. This engagement was part of a service to
the community and a way to better understand the classroom dynamics operating in lower
secondary classrooms in this typical outer metropolitan school. On most days the HOD would
allocate the researcher classes in which to assist.
 Journal of Curriculum Studies   175

Curriculum documents that guided the school mathematics work programmes empha-
sized the importance of a vertically oriented sequence of concept learning. However, con-
sistent with reform recommendations for teaching, teachers were encouraged to adopt
constructivist and student-centred approaches to teaching and learning and where possible
to make the content as authentic and interesting as possible (Queensland Studies Authority,
2004, 2010). The dominant teaching resource in the school was the text book series Maths
Quest (Elms, 2004a, 2004b). This text was specifically designed for the Queensland market and
attempted to provide a resource to enable teachers to implement the intent of the syllabus
requirements. Consistent with syllabus recommendations, topics were ordered sequentially,
but most chapters contained examples of investigations set in contextual settings.

A developmental interventionist approach

The project used a developmental intervention research approach (Anderson & Shattuck,
2012): it was intended to use the data to inform changes to classroom discourse. The
researcher used a number of instruments (student survey including Likert scales, written
responses to prompts and drawings, student interviews and prolonged observations) to
capture aspects of the regulative and instructional discourses operating in the mathematics
classrooms.
The idea of documenting classroom discourse was an initiative of the HOD. The variables
that informed the survey construction were questions on which the HOD wanted data. The
survey development was further informed by the literature on ALT (e.g. Brown & Saks, 1986;
Peterson et al., 1984; Seifert & Beck, 1984) and took account of the author’s prior experience
using the scales referenced above. The survey was administered by the researcher during
class time mid-year in both 2009 and 2010, with the 2010 data being reported in this study
(given that the patterns were similar in both years). At the time the students were filling out
the survey form, the regular teacher left the class and the researcher supervised the admin-
istration of the survey. In each instance, the entire class completed the survey (absent stu-
dents exempt) since they appeared to want their views accounted for. Students were asked
to respond on a 5-point Likert scale to questions about how hard they worked. The survey
probed how much homework the students did each week night, the rate of teacher setting
and checking of homework, and agreement with the statement ‘The teacher helps me learn
mathematics in this class’. The main data reported upon in this paper are the student surveys
related to classroom discourse. At the conclusion of this data collection phase, teachers
were interviewed. They were shown the frequency of student responses on the survey and
asked to comment on whether their observations on student ALT validated student reports.
The questions of relevance to this paper, and the manner in which they were numerically
coded, are presented below.

(1) I work the following % of time in a typical mathematics lesson (1 = less than 10%;
2 = 11–25%; 3 = 26% to about half the time; 4 = half the time to 75% of the time;
5 = nearly all lesson).
(2) I work hard in maths lessons (5 = strongly agree; 4 = agree; 3 = uncertain; 2 = disa-
gree; 1 = strongly disagree).

These descriptors were designed to get the students’ perceptions of their academic
engagement and this was triangulated with observational data and teachers’ perceptions
176    S. Norton

of class engagement. Peterson et al. (1984, p. 487) found that ‘students’ reports of attention,
understanding, and cognitive processing were more valid indicators of classroom learning
than observers’ judgments of students’ time on task’. Thus, in addition to responding to the
survey questions, students were encouraged to write comments in response to the following
open-ended prompts:

(1) The main thing holding back my maths learning is …

(2) I would learn better in maths if …

In order to triangulate the Likert scale probes attempting to measure academic engage-
ment, particularly the nature of classroom discourse, students were asked to draw a sketch
in response to the prompt, ‘This is what happens in a typical maths class this term’. They were
also asked to explain the drawing in writing. Drawings have long been used to add form
and meaning to children’s thinking (e.g. Driessnack, 2005). Students were asked to draw
a second picture in response to the prompt, ‘This is how I feel in a typical maths class this
term’, and then to explain in words how they feel in a maths class. The categorization of the
drawings and their interpretation adds an additional qualitative aspect to this study. Some
of these pictures are used in this paper to convey the nature of students’ feelings. Asking
the students to explain what they meant by the drawings reduces some of the less valid
aspects of interpreting what the students mean, a strategy recommended by Driessnack.
The classroom teachers of the students were interviewed individually and as a group at the
end of the study. They were shown summaries of the anonymized student responses and
invited to comment on these. The data are presented as summaries of responses made by
individuals within classes.

Coding of responses
Most student comments on the survey forms could be categorized as essentially having
one major theme, for example, ‘maths is boring’; occasionally some comments contained
two or more themes. For example, in response to the prompt, ‘I would learn better in maths
lessons if …’ the response ‘It was more interesting and it was explained better’ has elements of
engagement and pedagogy. Similarly, the response ‘If people would shut up and if work was
fun’ would be counted in two categories, the first relating to distractions in the environment
and the second relating to the appeal/fun. On rare occasions a response contained three or
four themes, for example, ‘It is boring (disengagement), I want to die during maths (unhappy)
and it angers and frustrates me’. Similarly, sometimes it was not possible to categorize a
comment, for example, in response to the prompt, ‘I would learn better in maths lessons if
…’ ‘Bryce was in higher class’. This might mean Bryce was a distraction but, since there was
a lack of direct evidence for this, such a response was counted as ‘undefined’.
The frequency of student responses in particular categories helps to indicate the prev-
alence and importance of those factors in explaining students’ classroom engagement.
Although the students were asked to respond to negative and positive terms, many students
cited the same attributes in response to both prompts. In addition, students frequently used
feeling descriptions in response to all questions and prompts. For example, boring was used
in response to several prompts.
Initially, it was not intended to test students’ levels of basic mathematics. However, class-
room observations suggested that this might be a factor holding back some students, so a
 Journal of Curriculum Studies   177

very simple test of eight questions checking whole number computation was given to the
Year 8 students in early 2010.

Results
The results are presented in four sections. The first deals with the survey data, then the
students’ responses to the open-ended prompts including drawings are reported, as are
teacher reflections and finally, the author’s observations.

How much time in a maths lesson I work and how hard I work in maths
The data indicate that in each year level about three quarters of the students believed
they worked half of more of the lesson (Year 8 ALT mean = 2.331, sd = 0.8279; Year 9 ALT
mean = 2.43, sd = 0.831; z = 0.9807, p = 0.3267). Overall, more than half of all students in
both year levels believed they worked hard, about a tenth reporting that they worked very
hard. On the other hand, between 26 and 39% of students indicated that they worked less
than half the lesson or did not agree that they worked hard. The data for both year levels
are summarized in Table 1 (Year 8 n = 149; Year 9 n = 124).
Interviews with students give meaning to the term ‘worked hard’. It meant thinking about
mathematics or engaging in mathematical activities including the following behaviours:
listening to the teacher, taking notes, working on problems and discussing mathematical
problems within groups. Not working hard included the following behaviours: chatting with
friends, sleeping, disrupting the class, day dreaming and leaving the classroom. Within each
year level, there was a trend of decreased academic engagement in lower-stream classes,
and the difference between high- and low-stream classes in Year 8 was statistically sig-
nificant (z score of 2.2517 (p  =  0.0118), this difference being attributed to the increased
portion of students in lower-stream classes who reported working less than half the lesson.
Similarly, in Year 9 most students in high-stream classes reported working nearly all lesson,
those in middle-stream classes reported working about half the lesson, and students in
lower-stream classes reported working hardly at all. This general pattern was interrupted
for specific classes. On average there was a slight drop off in reported time on task in class
between Year 8 and Year 9. This indicates that more students in Year 9 reported doing very
little classwork. The open responses give evidence for this decline in academic engagement.

Table 1. Student reports on academic engagement as a percentage.

Survey prompt Categories (%)
(1) I work for the fol- Less than 10 11 to 25 26 to half Half to 75 Nearly all lesson
lowing % of time in a
typical maths lesson
Year 8 1.3% 6.7% 20.8% 49.7% 21.5%
Year 9 4.0% 8.1% 13.7% 50.8% 23.0%
           
(2) I work and think Strongly disa- Disagree Uncertain Agree Strongly agree
hard in mathematics gree
lessons
Year 8 2.7% 2.7% 31.8% 50.7% 12.2%
Year 9 0% 13.1% 26.0% 52.0% 8.9%
178    S. Norton

Open response and student comments

The first section of data deals with factors that facilitate or hinder student learning. It needs to
be remembered that in both year levels most students reported to be working for most of the
lesson and thinking hard during mathematics lessons. Still, there is room for improvement.
An analysis of responses to the prompts, ‘The main thing holding back my learning is …’ and
‘I would learn better in maths if…’ revealed that five major categories of responses accounted
for between 60 and 85% of responses in the different classes. These are:

(1) Maths is boring: e.g. I do not find it enjoyable so I get bored; I do not like maths;
boring. Or: if it was more fun; if it was more interesting, it is boring, it’s irrelevant
and boring.
(2) Disruptions from other students: e.g. I get distracted by other people talking; people
muck around; people talking and laughing; Mike, Brodey and Lucas muck up and
it gets to annoy me when I am trying to work; the idiots in my class muck up. Or: if
people were not loud and annoying; if people were quiet so I could work; people
stop being silly; if the students at the back would shut up.
(3) My lack of discipline: e.g. I need to concentrate more; when I get tired I cannot think;
sometimes I talk to other people; me not listening in class and talking too much. Or:
if I was not talking and listened; I listened more often; if I had better concentration.
(4) Teacher practices; pedagogical issues: e.g. The teacher does not explain it in full;
we just mostly write things down. Or: if the teacher did not go so fast; if the teacher
helped me when I did not understand; if the teacher went a bit slower; if the teacher
explained it better; the teacher does not help me properly; the teacher just writes
and talks.
(5) My lack of background or understanding: e.g. My Year 6 teacher; I came from a crap
school and do not know much; not understanding the concepts of most of the ques-
tions; not knowing what to do and being slow; not understanding the work in class
or at home; it is too hard. Or: it was easier; I could do the basics; if I knew what to do.

As part of follow-up interviews with some classes, the exact meaning of ‘boring’ was
explored. Boring was a multi-dimensional concept that included: can’t be bothered; not fun;
not colourful; and no excitement. Boring was associated with a lack of instant gratification
and easy pleasant stimuli. Boring indicated the subject matter was not consistent with the
student’s goals and values. Further, boring was frequently linked to a lack of capacity to
understand the mathematics; for example, I do not understand and it is boring. The distribution
of these explanations across Years 8 and 9 is displayed as percentages in Tables 2 and 3. The
classes are ranked from top-stream to bottom-stream classes, Class 1 being the top-stream
class and Class 7 the lowest.
The Year 8 data indicate that the most-reported causes of hindered learning of mathe-
matics in students’ classroom were disruptions by other students and the perception that
mathematics was boring. The high levels of disruptions in Classes 4 and 5 were associated
with particular teachers, the teacher of Class 4 being new to the teaching profession and
the teacher of Class 5 being a science-trained teacher who was asked to teach mathematics.
Student sketches of classroom discourse and their written explanations confirm the preva-
lence of off-task behaviour, either passively such as sleeping or more actively such as walking
about the room or chatting to other students. The Year 8 data were mirrored in the Year 9 data.
 Journal of Curriculum Studies   179

Table 2. Factors reported by Year 8 students influencing ALT.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Year 8 class (n = 72) (n = 53) (n = 84) (n = 53) (n = 59) (n = 74) (n = 90)
Disruptions % 24 29 14 45 53 24 21
Maths is boring % 18 7 32 15 14 32 17
Lack of self-discipline % 6 4 6 0 3 14 11
Poor teaching % 10 8 2 0 3 7 1
Lack of background % 6 10 6 11 12 9 10
% of comments accounted for 64 84 64 69 85 86 60
Notes: The number in brackets, e.g. (n = 72), refers to the number of comments about factors that influence learning report-
ed in this class. The percentage of this number is reported in the table. The percentage of accounted-for comments in each
class is listed across the bottom row of the table.

Table 3. Factors reported by Year 9 students influencing ALT.

  1 2 3 4 5 6 7
(n = 58) (n = 67) (n = 77) (n = 66) (n = 30) (n = 50) (n = 29)
Disruptions % 20 16 32 46 30 16 41
Maths is boring % 31 33 19 26 5 22 29
Lack of self-discipline % 13 13 5 6 23 18 21
Poor teaching % 6 9 25 5 10 16 0
Lack of background % 19 12 0 0 0 4 0
% of comments accounted for 89 83 75 83 68 76 91
Notes: The number in brackets, e.g. (n = 58), refers to the number of comments about factors that influence learning report-
ed in this class. The percentage of the total number of comments is reported in the bottom row of the table.

The Year 9 data indicate that the same variables that were important in Year 8 were cited as
important in learning mathematics, disruptions and maths is boring dominating the reports.
Interestingly, Year 8 students complained of a lack of background knowledge roughly evenly
across the classes, while in Year 9, upper-stream classes were more concerned with back-
ground knowledge. The spike of disruption comments in Year 9 Class 4 was due to specific
teacher-related factors: he was the same teacher who taught Class 4 in Year 8 and the data
indicate he had not established a constructive relationship with the students, struggled to
maintain a positive classroom environment and struggled to explain concepts.
What was happening in the mathematics classes was analysed using both comments and
drawings. Essentially, the categories are as follows:

(1) Committed behaviours: e.g. Listening, learning; the teacher is teaching; me working

(see Figure 1).
(2) Detached or off-task behaviours: e.g. People talking; throwing paper; walking around
and crawling under desks; students rocking on chairs; detachment from learning
tasks (see Figure 2).

Figures 2 and 3 were typical of students who expressed detachment.

A comparison of the commitment or detachment of students in Years 8 and 9 is pre-
sented in Table 4. Committed behaviour included listening to the teacher and working on
mathematical tasks. Remember these classes are streamed, with Class 1 being the most
mathematically capable class and Class 7 the least.
The data are consistent with the survey data in that particular classes are problematic.
Of the illustrations drawn by Year 8 students, about half showed committed behaviours; in
180    S. Norton

Figure 1. (a & b) Drawings by students in Year 9 showing commitment.

Figure 2. (a & b) Year 9 students depict various forms of detachment.

Figure 3. Student approved violence.

Table 4. Proportion of drawings and explanations indicating commitment or detachment.

Year 8 1 (n = 23) 2 (n = 17) 3 (n = 19) 4 (n = 13) 5 (n = 6) 6 (n = 15) 7 (n = 25)
Commitment 52% 41% 50% 38% 50% 27% 34%
Detachment 48% 59% 50% 62% 50% 73% 64%
               
Year 9 1 (n = 30) 2 (n = 15) 3 (n = 13) 4 (n = 16) 5 (n = 6) 6 (n = 14) 7 (n = 8)
Commitment 43% 60% 19% 12% 0% 57% 0%
Detachment 57% 40% 79% 88% 100% 23% 100%
Note: The numbers 1–7 are the classes; the number in brackets (e.g. n = 23) is the number of comments or clear diagrams
that could be classified.
 Journal of Curriculum Studies   181

Year 9 this was just over a third, indicating a fall in commitment and helping to triangulate
the survey data and classroom observations.
In terms of how students felt about their mathematics class, there were two categories:

(1) Committed, as exemplified by drawings (e.g. illustrated in Figure 1(a & b)) of smiles
and comments such as: ‘I feel happy in maths because sometimes it is fun and nearly
always interesting’, and ‘I feel happy because I can learn and get a good job when I
am older’. About a third of all happy comments related to the social context of the
classroom, for example, ‘I feel happy because I sit next to my friend most of the time’.
(2) Estranged and alienated, indicated by expressions of boredom, anger, annoyance,
frustration and general unhappiness in both drawings and explanations of pictures
(e.g. Figures 2(a & b), 3, 4(a & b), 5(a & b)). Comments such as ‘I feel angry because it
is always too hard’, or simply ‘angry’ or ‘confused’ were typical.

Expressions of commitment accounted for almost 40% of Year 8 comments; in Year 9, 22%
articulated commitment. In regard to estrangement and alienation, anger was common and,
with the exception of one Year 9 class, most anger was directed towards other students. The

Figure 4. (a & b) Feelings of boredom and alienation.

Figure 5. (a & b) Boredom is linked to understanding.

182    S. Norton

Table 5. Year 8 results on whole number computation (n = 160).

Question Success %
Question 1: Add 578 + 745. 84%
Question 2: Add 80%
  1 0 9 5 6  
+   4 0 7 6  
    2 7 8 4  
Question 3: 45–18 83%
Question 4: There were 15,932 people at a game, 9745 departed, how many remain? 67%
Question 5: What is 7 multiplied by 8? 83%
Question 6: Julie had a salary of $256 a month. How much could she earn in 37 months? 41%
Question 7: There were 29 apples to be shared among 4 friends. How much did each receive? 53%
Question 8: A class of 25 shared $1796 between them. How much money did each child in the 11%
class receive?

drawings (Figures 3 and 4(a & b)) illustrate the depth of feelings some of the students had
about other students who disrupt the lesson.
In Figure 3, a student is seen punching another student who will not stop talking. Red
pen was used to show blood from the boy’s nose. Other students in the class shout ‘Yes’. The
student being punched says ‘No, I will stop talking’.
Most students wanted the teacher to manage order so that they had the opportunity to
learn; the written responses in Figure 4 illustrate this point.
In Figure 4, Year 8 and 9 students’ comments on classroom distractions and feelings of
alienation were manifested: ‘Bored so I talk to people around me … like I’m not learning
anything because people don’t shut up and actually try to learn’ and ‘I feel upset because I
don’t get to learn everything I need to learn because of the other students’.
As shown in Figure 5(a & b), students linked boredom with lack of fun and lack of under-
standing and relevance.

Basic computation with whole numbers

In May of 2010, the simple test shown in Table 5 was given to the Year 8 classes. The average
results are summarized in Table 5.
The average for the top class was 6.032 with a standard deviation of 1.277 and the average
for the bottom class on this test was 2.535 with a standard deviation of 0.999.

Teachers’ views and further background

When the teachers reviewed the survey data, they commented that in most classes they
considered the students had overestimated their ALT. Classroom observations indicated
classroom discourse was teacher centred. The students entered the room, sat at desks in pairs
and worked from PowerPoints, worksheets, the white board or the text book. The teacher
set work and tried to explain underpinning mathematics. This discourse was more effective
in terms of ALT in high-stream classes, as indicated by survey results.
The eight middle-years teachers were interviewed and shown the data for their classes.
Almost uniformly they commented that the middle- and lower-stream students had over-
estimated the proportion of the time they spent on task. Teachers listed a range of typical
practices of a proportion of lower-stream classes in particular that eroded lesson time, includ-
ing: being late for class; not bringing stationery, including a calculator; not owning or not
 Journal of Curriculum Studies   183

bringing textbooks and notebooks; continually talking; moving about the room; throwing
paper; poking other students; taking other students’ stationery; and calling out solutions
or shouting at other students. One experienced teacher explained his attempts to gain a
semblance of conformity in his middle-stream Year 9 classes:
Yesterday my Year 9 class was mucking up. They were talking, calling out and were pretty much
out of control. So, I keep them in for 20 minutes at lunch time. Today they were the same, the
detention had no effect. If you send a kid to the office, he sits and listens to his iPod and it is not
a deterrent. There are just no reasonable consequences for kids mucking up. You try to force feed
them a bit of knowledge as best as you can and you try not to let the situation get you down.
The deal is, as kids, they want part-time jobs and come to school mostly to socialize, and expect
that teachers are mostly there to keep them entertained. Kids think ‘If you force us to do our
homework or work hard in class we are going to make life hard for you.’ Some kids do want to
work, so that is why we stream.
Teachers articulated their strategies for attempting to avoid becoming overly stressed by
challenging classes. These included greatly reducing their expectations of students’ learn-
ing, becoming tolerant of low-level off-task behaviour, and not taking student challenges
personally.

Summary of classroom observations

In terms of ALT, the classroom observations confirm the student and teacher data of higher
engagement in higher stream classes and lower engagement in lower stream classes. In the
two most challenging classes, the key variable appeared to be poor instructional and regu-
latory discourse from new-to-teaching or out-of-field teachers. When the researcher sat next
to a student and helped them to do the set problems via one-on-one tutoring, the students
would make some attempts, but once the researcher moved to another student, the first stu-
dent would invariably stop work and chat to a fellow student or just sit quietly doing nothing.
The lack of co-operation of some of these students was in complete contrast to teaching in
a high-stream class where teacher explanations were attended to and students would work
on set problems independently or in pairs and raise their hands if they needed assistance.
A major factor that frequently made the process of independent work difficult was that the
students lacked basic facts. Table 5 indicates that a portion of students struggled with basic
whole number computations including subtraction with renaming, multiplication facts and
multiplication and division algorithms. Students in the lower stream classes were especially
challenged. Many struggling students did not have the tools or were unable to cognitively
engage with the material outside of one-on-one tutoring support. These data are consistent
with the author’s (Norton, 2012) reporting of computational fluency in the primary feeder
schools to this secondary school. Analysis of NAPLAN numeracy data suggests that chal-
lenges with basic numeracy remain a nation-wide problem that has persisted. For example,
20% of Year 7 students could not carry out a simple subtraction problem: $145–$79 set in a
simple context (MCEETYA, 2014).
The data from multiple sources provide a detailed description of ALT and classroom dis-
courses. With these data in hand, the HOD at this school has implemented strategies to
improve the learning environment. These strategies include methods to increase students’
awareness and hopefully valuing of the instructional discourse, such as regular testing
and reporting of results to students; making academic expectations clear; using positive
incentives such as academic prizes, mentions in newsletters and stickers as rewards for
184    S. Norton

achievement; and rationalizing the mathematics work programme. In terms of reforms to the
regulatory discourse, the HOD and the Principal attempted to communicate more effectively
with the wider community and re-evaluated the behaviour management strategies. The
author returned to the school in 2013 and the HOD and mathematics teachers said things
‘had not changed’. In the most recent discussion with the HOD in 2014, she advised that the
school was abolishing their practice of streaming in lower secondary mathematics, and that
this decision had been made by the administration on equity grounds. The mathematics staff
considered this would make their job much more difficult, since they were trying to provide
support for a much wider range of mathematical preparedness and willingness to engage.
The HOD reported that overall she felt the level of engagement was ‘about the same’ but
disengagement was now more dispersed in different classes.

Discussion
The discussion is structured around the nature of pedagogic discourse, in particular the
extent of academic engagement and unpacking students’ reasons for this. All data sources
illustrate that there were some relatively low levels of academic engagement across all
classes. It was found that in general, lower streamed classes reported working less time,
but a less skilful teacher in a higher or middle-stream class could disadvantage the students
with respect to ALT. The use of out-of-field teachers in mathematics has been previously
reported as a matter of concern (Queensland Audit Office, 2013; Vale, 2010). It is likely that
the use of qualified teachers will facilitate greater student engagement.
The reasons for the nature of discourse and extent of engagement from the students’
perspective were several. The dominant explanations for diminished engagement were dis-
ruptions from other students and the claim that ‘maths is boring’. As a simple explanation
boring means ‘not fun’. The strong association between intrinsic (not fun) and instrumental
(not relevant) has been reported earlier (OECD, 2004; Sealey & Noyes, 2010). The feedback
from ‘behaviour’ to ‘boring’ and ‘understanding’ and ‘relevant’ is two way, since if the class
or individual is off task, understanding is likely to suffer, and with failure comes ‘no fun’ and
‘maths is boring’. It may be that by being able to label engagement in traditional mathematics
as boring, some students were able to avoid a conflict in identity, a sentiment supported by
Hannula (2002). That is, if the work could be labelled as boring, it was the subject matter that
was at fault and the student need not be so confronted by their inability to understand it,
or indeed to attempt to understand the mathematics. This two-way relationship between
success and attitude has been well reported (e.g. Attard, 2013; Haladyna, Shaughnessy, &
Shaughnessy, 1983; Hannula, 2002; OECD, 2004; Pintrich, Marx, & Boyle, 1993).
It is not surprising that so many students labelled mathematics as boring, since it was
apparent that a significant portion of them lacked the background mathematics to under-
stand an increasingly abstract study. Evidence for this comes from the national testing data
(NAPLAN), the whole number quiz reported in Table 5 and classroom observations. The lack
of cognitive tools to engage with the increasingly abstract nature of mathematics is a critical
point as both traditional teachers and those with a social constructivist orientation appre-
ciate that foundation knowledge is necessary, a fact noted by Cooper (2007) and Cooper,
Nguyen, and Baturo (2003) in their analysis of constructivist reforms in Queensland schools.
Interestingly, the critical role of foundation knowledge is reflected in recent national syllabus
documents (e.g. ACARA, 2012) as well as by cognitive load researchers (e.g. Kirschner, Sweller,
 Journal of Curriculum Studies   185

& Clark, 2006; Swanson & Beebe-Frankenberger, 2004). Foundation knowledge is a central
aspect of East Asian mathematics curriculum (Cai & Cifarelli, 2004; Klein, 2007; Li, 2004).
The data illustrate that students in higher streamed classes were more likely to see math-
ematics as useful and relevant due to professional exchange/entry value, or because it devel-
oped transferable skills. Further, they were more able to have some success with the tasks.
These students were more inclined to accept the regulatory discourse, even if many still
considered maths boring. In short, they were delaying gratification, an attribute reported
to be indicative of higher achieving individuals (Mischel, 2014). This finding parallels the
research on high achievement reported in East Asian nations (e.g. Li, 2004; Ma, 1999).
We turn now to the breakdown of regulatory discourse. Cooper (2007) noted that a stu-
dent-centred instructional and regulatory discourse was prevalent in state primary schools
in this state. Similarly, Attard (2013) reported that in her case study of NSW Australian stu-
dents, there was a shift from social constructivist approach in primary school and students
missed this form of pedagogy when they entered secondary school. We may be seeing in
the data an unfortunate outcome of that, which was that to varying degrees, the students
had become accustomed to regulatory discourse in which they had some autonomy and
power sharing (Cooper, 2007; Muller, 2000). Upon entry to high school, a significant portion
was unwilling to accept the teacher-centred discourse. The teachers on the other hand were
largely committed to enacting the school mathematics tradition in attempting to keep the
doors for more advanced mathematics study open to students and this was more successful
in the first year of high school than later. The dominant method of attempting to achieve
this was to adopt teacher-centred pedagogy to deliver an essentially esoteric discipline. By
Year 9, it was apparent that the teachers were less able to foster high levels of ALT. Part of
the reason for this may be that Year 9 mathematics becomes increasingly abstract with more
algebra and proportional reasoning, thus increasing the cognitive demands on students;
many students lacked the cognitive tools to achieve success, particularly in the lower stream
classes. The teachers reported that the students wore them down and the teachers tended
to lower their expectation for academic exertion. In doing so they became less involved in
conflict with students even as student-to-student conflict increased. This observation helps
to explain the reduced ALT in Year 9 compared to Year 8 and from higher stream classes
to lower stream classes. In the lower stream classes, there was a lack of cognitive tools to
engage, lack of perceived utility of mathematics (instrumental) and an increased desire to
preserve a semblance of self-esteem. These factors interacted to increase students’ tendency
to label mathematics as boring and subsequently to test the limits of regulatory discourse.
The rejection of both the instructional and regulatory discourse in this case study has
been widely observed in Western schools (e.g. Attard, 2013; Boaler, 2002, 2005; Chalk, 2006;
Nardi & Steward, 2003; Noyes, 2012). In all streams, but especially in lower streams and with
less capable teachers, those students who disengaged and became disruptive contributed
to the inequality that is widely reported to be a product of streaming (e.g. Boaler, 2005;
Forgasz, 2010; VanderHart, 2006; Zevenbergen, 2003, 2005).

Conclusions
The wider data presented by Thomson et al. (2007) and the ACARA (2011) and MCEETYA
(2009, 2010, 2014) data and ICSEA index suggest that this school is not in a poor neighbour-
hood: it is a little below the national average and likely to be typical of many outer suburban
186    S. Norton

schools. Indeed, research suggests that the lack of engagement reported here may well be
a common phenomenon in the majority of schools in the West (Boaler, 2005; Chalk, 2006;
Nardi & Steward, 2003; Noyes, 2012; OECD, 2004).
The extent of academic engagement or disengagement reported is not new. Nor is the link
between instrumental and intrinsic motivation (e.g. OECD, 2004). Further, the unprepared-
ness of many students to engage with the secondary material is well documented, including
in this district (Norton, 2009). An analysis of the NAPLAN data (MCEETYA, 2009, 2010, 2014;
Norton, 2009) indicates that there is considerable room to improve the readiness of stu-
dents to undertake secondary school mathematics study, at this school and more broadly.
What the paper adds is a rich description of how cognitive preparedness, curriculum design
and intrinsic and instrumental motivations interact in classrooms. Classroom discourse is
predominantly described from insights of students’ descriptions of what happens in their
classrooms and why. A reasonable hypothesis is that the recommended primary curriculum
focusing on making mathematics intrinsically interesting by being authentic and engaging
has consequences for the transition to learning an esoteric discipline in high school. In effect,
the Western reform movement has caused the weighting on intrinsic motivational factors
to be amplified, or in Davis’s (2005) terminology, emphasis on students’ short-term pleas-
ure. While the study focuses on lower secondary observations, the literature (e.g. Cooper,
2007) and primary curriculum documents (ACARA, 2012; Queensland Studies Authority,
2004, 2010) related to primary learning in this state support the projection of mathematics
as authentic, intrinsically interesting and essentially mundane, and Cooper’s claim is that
this aspect of the curriculum has been implemented. Unfortunately, as the students pro-
gressed in high school, many did not find it fun, interesting or relevant, especially when
they could not do the work with reasonable ease. Thus, for many or perhaps most students,
the intrinsic motivation factor was lost. Further, the data indicate that mathematics was not
seen as instrumentally motivating; in particular, it was viewed as not relevant. The author’s
supposition is that this is an indictment of the overemphasis of mundane knowledge forms
(Muller & Taylor, 1995) or horizontal knowledge forms (Bernstein, 1996, 2000). In Bernstein’s
terms, the primary and lower secondary instructional discourse had failed many students
and as the students progressed into Year 9, the regulatory discourse broke down. The result
in classrooms, especially the lower streams, was low engagement as manifested in low ALT
incorporating disruptive behaviours and passive withdrawal from the learning processes.
The student data clearly show that most students recognize and resent the interruptions
to their class work. In many cases, they are deeply concerned and sometimes angry at peers
who disrupt. This suggests that there is scope for reviewing student management strate-
gies, possibly by insisting on greater compliance of disruptive students, but this may well
be a treatment of symptoms rather than causes. Still, the data indicate that the majority of
students are likely to support such reform.
The findings reported here have implications for curriculum. An area of disconnect relates
to students’ expectations that mathematics ought to be ‘fun’ and ‘authentic’, that is, immedi-
ately relevant to day-to-day life or what Bernstein terms mundane, or horizontal. In construc-
tivist teaching recommendations, this depiction of the nature of mathematics is coupled
with beliefs in power sharing in student-centred classrooms (Muller, 2000). Unfortunately,
as Hattie (2009) points out, and the data support, not all mathematics is fun or immediately
relevant. Frequently, learning mathematics requires repetition and hard work, and it may be
difficult for students to see the immediate application of much of the foundational skills when
 Journal of Curriculum Studies   187

a calculator or computer program is at hand. Thus, encouraging a belief that mathematics

ought to be fun and immediately relevant can be counterproductive. When students with
these expectations (that maths is fun and relevant) enter lower secondary classrooms that
focus on esoteric knowledge forms relying on fluency and understanding of foundational
mathematical facts and processes, the teachers face considerable challenges unless the
students have long-term goals for studying mathematics.
The reported East Asian strategy for teaching mathematics has traditionally been some-
what different. Both instructional and regulatory discourses focus on instrumental moti-
vation factors. This spins off to intrinsic motivational factors in part because the students
tend to have the cognitive tools to engage. Students tend to like things in which they can
achieve success and dislike things at which they fail. Thus, it would seem that without rad-
ical re-alignment of curriculum goals, the solution to re-engaging lower secondary school
students in mathematics study lies in more effective teaching practices at primary levels
to give students the cognitive and affective tools to engage with and, at lower secondary
school, to capitalize on this. It may be worth considering the advice of Huntington (2000)
that changing culture via the political process is possible and worthwhile contemplating,
since school culture is both a reflection and form of community culture. Not to make some
significant changes will almost certainly yield similar low standards and disengagement
from a significant portion of the student population. Certainly one aspect of culture that
schools might attempt to change is to decrease the nexus between short-term pleasure
expectations and an anticipation that academic study needs to always be fun and relevant.
In short, the major finding I take from these data is that the early overemphasis on mundane
mathematics and intrinsic motivation is working to the detriment of significant portions of
students and limiting their future options. There are many possible factors that contribute to
the decline in attitude towards mathematics in the transition from primary school to middle
school and this research adds to the discourse.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes on contributor
Stephen Norton is a senior lecturer in mathematics teacher education at the School of Education
and Professional Studies at Griffith University Australia. He attempts to teach teachers to teach from
counting to calculus. His current research passion is the role of foundational knowledge in mathematics
teaching and learning. Norton’s main resource for preparing teachers to teach primary and middle
school mathematics is “Teaching and Learning Fundamental Mathematics” (Norton, 2014).

References
An, S. (2004). Capturing the way of teaching: The learning-questioning and learning-reviewing
instructional model. In L. Fan, N.-Y. Wong, J. Cai, & S. Li (Eds.), How Chinese learn mathematics:
Perspectives from insiders (pp. 462–502). Singapore: World Scientific.
Anderson, T., & Shattuck, J. (2012). Design-based research: A decade of progress in education research?.
Educational Researcher, 41, 16–25.
188    S. Norton

Attard, C. (2013). ‘If I had to pick any subject, it wouldn’t be maths’: Foundations for engagement with
mathematics during the middle years. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 25, 569–587.
Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA). (2011). MySchool. Retrieved from
http://www.myschool.edu.au/
Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA). (2012). The Australian curriculum:
Mathematics. Retrieved from http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/Mathematics/Rationale
Australian Education Council. (1990). A national statement on mathematics for Australian schools. Carlton:
Curriculum Corporation for the Australian Educational Council.
Bernstein, B. (1975). Class, codes and control (Vol. 3). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Bernstein, B. (1990). Class, codes and control. London: Routledge.
Bernstein, B. (1996). Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity. Theory, research, critique. London: Taylor
and Francis.
Bernstein, B. (2000). Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity (rev ed.). Lanham, MD: Rowan & Littlefield.
Boaler, J. (2002). The development of displinary relationships: Knowledge, practice, and identity in
mathematics classooms. For the Learning of Mathematics, 22, 42–47.
Boaler, J. (2005). The ‘psychological prisons’ from which they never escape: The role of ability grouping
in reproducing social class inequalities. Forum, 47, 125–134.
Brown, B., & Saks, D. (1986). Measuring the effects of instructional time on student learning: Evidence
from the beginning teacher evaluation study. American Journal of Education, 94, 480–500.
Cai, J., & Cifarelli, V. (2004). Thinking mathematically by Chinese learners: A cross-national comparative
perspective. In L. Fan, N.-Y. Wong, J. Cai, & S. Li (Eds.), How Chinese learn mathematics: Perspectives
from insiders (pp. 71–106). Singapore: World Scientific.
Chalk, F. (2006). It’s your time you’re wasting: Teachers’ tales of classroom hell. Cheltenham: Monday Books.
Cooper, R. (2007). An investigation into constructivism within an outcomes based curriculum. Issues in
Educational Research, 17, 1–20. Retrieved from: http://www.iier.org.au/iier17/cooper.html
Cooper, T., Nguyen, A., & Baturo, A. (2003). An expert analysis of the rich tasks in relation to teaching
Mathematics Years 1 to 9. Retrieved from http://education.qld.gov.au/corporate/newbasics/pdfs/
richtaskrep3-final-8.4.03.pdf
Davis, Z. (2005). Pleasure and pedagogic discourse in school mathematics: A case study of a problem-
centred pedagogic modality (Unpublished PhD dissertation). University of Cape Town, Cape Town.
Driessnack, M. (2005). Children's drawings as facilitators of communication: A meta-analysis. Journal
of Pediatric Nursing, 20, 415–423.
Elms, L. (2004a). Maths quest 1: For Queensland. Milton: Jacaranda.
Elms, L. (2004b). Maths quest 2: For Queensland. Milton: Jacaranda.
Fan, L., & Zhu, T. (2004). How have Chinese students performed in mathematics? A perspective from
large-scale international comparisons. In L. Fan, N.-Y. Wong, J. Cai, & S. Li (Eds.), How Chinese learn
mathematics: Perspectives from insiders (pp. 3–26). Singapore: World Scientific.
Fennema, E., & Sherman, J. (1976). Fennema-Sherman mathematics attitudes scales: Instruments
designed to measure attitudes toward the learning of mathematics by females and males. Journal
for Research in Mathematics Education, 7, 324–326.
Forgasz, H. (2010). Streaming for mathematics in years 7–10 in Victoria: An issue of equity? Mathematics
Education Research Journal, 22, 57–90.
Fraser, B. (1998). Classroom environment instruments: Development, validity and applications. Learning
Environments Research, 1, 7–34.
Gettinger, M., & Seibert, J. (2011). Best practices in increasing academic learning time. Best
practices in school psychology. Retrieved from http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/
search?hl=en&gbv=2&rlz=1R2SUNC_enAU359&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=3329l42516l0l45954l102l94l
7l40l3l9l422l8328l0.4.20.6.1l31 l0&q=cache:4jbF2RF3F_UJ; http://www.aea1.k12.ia.us/docs/
gettinger.pdf±best±practices±in±increasing±academic±learning±time&ct=clnk
Gregg, J. (1995). The tensions and contradictions of the school mathematics tradition. Journal for
Research in Mathematics Education, 26, 442–466.
Gu, L., Huang, R., & Marton, F. (2004). Teaching with variation: A Chinese way of promoting effective
mathematics learning. In L. Fan, N.-Y. Wong, J. Cai, & S. Li (Eds.), How Chinese learn mathematics:
Perspectives from insiders (pp. 309–347). Singapore: World Scientific.
 Journal of Curriculum Studies   189

Haladyna, T., Shaughnessy, J., & Shaughnessy, J. (1983). A causal analysis of attitude toward mathematics.
Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 14, 19–29.
Hannula, M. (2002). Attitudes towards mathematics: Emotions, expectations and values. Educational
Studies in Mathematics, 49, 25–46.
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London:
Routledge.
Hiebert, J. (2003). What research says about the NCTM standards. In J. Kilpatrick, W. Martin, & D. Schifter
(Eds.), A research companion to principles and standards for school mathematics (pp. 5–23). Reston,
VA: NCTM.
Huang, R., & Leung, K. (2004). Cracking the paradox of Chinese learners: Looking into mathematics
classrooms in Hong Kong and Shanghai. In L. Fan, N.-Y. Wong, J. Cai, & S. Li (Eds.), How Chinese learn
mathematics: Perspectives from insiders (pp. 348–381). Singapore: World Scientific.
Huntington, S. (2000). Culture counts. In L. Harrison & S. Huntingtion (Eds.), Culture matters: How values
shape human progress (pp. xiii–xvi). New York, NY: Basic Books.
Jensen, B. (2012). Catching up: Learning from the best school systems in East Asia. Grattan Institute.
Retrieved from http://grattan.edu.au/static/files/assets/23afab6b/129_report_learning_from_the_
best_main.pdf
Kirschner, P., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An
analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based
teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41, 75–86.
Klein, D. (2007). A quarter century of US ‘math wars’ and political partisanship. BSHM Bulletin: Journal
of the British Society for the History of Mathematics, 22, 22–33.
Lafayete De Mente, B. (2009). The Chinese mind. Tokyo: Tuttle.
Lee, W. O. (1996). The cultural context of Chinese learners: Concepts of learning in the Confucian
tradition. In D. A. Watkins & J. B. Briggs (Eds.), The Chinese learner (pp. 45–67). Hong Kong: Comparative
Education Research Centre.
Li, J. (2004). Chinese cultural model of learning. In L. Fan, N.-Y. Wong, J. Cai, & S. Li (Eds.), How Chinese
learn mathematics: Perspectives from insiders (pp. 124–156). Singapore: World Scientific.
Ma, L. (1999). Knowing and teaching elementary mathematics. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ma, X., & Kishor, N. (1997). Assessing the relationship between attitude toward mathematics and
achievement in mathematics: A meta-analysis. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28,
26–47.
Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA). (2009). National
assessment program, literacy and numeracy. Carlton: Curriculum Corporation.
Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA). (2010). National
assessment program, literacy and numeracy. Carlton: Curriculum Corporation.
Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA). (2014). National
assessment program, literacy and numeracy. Carlton: Curriculum Corporation.
Mischel, W. (2014). The marsh mellow test: Understanding self-control and how to master it. London:
Bantam Press.
Muller, J. (2000). Reclaiming knowledge: Social theory, curriculum and education policy. London: Routledge
Falmer.
Muller, J., & Taylor, N. (1995). Schooling and everyday life: Knowledges sacred and profane. Social
Epistemology, 9, 257–275.
Nardi, E., & Steward, S. (2003). Is mathematics T.I.R.E.D? A profile of quiet disaffection in the secondary
mathematics classroom. British Journal of Educational Research, 29, 345–367.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school
mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
Norton, S. (2009). Year 9 NAPLAN numeracy test 2008 and the response of one school. Australian
Mathematics Teacher, AAMT, 65, 26–37.
Norton, S. (2012). The use of alternative algorithms in whole number computation. International Journal
of Mathematics Teaching and Learning, 26, 2–16. Retrieved from http://www.cimt.plymouth.ac.uk/
journal/default.htm
190    S. Norton

Norton, S., & Rennie, L. (1998). Students’ attitudes towards mathematics in single-sex and coeducational
schools. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 10, 16–36.
Norton, S., & Zhang, Q. (2013). Year 8 Chinese student’s engagement with mathematics learning.
International Journal of Mathematics Teaching and Learning, 1–24. Retrieved from http://www.cimt.
plymouth.ac.uk/journal/
Noyes, A. (2012). It matters which class you are in: Student-centred teaching and the enjoyment of
learning mathematics. Research in Mathematics Education, 14, 273–290.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2004). Learning for tomorrow’s
world: Student learning, engagement and strategies. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/edu/school/
programmeforinternationalstudentassessmentpisa/33918006.pdf
Peterson, P., Swing, S., Stark, K., & Waas, G. (1984). Students' cognitions and time on task during
mathematics instruction. American Educational Research Journal, 21, 487–515.
Pintrich, P., Marx, R., & Boyle, R. (1993). Beyond cold conceptual change: The role of motivational
beliefs and classroom contextual factors in the process of conceptual change. Review of Educational
Research, 63, 167–199.
Queensland Audit Office. (2013). Supply of specialist subject teachers in secondary schools (Report to
Parliament). Queensland Audit Office, The State of Queensland.
Queensland Studies Authority. (2004). Mathematics: Years 1 to 10 syllabus. Spring Hill: Queensland
Studies Authority.
Queensland Studies Authority. (2010). Essential learnings and standards Years 1-9: Mathematics. Retrieved
from http://www.qsa.qld.edu.au/7296.html
Sealey, P., & Noyes, A. (2010). On the relevance of the mathematics curriculum to young people. The
Curriculum Journal, 21, 239–253.
Seifert, E. H., & Beck, J. J. (1984). Relationships between task time and learning gains in secondary
schools. The Journal of Educational Research, 78, 5–10.
Sfard, A. (2003). Balancing the unbalanceable: The NCTM standards in the light of theories of learning
mathematics. In J. Kilpatrick, W. Martin, & D. Schifter (Eds.), A research companion to principles
and standards for school mathematics (pp. 353–392). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of
Mathematics.
Swanson, H. L, & Beebe-Frankenberger, M. (2004). The relationship between working memory and
mathematical problem solving in children at risk and not at risk for serious math difficulties. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 96, 471–491.
Thomson, S., Hillman, K., Wernert, N., Schmid, M., & Munene, A. (2012). Highlights from the TIMMS and
PIRLS 2011 from Australia’s perspective. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.
Thomson, S., Wernert, N., Underwood, C., & Nicholas, M. (2007). TIMSS 07: Taking a closer look at
mathematics and science in Australia. Retrieved from http://www.acer.edu.au/documents/
TIMSS_2007-AustraliaFullReport.pdf
Vale, C. (2010). Supporting ‘out-of-field’ teachers of secondary mathematics. Australian Mathematics
Teacher, 66, 17–24.
van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M. (2008). Learning from ‘Didactikids’: An impetus for revisiting the empty
number line. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 20, 6–31.
VanderHart, P. (2006). Why do some schools group by ability? Some evidence from the NAEP. American
Journal of Economics and Sociology, 65, 435–462.
Wang, T., & Murphy, J. (2004). An examination of coherence in a Chinese mathematics classroom. In L.
Fan, N.-Y. Wong, J. Cai, & S. Li (Eds.), How Chinese learn mathematics: Perspectives from insiders (pp.
107–124). Singapore: World Scientific.
Zevenbergen, R. (2003). Grouping by ability: A self-fulfilling prophecy? Australian Mathematics Teacher,
59, 2–7.
Zevenbergen, R. (2005). The construction of a mathematical ‘habitus’: Implications of ability grouping
in the middle years. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37, 607–619.
Zhang, D., Li, S., & Tang, R. (2004). The ‘two basics’: Mathematics teaching and learning in mainland
China. In L. Fan, N.-Y. Wong, J. Cai, & S. Li (Eds.), How Chinese learn mathematics: Perspectives from
insiders (pp. 189–207). Singapore: World Scientific.
Copyright of Journal of Curriculum Studies is the property of Routledge and its content may
not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.