MERN Journal-V07 2013

The MERN Journal, Volume 7, 2013 1

Message from the Guest Editor
This collection had its beginnings in the 2013 “Inquiry into Mathematics Education” MERN
Forum. Its authors represent one of MERN’s best qualities – the diversity of experiences and
backgrounds of its participants. As with a new box of chocolates, readers face a can’t-lose
question: which one first? Perhaps that depends on your personal involvement in mathematics
education.
For parents of pre-school children, I recommend the contribution by Sheri-Lynn Skwarchuk.

Drawing on her participation in a national research project, Sheri describes how parents can
weave mathematics into everyday interactions with their children, providing a potent foundation
of experiences for school mathematics.

Three selections might appeal especially to teachers of mathematics as entry points to the
collection. Illustrated with rich detail from his research about the mathematical cognition of
students who struggle to learn mathematics, Paul Betts offers readers an opportunity to share
his belief in the goal of success for all students as learners of mathematics. The piece by Don
Metz invites teachers of senior years mathematics to think differently about the potency of
lessons with real-world contexts. Marc Kuly, Val Mytopher, and Chris Neufeld share the story of
their collaborative action research. Hoping to deepen the engagement of grade 8 students in
learning proportions, they linked the mathematics content to issues of social justice, but the
results fell far short of their goals. By sharing their story in the MERN Forum and in this article,
the three teachers found the real reward for their collaborative inquiry.
Educational leaders might choose to begin with one of the articles offering different perspectives
on recent curriculum changes in Manitoba. Ken Clark and Ian Donnelly each provide details
about how Manitoba Education grounds its curriculum activity in research, through their own
collection of data from provincial assessments and synopses of relevant research by others.
Thomas Falkenberg offers food for thought with a retrospective view of recent revisions to the
K-8 mathematics curriculum document, emphasizing the importance of curriculum activity being
aligned with our shared goals for public education. Finally, Jerry Ameis offers two unique pieces
on the ongoing public discourse about how mathematics should be taught.
I have saved a description of David Anderson’s article for last. For me, the article offers readers
rewards of two kinds. First, David presents his view of mathematics teaching aligned with an
Anishinabe perspective. However, underlying that work is a compelling case for a deep idea –
that because mathematics is in the lived world of our children, they can all learn mathematics.
Children make sense of their personal worlds in many ways, using many cognitive tools. We
can help children to use mathematics as conceptual tools to make sense of their worlds. By
using mathematics as tools of understanding, learners make sense of the tools that they use.
The result is that they will learn mathematics.
Ultimately, that is the message of the collection as a whole. As a community of inquirers with a
common cause, it is necessary for us to think deeply about the learning of mathematics each in
our own ways, sharing as we learn. As we align our teaching of mathematics with the ways in
which our children learn, they will learn mathematics.
– Ralph Mason

MERN
Manitoba Education Research Network
The Manitoba Education Research Network receives support from Manitoba Education,
the five faculties of education, and education partner organizations in the province. Now
in its ninth year, the Network has an established agenda of annual events and research
activities that respond to provincial educational priorities in the context of continuous
school improvement and professional development.
MERN's purpose is twofold:
1. to disseminate Manitoba-based education research, and

2. to support partner research activities that aim to strengthen Manitoba education as a
field of knowledge.
2012-13 Research Affiliates

Aboriginal Education Directorate Manitoba First Nations Education
Brandon University Resource Centre
Council of School Leaders of the Manitoba Metis Federation
Manitoba Teachers’ Society Manitoba School Boards Association
Manitoba Association of Parent Councils Manitoba School Improvement Program
Manitoba Association of School Business Manitoba Teachers’ Society
Officials Red River College
Manitoba Association of School Treaty Relations Commission of
Superintendents Manitoba
Manitoba Association for Supervision and Université de Saint-Boniface
Curriculum Development University College of the North
Manitoba Education University of Manitoba
University of Winnipeg
copy editing for volume 7 by Marion Terry

Professor, Brandon University
online cover design for volume 7 by Michael Nantais

Assistant Professor, Brandon University
We wish especially to recognize the Manitoba Teachers’ Society for financially supporting the
printing of this special issue of the MERN journal.
2 The MERN Journal, Volume 7, 2013

MERN JOURNAL
Volume 7, 2013
Special Forum
Inquiry into Mathematics Education page
Advancing the Counting Strategies of Young Children Identified as Struggling 5

To Learn Mathematics
– Paul Betts
Anishinabe Mathematics: A Way of Seeing and Doing 11

– David Anderson
Encouraging the “Mathematical Genius” that Is in Every Child 15

– Sheri-Lynn Skwarchuk
Joe and Sigmund: A Looking-Back Chat with Implications for Today’s Math 20
Debates
– Jerry Ameis
Learning To Fail: Our Journey through Math, Social Justice, Action Research, 24
and Collaboration
– Marc Kuly, Val Mytopher, and Chris Neufeld
Literature Review Summary of the WNCP Research Project Final Report 29

– Ian Donnelly
Mathematicians Teaching Mathematics to K-8 Pre-Service Teachers: The End 35

of an Anachronism
– Jerry Ameis
Provincial Mathematics Assessment in Manitoba 46

– Ken Clark
The Recent Manitoba K-8 Mathematics Curriculum Revision: Interrogating Its 49

Rationale and Outcome
– Thomas Falkenberg
Understanding Contextual Teaching in Mathematics 54

– Don Metz
Author Biographies 61

MERN

Manitoba Education Research Network
Special Forum
“Inquiry into Mathematics Education”
Friday, March 15, 2013
University of Manitoba
Faculty of Education
Hosted by
Faculty of Education, University of Manitoba
Faculty of Education, University of Winnipeg

ADVANCING THE COUNTING STRATEGIES OF YOUNG CHILDREN

IDENTIFIED AS STRUGGLING TO LEARN MATHEMATICS
Paul Betts
Abstract
Can we help all children to succeed at school mathematics? A specific number race game,
which is a learning environment for young children to advance their counting strategies,
provides the context for the examples used throughout this paper. First, I describe the kinds of
counting that all children can do. Children who are struggling to learn mathematics can learn
and practice more sophisticated strategies than they currently rely on, progress that matters as
they move toward computational settings. Second, I encourage teachers to notice the counting
strategies of their young children who seem to struggle to learn mathematics, as these
observations can inform their professional decision-making. Finally, I anticipate that the features
of this game will inspire teachers to design learning environments that continue the goal of a
deep noticing of young children’s sense making.
Advancing the Counting Strategies of Young Children

Identified as Struggling to Learn Mathematics
I believe that all children can succeed in the activities of school mathematics. I believe in this
ideal in the face of my own work with children who are not succeeding, despite their teachers’
every effort to lead these children to deeper understandings of school math. The principal goal
of this paper is to begin exploring a crucial question: can we help all children to succeed at
school mathematics?
In particular, I consider young children (grades K-3) who are not succeeding in school
mathematics. The work of Griffin (2007) with young children is a possibility. Griffin’s Three
Worlds model is premised on the idea that mathematical learning environments can be
designed to focus on one or more of three worlds: the verbal world, the real/concrete world, and
the symbolic world. The quantity three, for example, can be represented in the verbal world with
words such as “three,” in the real/concrete world by holding up three fingers, and in the symbolic
world by recording a “3.” Griffin argued that mathematical learning environments should initially
be designed exclusively within the verbal and real/concrete worlds. After sufficient active
experience within and between these two worlds, when the child appears competent and
confident with a concept, the symbolic world is layered into the verbal and real/concrete. Later in
the paper, I revisit Griffin’s work in the context of my own work with young children.
I also consider a fundamental concept and skill in young children’s mathematical experiences,
namely counting. Teachers of children in grades K-3 are noticing that some of their students are
not developing more sophisticated strategies for counting, strategies that matter for later
computational settings. Here, Wright and Martland’s Math Recovery Program provides some
illumination because it includes a well-defined continuum for children’s development of counting
strategies (e.g., Wright, Martland, & Stafford, 2010). For example, the counting continuum has
levels from counting up, to counting on forward, to counting on backward, to counting backward
to find a difference.1 After identifying a child’s current level of progress along the counting

1
I have converted the terminology used by Wright and Martland to language more common in Manitoba,
at the risk of possibility misleading the actual structure of this continuum.

continuum, learning opportunities can be designed to lead a child to strategy use in the next
stage of the continuum. One learning opportunity, for example, intended to foster a shift from
counting up to counting on forward, is for children to create quantities using their fingers while
their hands are hidden from view (such as behind their back). A child, for example, could
respond to the task “make rabbit ears seven” by placing both hands on his/her head (like rabbit
ears) with one hand showing 5 and the other 2 (or 4 and 3). Removing the fingers from the
child’s visual field encourages the child to move from saying “1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 – 6 – 7” to
thinking of a handful of fingers as five, and then saying “6 – 7” for the additional two fingers.
Wright and his colleagues have generated evidence that their program helps children who
struggle to learn math, and can be implemented in regular whole-class settings with positive
results for all learners.
The work of Griffin (2007) and of Wright and Martland (Wright et al., 2010) has been useful to
me in helping young children to be successful, that is, for helping young children to develop
more sophisticated counting strategies. In particular, with young children identified by their
teachers as struggling to learn math, I have used a specific number race game as a learning
environment for young children to advance their counting strategies. This game, its features,
and what I have observed young children do while playing the game provide the context for the
examples used throughout this paper. First, I describe the kinds of counting that all children can
do. Children who are struggling to learn mathematics can learn and practice more sophisticated
strategies than they currently rely on, progress that will matter as they move toward
computational settings. Second, I encourage teachers to notice the counting strategies of their
young children who seem to struggle to learn mathematics, as these observations can inform
their professional decision-making to develop the mathematical abilities of their students.
Finally, I anticipate that the features of a game – in general and as they apply to the specific
number game that I used – will inspire teachers to design learning environments that continue
the goal of a deep noticing of young children’s sense making.
Can a Number Race Game be a Learning Environment

for Advancing Counting Strategies?
Playing the Game
This game was first developed by Siegler and Ramani (2008). The number game is a
race, played on a board with numbers arranged in a grid like a hundreds board. In my work, we
usually play from 1 to 20, although it can be played from any starting to any finishing point. The
roll of one die is used to determine how far a player’s token will move. Players alternate moving
their tokens, and the goal is to finish the race (or finish the race first if more competition is
desired). The unique and important feature of this game is an unusual requirement while moving
a token. A player must state the number of each square landed on during a move, and must find
some way other than counting aloud from “1” to track how far the token should be moved in a
single turn. If a player is on 13 and rolls a 3 (see figure 1), then he/she would say “14 – 15 – 16”
while moving the token three spaces. The potency of this game lies in the strategies that
children use to determine that they stop moving their tokens after the correct number of spaces.

I have played this game with children in
grades 1, 2 and 3, observing the same
pattern of strategy development many
times. On the first roll, normal counting from
“1” matches both the positional count and
the number of moves performed so far in
the turn. On the second roll, the children
start to count from “1,” and I interrupt with a
reminder about the unusual counting rule.
This stops the game because the children
do not know how to keep track. In some
instances, I have suggested to children that
they use their fingers, while on other
occasions a child suggests finger use – it is
a balance between stopping the game for
too long and waiting for a child to suggest a strategy. Play then proceeds with a new skill to
develop, namely, the coordination needed to match saying the number words of each space,
moving their tokens, and tracking with their fingers (some children initially need extra help with
this skill, by using my fingers and/or oral assistance stating the number words of each space).
Children quickly realize that a roll of 1 is easy and can be done without their fingers – it is the
next space. A roll of 6 prompts a new problem: one hand does not have enough fingers and the
other hand is employed moving a token! Initially, children use a second hand. Soon, one child
announces “it is just one more.” After observing other children deal with 6, most children move
six by using their fingers up to five and then one more space. When I observe children repeating
this strategy for 6, I know they have successfully developed and practised, and thus have
mastered (in this context, at least) the experience of decomposing six into five and one.
After practising and mastering the skill of coordinating a move by using their fingers, a shift in
strategies occurs. One shift in strategy use is with the roll of 2 or 3. I observe that children will
stop using their fingers to track spaces moved. When asked how they knew when to stop, they
usually claim, “I just knew.” I believe these children are immediately seeing the distance of
spaces, without counting, because the number of spaces is small enough. I have labeled this
strategy “geometric subitizing.” I do not believe that the children have extended their strategy for
one or decomposed the roll quantity. They do not, for example, seem to handle three as one
and one and one, or as two and one. Three has become a single move of a specific distance,
not a count of three positions. I believe three is geometrically subitized because I observe none
of the strategies to be described below when children do, indeed, seem to be decomposing a
larger die roll into smaller amounts. After this strategy is first observed, it is not long before other
children playing the game are practising and mastering this new skill.
The next shift in strategy use involves handling larger numbers, that is, numbers that cannot be
handled using the strategy described above (geometric subitizing). It is not clear why this shift
suddenly happens. What is clear is the sense of accomplishment by the child who first makes
this discovery. It is also clear that other children, when reminded to try this new strategy, are
able to try it, practise it, and master the skill. Mathematically, this strategy is to decompose a
larger die roll into two smaller quantities that can be handled by geometric subitizing.
It was Tina who first showed me this new strategy. She rolled a 4 and smiled. “Dr. Betts,” she
said, “I can do this without my fingers!” She proceeded to move forward two spaces, pause, and
move forward two more spaces (while still naming the spaces landed on as per the rule). This

was a moment of delight for both us: for Tina because she knew she had done something
special – a bigger number without her fingers, and for me because it was completely
unexpected – it was the first time I had seen a child make this shift. I did not know about such a
strategy – I was the learner and Tina the teacher. I did not know that children could make this
kind of shift in thinking (although the reader will probably recognize that I do not know what sorts
of prior experiences for Tina contributed to this shift, except that her teacher had noted that she
persisted to count up when counting on had been modeled frequently).
I had Tina explain her strategy again to the other children, and reminded everyone of the
strategy. It did not take long for other children to try out the strategy as part of their sense
making. I often observed children using head bobs or a rhythmic intonation for naming the
spaces to help them perform this new strategy. Given a roll of 6 and starting from the 12 space,
for example, a child would bob his/her head twice, then twice again, then twice again. Another
child might rhythmically intonate vocalizations in two groups of three (e.g., “13 – 14 – 15 . . . 16
– 17 – 18” (with the increasing font size of the numbers indicating increases in volume). In both
examples, the extra activity helps the children to co-ordinate the requirements for moving their
tokens.
Later on, we were able to articulate more fully why this strategy worked: that four is two spaces
and two more spaces; and that five is two and two and one, or three and two (I did not observe
four and one, probably because four is not amenable to using the geometric subitizing strategy);
and that six is two and two and two, or three and three. Thus, these children are constructing a
model of numbers in which they can be either counted or decomposed into smaller numbers.
The hope of the emergence and practising of decomposition strategies by a child to co-ordinate
the requirements for moving a token is that the strategies are an advancement of counting
strategies. Further, this advancement matters when the context moves from counting to
computation. The children I worked with persisted to count up before playing the game. After
playing the game and observing the confident use of decomposition strategies, I was able to
teach children a counting on forward strategy in the context of playing “Make 10” (Betts, 2015).
In other words, they were able to use a more advanced strategy – counting on – to calculate a
combination of two quantities.
Fit of the Game with Numeracy Learning Environment Models
Theoretically speaking, the above story of counting strategy advancement by children who
struggle to learn mathematics is of interest to me because of the game’s fit with models for
designing numeracy learning environments, which I briefly described in the introduction. The
game can be easily seen as following constructivist principles. The gaming environment is an
opportunity for children to experience a richer understanding of numbers. In this case, the
children’s co-ordination of move requirements, by using heads bobs or rhythmic intonations, is
an experience decomposing a larger die roll into smaller die rolls. The principle of facilitating
learning is a dilemma for the instructor: at what point does an instructor stop waiting for children
to invent a strategy? I faced the challenge of finding a balance between reducing frustration and
waiting for child-lead strategies as follows. When first learning the game, I opted to quickly
introduce the strategy of using fingers to track spaces moved, thinking it better to get the game
moving. Later, I was more willing to wait, allowing enjoyment of the game to motivate continued
play, but then emphasizing a new strategy after it first appeared.
Wright and Martland’s model of counting-strategy development (Wright et al., 2010) can fit with
the game as well. Some of the children I worked with had been identified as persistently

counting up, not developing the counting on strategy even though it had been taught in various
contexts (e.g., dice, counters). After playing the game with these children for several weeks, I
again tried to teach counting on. The children who shifted to the decomposition strategy learned
to count on. They were able to extend their capabilities with the strategy in an addition context.
(See Betts, 2015, for a more detailed accounting of this story.) Teacher observations identified
the specific stage on the numeracy continuum where these students were stalled, and the game
was the learning environment that provided the needed experiences for developing toward the
next level in the continuum.
Griffin’s (2007) Three Worlds model is also evident. In playing the game, the focus is on
real/concrete and verbal worlds at the targeted concept (advancement of counting strategies),
whereas the game board includes a symbolic world where a concept is already mastered
(number naming). The children could already name number words up to the highest number on
the game board (this is the condition for deciding the ending number), so it is reasonable for the
presence of the symbolic world on the game board (if the children had not mastered naming the
number symbols on a game board, then the game is problematic, based on Griffin’s model.) On
the other hand, children are talking about their moves and working with real/concrete or tangible
representations (dots on a die, fingers) of their discussions. The unusual requirement for moving
a token opens up exploration of verbal and real number worlds for the size of quantities,
because the children find another way to track their token movements and co-ordinate this with
number naming – this co-ordination is the head bobbing or rhythmic intonations that are an
experience of decomposing larger number rolls into smaller number rolls.
Another possibility is to consider a neuroscientific idea: learning is supported by “informational

feedback” (Butterworth, Varma, & Laurillard, 2011). These researchers describe informational
feedback in terms of a gaming mathematical learning environment. For each move of a player,
the gaming environment provides feedback in the form of information concerning the quality of
the move. This feedback can be explicit or implicit, immediate or delayed. Of import is that as a
player adapts to the information, his/her play improves over time (although improvement is not
necessarily linear or continuous). Butterworth claimed, based on some empirical evidence, that
informational feedback is a quality of mathematical learning environments that can benefit
children who struggle to learn mathematics.
While playing the number race game, the pattern of increasingly sophisticated strategies could
be interpreted as adaptation to information feedback. First, the game is hard to continue after
the first move without a new strategy, in this case information provided by the instructor.
Subsequently, playing the game is about noticing, trying, practising, and mastering skills that
make the game easier to play. The children seem to be motivated to reduce the awkwardness
of co-ordinating the requirements for making a move. The information feedback elements of the
game are indications of reducing the awkwardness of a move by drawing on prior knowledge
(e.g., Tina already knew in some way that 2+2=4) and by observing the game actions of other
players. This reduction in awkwardness corresponds with experiences with mathematical
concepts – that is, playing the game sets the stage for noticing a rich example space for
understanding the decomposition of a number into smaller numbers.
Conclusions
There are many possible conclusions that I could draw from the above experiences with
creating mathematical learning environments for children who struggle to learn mathematics. I
suggest two broad questions as food-for-thought – as a way to further explore some of the
possibilities for how we could help children who struggle to learn mathematics.

First, what are the features of a gaming environment that might qualify it as a mathematical
learning environment that helps children who struggle to learn mathematics? I have suggested
that information feedback is a process by which children adapt to a gaming environment, so that
successes with the game are experiences that set the stage for understanding formalized
mathematical concepts. However, it is not clear how or why information feedback emerges in a
gaming environment (let alone its potential in non-gaming environments, such as working with
manipulatives). Is the teacher’s presence necessary, or can independent game play be
effective? How important is the quality of interactions among game players? When does a
teacher model a strategy and when does she/he wait, even in the face of a child struggling to
make sense of a situation? When a child plays a video/computer/ipad game, the game’s
programming provides various kinds of feedback that indicates progress at achieving the goals
and sub-goals of the game. Can games be built, or already exist, whereby progress at the game
signals readiness for, or mastery of, some formalized mathematical concept?
Second, how do we negotiate the interplay of Griffin’s (2007) three worlds within a learning
environment? The game described in this paper illustrates how these three worlds could interact
in dynamic ways. Does every mathematical idea have an incarnation in each of the three
worlds? How does a teacher decide when, how, and how much of the symbolic world is
introduced after working in the verbal and real/concrete worlds? In the game, this can be seen
as follows: responding “twenty three” to the symbol 23 is a verbal response to part of the
symbolic world. On the other hand, 2+2=4 is part of the symbolic world that is not made
available by the teacher, in favour of the verbal world and real world aspects of the game that
facilitate experiences in decomposing numbers (i.e., co-ordination of the requirements of a
move by head bobbing or rhythmic intonations); these experiences set the stage for later
revealing the symbolic world of decomposition. There is clearly a dynamic interaction between
each of the three worlds of mathematics, but it is not clear how to negotiate these worlds as a
child’s numeracy abilities develop.
I ask these questions as an invitation for teachers. The number race game and the ideas for
designing other numeracy learning environments are possibilities advance teachers’ own
practice. Experimenting with these possibilities is a space for shifting our attention from labeling
children as struggling2 to learn mathematics to designing mathematical learning environments
within which children can learn mathematics. Designing learning environments for each child is
an opportunity to notice more fully the advancement of children’s strategies and sense making.
References
Betts, P. (in press). Counting on using a number game. Teaching Children Mathematics.
Butterworth, B., Varma, S., & Laurillard, D. (2011). Dyscalculia: From brain to education.
Science, 332, 1049-1053. doi:10.1126/science.1201536
Griffin, S. (2007). Early intervention for children at risk of developing mathematical learning
difficulties. In D. Berch & M. Mazzocco (Eds.), Why is math so hard for some children?
The nature and origins of mathematical learning difficulties and disabilities (pp. 373-396).
Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
Siegler, R., & Ramani, G. (2008). Playing linear numerical board games promotes low-income
children’s numerical development. Developmental Science, 11(5), 655–661.
Wright, R., Martland, J., & Stafford, A. (2010). Early numeracy: Assessment for teaching &
intervention (2nd ed.). London, England: SAGE.

2
I am deliberately guilty of this attention to labeling (i.e., “struggling”) for the purpose of illuminating a
need to shift our attention.

ANISHINABE MATHEMATICS: A WAY OF SEEING AND DOING
David Anderson (WahWahbigiinoojii)

University College of the North
Abstract
The following article approaches teaching mathematics from an Anishinabe perpective, as one
of the 3 R’s that are embedded in the history of Anishinabe peoples around the world.
Anishinabe Mathematics: A Way of Seeing and Doing
Tansi, Boozhoo, Edląnét’e. WaaWaabiiginoojii nindizhnikahz.

Mukwa N’dodem. Dene/Anishinabe Indow.
Greetings
Math is everywhere! The mathematical concepts listed in the current educational curricula
continue to dictate what children are required to learn, and sometimes the documents disregard
the fact that children come to our classes with their own understanding of mathematics. I wish to
offer a different perspective to teachers who teach mathematics, a perspective grounded in the
Teachings of this Land: an Anishinabe3 Perspective.
Let’s begin with the child and what children are able to do. Children can break a cookie in half
and know, just by looking at it, which piece is bigger and which is smaller. They know when it is
time to eat and time to go to bed, they can divide up and form teams, and they never fail to ask
the ageless question, “Are we there yet!?!” Children can do the math; they construct problem
solving concepts of how much? how many? how long? compared to what? Children use simple
equations and considerations that they have constructed to verify what they know, and
renowned developmental theorists have long since verified that. Piaget demonstrated with his
experiments that children construct meaning and use what they know to solve problems (Singer
& Revenson, 1997). Vygotsky clearly demonstrated that children expand their learning through
mediated events and activities that the children are engaged in (Marsigit 2009), and Feuerstein
continued to prove that what we think children know can change when we work with them
(Kinard, 2006). It is proven: children have and will continue to construct their understanding of
the world and how it works around them.
Anishinabe Education is founded on both the 4 R’s (Benton-Banai, 2004) and the Anishinabe 3
R’s that are described here. Bawdwaywidun Banaise told us about the 4 R’s: Respect, Respect,
Respect, and Respect. His words provide us with essential teachings to guide us to respect the
child, respect the land, respect our relationships, and respect ourselves and each other. The
Anishinabe 3-R’s – Respect, Responsibility, and Relationship – provide further guidance to
Respect all of Creation, to help all of us and all our relations; to be Responsible for our own
actions and for what we do as we live among our relatives who share all of Creation; and to
furthermore understand our Relationship with all of Creation, and to be responsible for how our

3
Anishinabe is the Ojibway word for the First Human Being. I use this word to talk about All First
Nations/Aboriginal People who have lived on this land since the beginning of time. I use the names of
specific Nations when referring to them; otherwise, I use Anishinabe when talking about the People of this
Land.

words and actions can help or harm. The Anishinabe World View translates into mathematical
concepts that guide us in our understanding that “we are all related.” When the Anishinabe
speak in terms of relationship, they are talking about our connection to all of Creation, and our
understanding and the consequences of our actions upon the world around us. This
understanding is first built on an understanding of more and less, and of area, volume, capacity,
and problem solving. When we look back to see what our Ancestors left for us to pick up, we
see that they left science and mathematical concepts that we need to move forward into the
future.
Anishinabe mathematics and science built the cities of the Inca and the Maya, designed and
built the canals in the deserts of the American Southwest, constructed the Mounds in the
Carolinas and Ontario, and engineered the many adobes, igloos and homes that reflect the
environments in which the people lived. Our Anishinabe engineers had an understanding of
mathematics and physics concepts; we could not have lived here on this land since the
beginning of time without such concepts. For educators, and those whom we are educating, it is
imperative that we honour this knowledge and help our students to understand that Aboriginal
people have used a variety of methods to calculate, evaluate, problem solve and verify how we
are to live on this land. Most textbooks and resources fail to give credit to Aboriginal People and
acknowledge that Aboriginal people can do the math; however, the evidence is clear that
Aboriginal People across Turtle Island have mathematics.
The Aadizookaanag, Traditional Stories, provide us with an Anishinabe “Way of Seeing, Way of
Doing, and Way of Being,” and incorporate the many ideas that make us human beings. The
stories and teachings (please do not use the terms myths and legends) incorporate all aspects
of “academia”: math, science, philosophy, psychology, history, etc. That is what makes the
stories so powerful, and why they are told over and over again: because the lessons continue to
grow and the listener will learn a different element after each hearing. For example, the story of
the Three Sisters (the Corn, the Squash, and the Beans), given to us by the Haudenosaunee,
tells us how to grow healthy food without chemicals and fertilizers, using the powers of each of
the Three Sisters who help one another in their growth. This story also tells us how we (the
inhabitants on the land) are supposed to live: in harmony, helping, sharing, trusting in one
another, and giving of ourselves so that others may live and grow as well. This is an
Aboriginal/Anishinabe/Haudenosaunee concept that is for “All of Us.” This is but one example of
how Aboriginal people use mathematics to help us understand the world around us and develop
our way of being. The Anishinabe Creation stories have also used number sense as a
foundation for time and space, and to recognise life cycles.
The Anishinabe oral history tells us that there other people in the world, that there is only one
Creator, and that the Four Directions give us an understanding of how we can live within the
Circle of Life. The stories offer us teachings, such as the Seven Fires Prophesy, the Teachings
of the Seven Grandfathers, and the stories of the night sky and Seven Stars of the Big Dipper.
The Anishinabe numbers and counting system have provided us with the tools and concepts to
describe who we are and what we need to focus on. Anishinabe Time (Indian Time) is a
traditional concept essential to the Anishinabe way of life; this concept teaches us to pay
attention to All of Creation, and to watch and listen for the signs of change. In turn, we are
rewarded with preparedness and the means to succeed. For example, we are taught to watch
the growth of the Wild Rice and, when it is time, we must be ready to harvest what we need to
sustain the number of people we need to feed. If we wait until the rice is mature, and then get
ready, the rice will be overripe and become useless to us. If we overharvest, we will take the
seeds that provide the crop for next year, and if we do not gather enough, we will starve. The
same lesson applies to the hunting seasons. We must watch the change in the weather and

know that the water fowl are getting ready to migrate, so we must be ready to gather what we
need for the long winters. If we wait until the geese are flying and then get ready, we will be too
late for the hunt and miss our opportunity. The term Indian Time traditionally means watching,
listening, understanding our relationship with Creation, and being ready to do what needs to be
done. In these ways, Anishinabe Mathematics helps us relate to our world, and to honour our
Relatives with whom we share this world. Our numbers and mathematical concepts allow us to
process information and solve problems related to how we are to live our lives and provide for
our families. The skills and knowledge of our math and science provide Aboriginal People with
the foundation for living Mino Bimadiziwin, a Good Life.
The mathematics that we teach in schools neglects these teachings. Mathematics has become
a “Science” and a way of quantifying the world. We have statistics and prices and distances that
keep us separate from the world around us, and which cause us to think of the world in
objective terms that do not support our relationship and connection with All of Creation. Our
mathematics textbooks seldom offer students the opportunity to engage in issues and problems
that they face on a daily basis, or look to separate our emotions from the numbers. What is the
result of this? Students do not establish a relationship with the “math” and are not engaged in
learning the skills that are reflected and utilized in their world. Math has become a subject, and
students are subjected to the imposed nature of the Science of Math instead of learning the
Nature of Math.
In the teaching of mathematics, there is both the Science of the Mathematics as explained by
many mathematicians; however, there is also the issue of numeracy. Do we know what the
numbers are telling us? It is this concept, numeracy, which we need to focus on in the early and
middle years, and then assist students who are comfortable and capable to learn the science of
mathematics in the senior years. What a concept!! Working with students who come to school
with basic understandings of math and helping them construct a deeper understanding of the
numbers. And … we can honour the original people of this land by incorporating Anishinabe
concepts of Mino Bimadiziwin. For example, I refer back to the cookie that the child breaks in
half. One child may want to keep the bigger half for him/herself and pass over the smaller half to
his/her little sister. Another child will give the little sister the bigger half and keep the smaller half
for him/herself. What is the teaching here? To take better care in breaking cookies in half? Or
that when we share, we think of others first instead of ourselves? Mathematical teachings do not
involve only quantity but also quality and, in essence, our Quality of Life. Our students know the
math. What we can teach them is how to apply these math concepts to their everyday lives, and
to make decisions based not only on the quantitative, but also on the qualitative aspects of life.
This can happen when we begin to understand mathematics as our Anishinabe Grandmothers
and Grandfathers understood it and have left for us to remember, to utilize, and to share.
A recent documentary on the history of statistics (Rosling, 2012) provides an undercurrent to the
phenomenon of mathematics taking us away from our original relationship with Creation.
Numbers and statistics give us concepts such as “average,” but this concept, while useful in
statistics, does not relate to the realities of the students who attend our classes. When teachers
look at the average, they often neglect those who are on the edges of the Bell Curve, or those
who are above average. Even the term average and above average separate students into
those who can and those who cannot, which, when the report card is released, do not take into
account those who can now and those who will later. This is a concept of learning in our own
time, at our own speed, and with our own abilities. Quantitative methodologies are embedded in
the mathematics curriculum, and these often subject students to unnecessary frustration and
anxiety. The Aboriginal perspective of the 3-R’s offers a framework for a new attitude in
teaching mathematics. These values rooted in the 3 R’s – Respect, Responsibility, and

Relationship – give teachers a way to organize educational activities and learning opportunities
that engage individual students in their construction of mathematical concepts, in an
environment wherein these concepts make sense and can be utilized. This Aboriginal
perspective is not without support. Authors such as Marilyn Burns (2007) is a leader in the
development of engaging mathematical activities that stretch the abilities and enhance the
learning of math concepts. Her books are filled with not only meaningful activities, but also the
background and information that teachers need in order to understand and teach the lessons for
their students. Her work is inspirational in how to teach the Anishinabe 3-R’s with respect to the
learning of the students, making them responsible for their learning, and engaging them in
relating to others by solving problems together, and coming to a new understanding together.
This should not be extraordinary, but should be the practice of all teachers. It should be
acknowledged that teaching from a textbook demands that students have the ability first to read
and that this is the major challenge and frustration for students who fail to do math. We see the
result of our textbook-dominated classrooms in students who constantly say, “I don’t get it!” or
“What am I supposed to do?” or “How do I find the right answer?” The first major alternative is to
USE the many math manipulatives that have been purchased over the years. These should be
used to engage individual students in constructing and enhancing their understanding of the
math.
This short paper offers a different way of thinking about math, leading to a new way of teaching
mathematics. From Marilyn Burns (2007), we can turn to David Stocker (2008) and others who
encourage teachers to teach Math that Matters. In addition, students should have the
opportunity to learn the rhythms of the Earth, the math that exists in Nature (Vila, 2010), and the
math given to us by our relatives: the winged ones, the four legged, the crawlers, and the
swimmers. Every species of life shares its mathematics with us, from the spiders weaving their
webs and the bees constructing their hives, to the beavers building their dams and their lodges.
The math is all around us, and engaging our students to see, and to understand and respect the
math that is all around us will help students to understand that they are mathematicians, too.
And is that not what we want them to feel?
Miigwech, Ekosi, Maa Sii Chōk
References
Benton-Banai, E. (2004). Aanda Wenjigewin. Lecture conducted from Seven Generations

Education Institute, Fort Frances, ON.
Burns, M. (2007). About teaching mathematics: A K-8 resource. Sausalito, CA: Math Solutions.
Kinard, J. (2006). Creating rigorous mathematical thinking: A dynamic that drives mathematics
and science conceptual development [Special issue]. Transylvanian Journal of
Psychology-Erdély Pszichológiai Szemle, 2, 251-266.
Marsigit, H. (2009, January 4). The implication of Vygotsky’s work to mathematics education
[Web log post]. Psychology of mathematics education. Retrieved September 4, 2013,
from http://marsigitpsiko.blogspot.ca/2009/01/implication-vigotskys-work-to.html
Rosling, H. (2012, November 26). The joy of statistics [Video file]. BBC Production. Retrieved
from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CiCQepmcuj8
Singer, D. G., & Revenson, T. A. (1997). A Piaget primer: How a child thinks. Madison, CT:
International Universities Press.
Stocker, D. (2008). Math that matters: A teacher resource for linking math and social justice (2nd
ed.). Ottawa, ON: CCPA Education Project.
Vila, C. (2010, March 11). Nature by numbers [Video file]. Retrieved from
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkGeOWYOFoA&list=PL7EA3ADB5207F1EC6

ENCOURAGING THE “MATHEMATICAL GENIUS” THAT IS IN EVERY CHILD
Sheri-Lynn Skwarchuk
Abstract
In the backdrop of our increasingly technological and globally competitive society, media hype
concerning mathematics learning, unwritten pressures to expose children to academics at
young ages, and abounding cases of mathematical phobias and anxiety, parents and educators
are interested in ways of encouraging positive and successful mathematics learning
experiences for their children. Researchers are beginning to understand children’s numeracy
development, and implications for early math learning are emerging. The purpose of this paper
is to provide some early numeracy learning strategies for children in the home and
preschool/early school environment. In this work, current theory and research regarding the
development of children’s numeracy skills are described. In addition, evidenced-based
suggestions for early numeracy development are provided, considering the roles of both
parental involvement and children’s personal interests. It is hoped that this article will guide
parents and educators as they introduce numeracy concepts to their young children.
Encouraging the “Mathematical Genius” that Is in Every Child
My favorite memory in grade 2 is math. I like math because you use your brain. It’s lots
of fun because you do plus and take-away, times, divided, factorials, and square roots.
That’s why math rocks!
– Darren, grade 3
As a school psychologist, a parent, and a professor who studies children’s mathematical

development, I have often been asked to comment on how to promote numeracy learning
opportunities for young children. Until recently, developmental research had concentrated on
children’s development of literacy, leading to the creation of appropriate protocols and models of
literacy intervention. Many educators are now turning their attention to numeracy development,
and to the factors that enhance children’s numeracy. In this submission, I outline the
characteristics of the home environment that are conducive to numeracy skills development,
based on my numeracy research program. I provide suggestions to parents about the ways in
which they can encourage mathematical thinking and numeracy readiness in their children. I
start by summarizing children’s numeracy development, including the role of formal and informal
experiences in fostering numeracy development in the home environment, and the role of
parents and the play preferences of children in terms of encouraging numeracy development.
Throughout, I use examples from Manitoban children to show how numeracy preparation begins
in the home. This article answers the question “How can I prepare my child for mathematics
learning at school?”
The Development of the Numeracy Brain
I was about six when I invented “ab-string.” It is a math symbol. I invented it because my
dad told me about math and I wanted to invent something fun. Ab-string is a special
made-up symbol with a circle on the bottom, and then a line going up, then another line
on top and a dot (see Figure 1). It means that you take a number and take another
number and add them together and split them in half, and whatever you have is your

answer. So if it were 5 ab-string 3, you would five plus three is eight and then split that in
half, and the number that you get is the answer (four in this case).
– Darren, continued
Figure 1: The “ab-string” Symbol
We now realize that children begin to learn about numeracy concepts much earlier than
expected. For example, even infants have basic numeracy capabilities to add and subtract
objects, well before they are able to label and count using the number words “one, two, three”
and so on. Toddlers learn the names of the numbers and practice saying them as they learn to
count. By exploring their environment, preschoolers learn counting principles and conventions
so they are able to answer “how many?” using problem-solving tactics. These early informal
experiences provide a strong foundation for success with formal, in-school numeracy
experiences.
Once children start school, they engage with a formal curriculum focused on developing number
sense abilities (e.g., to compute basic calculations, estimate, understand place value, and solve
numeracy-related problems) aimed to produce quantitatively literate citizens. Recently, the
focus on teaching numeracy in school has been on having children coming to understand
numeracy concepts through problem solving, and, based on developmental research about the
ways that children think, mathematics is taught differently now than when parents were in
school.
Based on a large long-term study including some Manitoban children, children’s numeracy skills
are influenced by three pathways of knowledge: (LeFevre et al., 2010). First, children use their
language abilities to learn the names of number words for counting and understanding the
structure of the number system. Second, children use quantitative knowledge to make
magnitude comparisons (e.g., which one has more?), and have a basic sense of “how many?”
without counting (e.g., knowing that there are three butterflies in a picture without counting
them). Finally, children’s spatial working memory helps them to store and interpret visual
information, and to focus on the relevant aspects of a numerical problem. When difficulties
ensue, a child may be able to compensate the strengths in one pathway for a weakness in
another. For example, it may be possible for children who have a poor quantitative sense to
learn the cardinal number words by rote and use this learned script of numbers, along with
spatial memory skills, to enhance their mathematical learning. Conversely, children who have a
good quantitative sense may use their problem-solving skills to enhance mathematical
knowledge. Although the process of using alternate pathways to support deficits in learning
needs to be explored in future research, this theory may have implications for children
experiencing mathematical difficulties.
Supporting Numeracy Learning at Home

Being his mom, I would always be a sounding board for his ideas. He would grill me on
my doubling addition facts, and always correct me if I was wrong, and he was interested
in working with higher and higher numbers and harder mathematical computations. My
husband played many games of Yahtzee, Connect Four, the card game Magic, and they
completed jigsaw puzzles together. I always carried a deck of cards in my purse to pass
time during unexpected moments of waiting. He used to drive me crazy while he
measured magic concoctions in the bathroom sink, made up stories about the
“Mathematizer” (math puzzler), and asked questions about math concepts but I went
with it because he enjoyed it.
– Darren’s mom
Considering that most children are exploring numeracy concepts before the start of school, it is
optimal that the support for numeracy learning starts in the home. Kindergarten numeracy
scores are predictive of children’s abilities up to fifth grade, and children who start school
lacking prerequisite skills rarely catch-up to their higher ability peers. Gone are the days when
parents dropped their children off at school at age 5 and the children began learning about
mathematics through the school curriculum. Parents are their children’s first teachers, and
numeracy learning often begins in the home. From sharing cereal pieces, to naming channels
using the television remote control, to discussing the speed on the car odometer, to playing with
dominoes, dice or cards – numeracy opportunities abound.
Parents can support their children’s engagement at home in both formal and informal numeracy
opportunities, as both types of knowledge support different learning trajectories in school.
Formal exposure occurs when parents directly teach their children a numeracy concept, such as
writing and naming numbers on the driveway with sidewalk chalk, skip counting by twos, or
encouraging children to add two numbers in their head. This formal exposure does not mean
that parents should set aside a “teaching time” with workbooks for their children; instead, they
may find opportunities to expose children to numeracy concepts in the car, on a walk, or at the
dinner table during the day. Through formal numeracy opportunities, children develop their
understanding of the cardinal number system and strengthen number sense abilities important
for advanced school tasks.
Informal experiences are also important, but for different reasons. These experiences occur
when children are engaged with numeracy concepts in their environment, but there is no
intention to teach the concept. This exposure is common in numeracy board games that are
played primarily for enjoyment. Other informal numeracy opportunities may occur during
cooking activities, craft projects, or hockey card trading. In these activities, children have an
opportunity to develop quantitative awareness skills such as making connections between
numbers, estimating, problem solving, having a sense of quantity, and seeing the broad
applicability of numeracy concepts in their everyday lives.
Pursuing Interests and Involvement
Thinking about ab-string, did I ever teach him to make up a mathematical symbol? No.
Did he choose to do it because I am interested in math? Maybe. But at one point, he did
recognize that there are different mathematical operators and so he decided to make up
his own operator. So, I don’t know why he did that. It just happened. It is kind of parallel
to the principles of play-based learning. I was present and encouraging, and not in the
way of my child’s natural ability to use quantity as a tool for making sense of the world.

– Darren’s dad
Parents may be concerned that their children do not choose activities with obvious
mathematical content. In one of our latest studies, parents of kindergarten students were asked
to report their child’s favorite playtime activities, which were related to children’s later
mathematical knowledge (Lukie, Skwarchuk, LeFevre, & Sowinski, 2013). Although parents
reported a range of interests (from skateboarding to Pokemon card trading, and from Polly
Pockets pretend play to arts and crafts), there was no single activity or set of activities related to
high numeracy scores. It appears that it is parents’ encouragement to think about the numbers
and quantities in their children’s everyday activities that matter, not which activities they do, with
two exceptions. Time spent on television viewing or video game playing was negatively related
to children’s numeracy knowledge (probably because they involve sedentary observation and
entertainment). All other types of activities could be adapted or interrupted to incorporate or
infuse numeracy thinking.
When interviewed, parents of high numeracy achievers reported being involved in their
children’s play choices (in terms of buying appropriate materials and toys, interacting with them)
and drawing out pertinent numeracy concepts (Lukie et al., 2013). Furthermore, these parents
were involving their children in numeracy opportunities that extended beyond single-digit
counting. For example, one child interested in Formula One car racing was allowed to use the
family computer to chart scores on a spreadsheet. Another child interested in organizing her
sticker collection made patterns and played store with them. Her parents supported her
endeavors by allowing her to maintain the collection for sometime on the hallway wall.
Children’s literature, painting, and drawing activities also provide excellent opportunities to
discuss numeracy concepts with children. From the research, it was not the activity or the
mathematical ability of the parent that encouraged numeracy learning per se. It was the
opportunities that emerged in interesting, relevant activities wherein parents were involved and
available to draw out relevant academic content that went beyond basic counting skills jointly
with their children.
Summing Up: Counting on Parents To Provide Numeracy Opportunities
When I grow up, I want to be an astronaut or a mathematician or a horror screenplay

writer. I know you need to learn math for the first two, but I am not sure about horror
writing. So I am going to keep doing math like division because I like working with
numbers.
– Darren, continued
Numeracy learning begins in the home. Children’s personal interests and activity choices
provide meaningful and rich contexts for the exploration of numeracy concepts. However,
parents are encouraged to be “present” and involved with their children, in order to highlight and
build on numeracy experiences as they naturally occur in the home. Some activities could
include writing numbers in sand, measuring household objects, scoring points while bowling,
guessing how many toys are in a basket, playing with money, using magnetic numbers to name
numbers, or finding all of the even numbers in a deck of cards. Activities should be chosen
based on children’s interest and ability levels, just as parents naturally do to encourage literacy
development. When parents and other educators provide opportunities by exploring interesting
activities, pursuing discussions about numbers, and showing confidence while working with
numbers and everyday problem-solving experiences, they help their children to establish a
strong numeracy foundation.
References

LeFevre, J. A., Fast, L., Skwarchuk, S. L., Smith-Chant, B., Bisanz, J., Kamawar, D., & Penner-
Wilger, M. (2010). Pathways to mathematics: Longitudinal predictors of performance.
Child Development, 81, 1753-1767.
Lukie, I., Skwarchuk S.-L., LeFevre J.-A., & Sowinski C. (2013, August 30). The role of child
interests and collaborative parent-child interactions in fostering numeracy and literacy
development in Canadian homes. Early Childhood Education Journal, 1-9.
Other Recommended Readings
Anderson, A., Anderson, J., & Shapiro, J. (2004). Mathematical discourse in shared storybook
reading. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 35(1), 5-33.
Burton, M., & Baum, A. C. (2009). Early childhood corner – Engage families in meaningful
mathematics. Teaching Children Mathematics, 16(1), 12-15.
Fagan, N. M. (2008). Identifying opportunities to connect parents, students, and mathematics.
Teaching Children Mathematics, 15(1), 6-9.
LeFevre, J. A., Skwarchuk, S. L., Fast, L., Smith-Chant, B., Kamawar, D., & Bisanz, J. (2009).
Home numeracy experiences and children’s math performance in the early school years.
Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 41, 55-66. doi:10.1037/a0014532
Skwarchuk, S. (2009). How do parents support preschoolers’ numeracy learning experiences at
home? Early Childhood Education Journal, 37, 189-197. doi:10.1007/s10643-009-0340-
1

JOE AND SIGMUND:
A LOOKING-BACK CHAT WITH IMPLICATIONS FOR TODAY’S MATH DEBATES
Jerry Ameis
Abstract
The article is cast in the form of a one-act play set in 1950 with two characters (Joe and
Sigmund, a psychologist). Joe has anxieties about how he learned mathematics and about
standard algorithms. The play explores the myth of the efficiency of, and rationale for, the
continuance of teaching standard algorithms within the context of the standard addition
algorithm. The play ends with Joe resolving some of his angst, in particular the need to know
how to do math and to understand why it works, and the need to make sense of math. More
generally, learning should be about becoming able to do and think on one’s own. That is what
leads to power (in math, for example).
Joe and Sigmund:

A Looking-Back Chat with Implications for Today’s Math Debates
A one act play set in 1950.

A male adult, Joe, is having a therapy session about his math woes with Sigmund, a
psychologist.
Joe:
Sigmund, I think I have QREUS and TINK syndromes.
Sigmund:
Oh dear, you may have what psychologists like to call DDT (double double trauma). Why
do you think you have the syndromes?
Joe:
First, let me tell you about grade 2. The teacher wanted us to know our addition facts by
heart. He gave us sheets and sheets of 30 addition questions to do. We had to do them in
one minute. I could do them correctly on time even though it was boring. It is a good thing
I liked math. Many of my friends could not do the questions correctly fast enough. Some
even cried. Doing the sheets made them hate math.
I think it is a good thing to know the facts by heart, but I also understood why 11 is the
answer to a fact like 5 + 6. Good thing I understood what addition meant and when to use
it to solve problems before I learned the addition facts.
Sigmund:
How did you learn the facts?
Joe:
My buddy and I helped each other. We made special cards that we used five minutes a
day. Took us three months to learn the facts, but we did it and had fun doing it. Doing the
sheets over and over again didn’t seem to help most of my friends learn the facts. They
had to get help elsewhere.

Sigmund:
Okay, but what about the QREUS and TINK syndromes? I only see hints so far.
Joe:
The syndromes really started to rear their heads when learning to add big numbers. The
teacher told us to line them up vertically and add each column in turn, beginning with the
right hand column. That might have been okay, but when I asked the teacher, “Why do
that?” he told me because it was the most efficient thing to do. When I asked why the
method gave the right answer, the teacher said, “Because.” All I could do was to say “but
– but – but” to myself. And you know very well, Sigmund, that repression is not healthy.
Sigmund:
There must be more to tell.
Joe:
There is. When I was older, I thought about what efficient meant. I concluded that it meant
getting the correct answer in the fastest way. I tested “efficient” on addition questions.
Here is an example. For 768 + 999, lining up the numbers and adding the columns from
right to left is not the fastest way to get the answer. It is much faster to add 1000 to 768
and then subtract 1. Doing it my way doesn’t even involve writing down the numbers. I can
do it all in my head.
Sigmund:
Aren’t you cheating by looking at a special kind of question?
Joe:
Sort of, but the example does poke a hole in the argument that the “line up vertically and
begin with the right hand column” method is the most efficient. The way of thinking in my
example can be used in bigger questions to get answers quickly. There also are other
ways to add quickly. Sigmund, make up a big addition question.
Sigmund:
Okay, add: 278, 3456, 991, 1425.
Joe:
Let’s have a competition. In real life, numbers are not lined up vertically for you. They
come in the form of a problem where you have to find the numbers, determine what
arithmetic operation to use, and finally do the arithmetic. We’ll leave out the “find and
determine” parts of the problem-solving process, and start with the four numbers. You get
the answer by the vertical method. I’ll get the answer another way. Ready, set, GO!
[Sigmund writes the numbers vertically and adds each column, starting at the right hand
column. Joe writes the four numbers in a row: 4-digit numbers first, then the 3-digit. He begins
adding by looking at the 4-digit numbers. Time passes.]
Joe:
Done. The answer is 6150.
Sigmund:
How did you do that so fast? I am just beginning to add the last column. You didn’t write
much down, either.

Joe:
I began by adding 3400 and 1400 mentally, getting 4800 in my head. Then I added 1000,
getting 5800. I wrote down -9 to help me remember that by adding 1000, I added 9 too
much because 991 is 9 less than 1000. I added 200 in my head, getting 6000. I added 25
and 56 in my head, and added the result to 6000, getting 6081. I added 80 to that, getting
6161, and, to help me remember, I wrote down -2 because 78 is 2 less than 80. Finally, I
subtracted 11 (9 + 2) from 6161, getting 6150 for the answer to the addition.
[Joe looks amused for a moment and then continues.]
Let’s think about real-life arithmetic, not just arbitrary made-up arithmetic questions.
Yesterday, I bought three things: a reclining chair for $159, a table for $148, and a sofa
set for $297. A lot of real-life prices look like that. The clerk punched the numbers into an
adding machine to get the total. I got the total in my head by thinking: 160 add 150 is 310,
and 310 add 300 is 610. Then I subtracted 6 (1 + 2 + 3) from 610 to get the total of 604. I
had the total as the clerk was punching in the last number. Imagine using the vertical
adding method to do such real-life addition. [Joe chuckles to himself.] You’d still be
looking for a pencil. Meanwhile, my adding method would give me time to have some
coffee.
Sigmund:
I am convinced. The vertical addition method is not really the most efficient. Your method
could even be faster when solving real problems. If the numbers were already there, you
wouldn’t have to write them down. You could just look at them and begin adding. For the
vertical method, you usually would have to begin by writing down the numbers when
working with real problems. Only with artificial school arithmetic questions are the
numbers already written vertically.
[Sigmund thinks . . .]
Sigmund:
Ah, I see it now. You have QREUS and TINK syndromes because you are curious and
want to think. When you learned math, you had to repress those longings. This brought on
inner turmoil, one that needs to be resolved if you want to live a healthy fulfilled life.
Joe:
Yes, help me. I don’t want to be a robot following orders. I want to wonder and feel joy at
unraveling wonders. Is there a conspiracy at work? Doesn’t the word robot come from the
eastern European word robota, which means labour? And you know the political system
that governs many of those eastern European countries.
Sigmund:
Careful, careful. Don’t get carried away. Stalin is not responsible for all of the world’s ills.
Let’s just deal with your syndromes. We’ll use the context of addition for that. It seems to
be a struggle between training people to be robotic calculators and helping people to be
thinkers. Are you aware of that? Which do you prefer?
Joe:
Yes, I see that now. I don’t want to be a robot. When I was young, I felt that I was being
held down, with my desire to explore and be creative being crushed.

Sigmund:
Good. You are part way to resolving your inner turmoil. The nature of a human being is to
explore and be creative. You were trying to exert your humanity, but it was being
squashed by outside forces.
Let’s think more deeply about the vertical adding method. If you know the addition facts by
heart, you should have success using the method. But the work your mind does is pretty
trivial – recalling and using the facts and the rules of the procedure. The vertical adding
method does not encourage using mathematical principles, such as that adding can be
done in any order. It does not encourage understanding, because you were told what to
do but not why it works. Furthermore, you did not participate in thinking about ways to
add. Engaging in the creative process is important to future learning and to working and
living. Feel good that you saw flaws with the vertical method. You showed strength, not
weakness, in doing so.
Joe:
Yes, yes. I feel my QREUS and TINK syndromes being resolved. I see light through the
swirl of my inner turmoil. There shouldn’t be an emphasis on knowing how to do math
without an accompanying emphasis on understanding why it works. Both should be part of
a whole. A gestalt approach is the most sensible way to look at things.
The light also shows me that I shouldn’t rely on an expert to tell me how to do math. An
expert’s way does not really help me make sense of math. I am just being told what to do.
Learning should be about becoming able to do and think on your own. That is what leads
to power in math. Being able to mimic someone else’s thinking is delusionary, and is at
best superficial power.
Sigmund:
Marvelous! That will be $300, please. And, by the way, come and see me for a session on
the “goes into” division method. I can do it, but I have no clue why it works or why anyone
should learn it. Seems like magic to me. Maybe with your new found insight you can help
me.
LEARNING TO FAIL: OUR JOURNEY THROUGH MATH,

SOCIAL JUSTICE, ACTION RESEARCH, AND COLLABORATION
Marc Kuly, Val Mytopher, and Chris Neufeld

Winnipeg School Division
Abstract
This paper tells the story of the experience of three teachers who worked together to implement
an action research project within the incorporation of social justice themes in a grade 8 math
class. An analysis of classroom observations, student testimony, and student work revealed that
the project delivered unexpected results. The authors discuss the reasons for the results, the
effect of their collaboration on their teaching practice, and the implications of their work for math
instruction, teaching for social justice, and professional learning. The research, writing and
reflection that went into this article were supported by Winnipeg School Division through the
Professional Learning and Leadership Centre's action research program.

Learning To Fail: Our Journey through Math,
Social Justice, Action Research and Collaboration
It is a fact of classroom life that the best-laid plans of mice and men often do go awry. While it is
always frustrating to see something that you hoped would work wonders for students’ learning
take a different turn, powerful learning is often encoded in the those seemingly unfortunate
turns. This paper is inspired by our immersion into the risks and the eventual profound rewards
of engaging in real-time, real-world, classroom-based action research. We tell you the story of a
small action research project we engaged in with a group of students, and how that project’s
failure revealed truths about our students and our teaching that has deepened our
understanding and precision of our practice. Parker Palmer (2007) defined truth as “an eternal
conversation about things that matter, conducted with passion and discipline” (p. 106). If the
intent of research is to pursue truth, Palmer’s sense of truth is what we uncovered in our
research journey. This paper shares that journey and our realization of how valuable it was for
our professional development to take risks together for the sake of our students’ learning.
The Project – Design and Analysis
The project that sparked our learning was conducted as part of the teacher induction program
offered through Winnipeg School Division’s Professional Learning and Leadership Centre. One
of the centre’s core functions is to partner teachers with similar interests and contexts, and
provide them with the training and time to learn how to conduct classroom action research that
supports student learning. We worked as a three-person team because we all shared an
interest in building engagement among inner-city students. Each of us brought different skills to
the group. Val has had a lot of success in working with differentiated groups, especially in math.
Chris brought expertise in math and a facility with building relationships with students. Marc’s
contribution came from his experience in eliciting and using student stories to build relevant
curriculum.
The project was conducted in Chris’s eighth grade math class. The class was composed of an
even mix of boys and girls who shared residency in a low socioeconomic status neighbourhood
with a wide variety of ethno cultural backgrounds (including African, Aboriginal, Arab and Euro-
Canadian). The students in the class generally displayed good decorum and energy, but also
shared a generally low skill set and low level of engagement with math instruction. Teaching
these students through the same techniques as had been used successfully in other classes
was not leading to their success. A commonly expressed sentiment among students was that
math was irrelevant to their lives and that they saw little purpose for learning it.
A large majority of the students came to school from backgrounds that included international
migration and interrupted schooling. As a result of not having some of the shelters that many
Canadian students enjoy, many students in the class had powerful experiences with real-world
injustices. Given what we discovered about these students – that they desired more relevant
topics, shared low proficiency in math, and shared significant life experiences - we saw a
pedagogic opportunity. We wondered whether Chris’s students would engage more readily in
math instruction that mattered more to them by relating to their experiences. After discussing
this possibility, our basic research question emerged: “What improvements in understanding a
specific math outcome (the calculation of percentages) might students experience if taught
through topics and methods that engage them with relevant social justice themes?”

To investigate our question, we followed a series of instructional steps that took place over the
course of five classes on five days. To begin, the students were taught the rudiments of
percentages through methods similar to those they had experienced throughout the year. This
laid a foundation for further instruction and established a baseline understanding of
percentages. Following this period of instruction, we conducted an interest inventory by eliciting
stories from students about what social justice issues they valued most. The interests that were
shared in these stories were identified and fed back to students for confirmation. Multiple social-
justice topics emerged: crime, education, family, hunger, peace, and poverty. These topics
became the basis for the students’ eventual interest groupings.
Once the students had confirmed their interests, we designed a series of exercises using
percentages that connected students’ interests to real-world topics. For instance, students
identified crime as being interesting to them, and so problem-based exercises were created
using the Winnipeg Police Service’s reports of neighbourhood incidences of violent and property
crime. The problem-based exercises were distributed to the students in their interest groups. In
these groups, the students worked together to solve the problems, which included both
convergent problem solving (e.g., what percentage of people in the West End have experienced
a vehicle theft over the past month?) and divergent questions (e.g., given what you have
discovered about crime in these exercises, would you consider the West End a safe place to
live?). Finally, the students were regrouped into heterogeneous expert groups in which they
reported on their learning from their interest groups.
Data were collected through four methods. Val and Marc observed the classroom while the
students worked through the problems, and they took notes on student activities and comments.
Student work was collected and analysed by all of us. Following a regular classroom routine,
students provided us with an exit slip that indicated whether this was an effective class or not,
and also whether this method of teaching was preferable to previous methods. Finally, a focus
group composed of students drawn from across the class was assembled and interviewed by
Val and Marc immediately following the class.
Our analysis of the data left us with only one conclusion: our instructional intervention had not
engaged our students as we had hoped. In fact, the results were nothing like we had expected.
We saw promise from the obvious engagement of students during the interest inventory activity,
but were disappointed by the lack of carry-over of that engagement as we moved deeper into
the project. Even more disappointing, students did not report a deeper interest in percentages
even though we had connected the subject to their stated interests. What’s worse, the students’
work showed no increase in understanding of the concepts that we were teaching. The only
positive finding was that students did become more engaged when they left their interest groups
and rejoined their familiar friend groups to share their learning. Though discouraged and
somewhat confused, this analysis was where our learning began.
Mistakes, Oversights, and Things Unforeseen
After analysing our data, we were faced with a dilemma. We had not succeeded in boosting
student understanding of either math or social justice. What were we supposed to do with the
failure of our work? Our first impulse was to explain away the results. Shortly after that, we
began reassuring each other that we had all worked hard at this and that surely with another try
or with different group of students it would work. Finally, we accepted that the results were what
they were and that they did not point to any personal faults or lack of effort. It was then, at the
point when we moved beyond our emotional response to failure and decided to trust both the
action research process and each other, that we began to learn what the students’ reaction was

able to tell us. Slowly, through consulting the data gathered and having many conversations
with each other, some insights about our assumptions and students’ realities began to emerge.
One of the aspects of this project that seemed most clear-cut was the selection and inclusion of
relevant social justice themes. The process of selecting the real-life themes initially went off
precisely as planned. We took our time, and initiated a variety of discussion and questioning
activities, all posing the same general question to students: “What do you really care about?”
We felt pretty certain that we were doing things as they should be done, because students
willingly participated and contributed ideas from their own lives. We elicited and made room for
students’ voice, and thanked them sincerely for their openness to sharing and contributing. And
we were thrilled with the results – reassured that middle school aged children do genuinely care
about themes of social justice.
At this point of the project, our mistake – we suspect – was in creating real-world percent
problems that were based on student interests but that were also broad and statistical in nature.
While ample time was spent teaching the math concepts required for success in the activities,
most students likely had little exposure to the world of generalized statistics, and had difficulty
relating the data to their personal lives. That is, it was a consequential leap to jump from the
students’ personal concerns (e.g., family), to abstract data on the subjects (e.g., stats about
family breakdown). While we were initially satisfied in our efforts to expose students to real data
that connected with what they cared about, their concerns seem rooted less in the collective
experience that general data speak to, and more in their immediate experience. In addition, it
appears that without directly teaching the relationship between how individual experiences
become represented in large statistical figures, the power of those figures to point to trends with
serious societal implications may be lost to student understanding.
Another issue that we spoke about at length regards the sensitivity of the subject matter that we
unabashedly encouraged students to discuss and explore. Though we did think about the
potential damage implicit in talking about controversial and emotionally charged real-life events
in class, we now agree that there was not enough prior discussion amongst ourselves or with
students regarding possible emotional triggers that we may have hit when asking potentially
traumatized students to explore highly charged topics. Our pre-project discussions and
classroom observations did give us confidence in moving forward. One thing that encouraged
us was that we were engaging students in the project only after a genuine and trusting
relationship had been developed between Chris and his students. Ample evidence in the
interactions between Chris and his students showed respect and reciprocal trust. A second
factor was that while hitting close to home with these activities was undoubtedly a risk that we
were taking, it was also precisely the point of the project. We were trying to build math learning
around real themes that students cared about and were emotionally invested in. Moreover, this
attempt was motivated by students’ regular complaint that math was not relevant or interesting.
Still, despite our enduring belief that the potential for engagement and empowerment is worth
the risk of emotional triggers, we could have done more to ensure an emotionally safe
environment. Therefore, we cannot discount the potential for emotional sensitivity within
students being a factor in the failure of our plan to lead to deepened student learning.
Teachers have a range of choices to make when approaching an instructional task. These
choices involve, amongst other things, content, delivery method, questioning strategies, and
grouping choices. Each of these choices results in predictable and sometimes unpredictable
effects in classrooms – this dynamic fact of classrooms is what makes teaching and researching
continually challenging and simultaneously frustrating and satisfying. Effective research pays
close attention to all of the variables that are being altered by each decision that is made, and in

reflection we can see that our students’ learning may have suffered as a result of changing too
many variables at the same time. Our research question asked about the effects of infusing
social justice themes in math curriculum. However, in our research plan we did much more than
that. Students in the class were used to sitting in groups they chose, working independently and
answering convergent questions with straightforward, easily verifiable numeric answers. In the
course of the plan, the students were regrouped twice: once into interest groups and once into
expert groups. In addition, we asked students to move from calculating percentages based on
their interests to drawing conclusions about their learning and engaging in discussion with each
other about the personal and social implications of what they were learning.
When we reflected on student responses within the focus group, the effect of the changing of
too many classroom variables at once became clear. Students told us that the grouping and the
questions we asked were major stumbling blocks. Two students in the focus group told us that
they had never really had conversations with some of the students in their interest groups. One
of our ideas going into the project was that students would connect with others in the class
whom they did not know beforehand, because they would discover shared interests in the
important topics we were studying. As the students pointed out to us, this was a flawed
assumption. Grouping students by common interest with more or less strangers to talk about
highly charged topics resulted not in discussion but in quiet discomfort. In fact, just having
discussions about math with each other may have been problematic, as one student in the
focus group said that it felt “weird to talk about math.” Clearly, we should have included some
interim steps to establish comfort with each other and with math-based discussions in our plan.
Likewise, the change in questioning strategy was problematic for students. When asked about
why so few students responded to the question “In the information above, are there any things
that surprise or bother you?” one student told us bluntly, “We are used to talking about
questions like these in social studies but this is math class.” It seems that our students bring
assumptions about the kind of thinking and problem solving that is necessary to different
subjects, and our research plan did not anticipate how rigidly these content area expectations
were established in the mindsets of grade eight students.
Continuing Thoughts
This project began as an assignment, much like many assignments we had completed before in
our pre-service and workplace learning. And, much like these past assignments, we were sure
of our results before we began. What made this different is that the results were surprising and
that, when we found them, we did not walk away. We think there are two reasons we stuck with
this. The first is the students. Strikingly, it was their voice that pointed out the flaws in our
thinking and pushed us in the right direction. Their willingness to take risks along with us
inspired us to live up to their trust. Our strategy was supposed to work. They should have been
rewarded with improved understanding, and we could not ignore that this did not happen. That
would have betrayed their trust. We felt it our duty as teachers, and as caring adults, to respect
their trust by figuring out what went wrong. The relationships that we fostered with them in the
classroom spurred us to delve further into our experiences and carry on with a spirit of
continuance.
Another reason that we persisted with this was because of the unique nature of the relationship
that we forged with each other as teachers by failing together. The adversity and discomfort
created when our results emerged brought us together as professionals. We were all struck by
this surprise, and were implicated equally by it. We created this mess together, and cleaning it
up was also a job for the group. The bond created by our responsibility to fix things was quite
strong. Moreover, we knew that the students were watching and that failing is a big deal –

particularly in math class. As it turns out, this may have been the most beneficial part of this
whole process for the students. They saw adults who clearly cared for them, tried to do
something to help them, and failed. Most importantly, they saw the adults admit it, think about it,
and come up with an improved plan. They saw that failure was okay. Indeed, is this not
precisely the message we would hope to instill in all learners?
The results of the project, and the dialogue inspired by it, has had direct implications for our
classroom practice, and our mindset as teachers. We see classrooms differently now. A
classroom is not merely a place for transferring information, but can also be a dynamic site of
experimentation. It is okay to test one’s own ideas in them and to welcome students to join in
the evaluation. While we once only looked to manuals of best practices and techniques, we now
feel empowered to implement original approaches that fit our students’ specific needs and
contexts. This new-found perspective has literally and metaphorically opened our classroom
doors. The process of collaboration has encouraged us to trust that even when it is
uncomfortable working with others, the end result is worthwhile. For us, collaboration means
deciding collectively what matters, taking risks to make things better, and being honest with one
another about what we observe. If what we observe is not what we predicted, all the better.
Failure is an opportunity.
Reference
Palmer, P. (2007). The courage to teach: Exploring the inner landscape of a teacher’s life (10th
ed.). San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.

LITERATURE REVIEW SUMMARY OF THE WNCP RESEARCH PROJECT
FINAL REPORT
Ian Donnelly
Mathematics Curriculum Consultant, Manitoba Education
Abstract
This article summarizes the literature review portion of the final report of a research project
concerning the Common Curriculum Framework embarked upon by the member jurisdictions of
the Western and Northern Canadian Protocol. The summary begins with a description of the
analysis of 18 theories discussed in the final report related to how children learn. Ten student
needs that cross several learning theories are outlined. Five other areas given in the final report
that influence mathematics teaching and learning are highlighted in this summary, namely
cognitive variability and strategy choice, individual differences, relations between conceptual
and procedural knowledge, technology in the mathematics curriculum, and the impact of the
teacher in educational change.
Literature Review Summary of the WNCP Research Project

Final Report
In an effort to gain the advantages of collaboration, the Western and Northern Canadian
Protocol (WNCP) for collaboration in education was signed by the western provinces and the
territories in 1993, and a Common Curriculum Framework (CCF) for Kindergarten to Grade 12
Mathematics was developed in two parts and published in 1995 and 1996 (McAskill, Holmes,
Francis-Pelton, & Watt, 2004, p. 12). In 2003, after ten years without curriculum revision, a
review of the CCF was sought by the WNCP jurisdictions, and this work began with the initiation
of the WNCP Mathematics Research Project. The focus of this article is the literature review
portion of that report, WNCP Mathematics Research Project: Final Report (McAskill et al.,
2004). Changes to the original 1996 WNCP curriculum were suggested in light of the findings of
the report, and the most recent version of the WNCP curriculum for kindergarten to grade 8 was
implemented in 2008. Subsequently, the WNCP curricula for grades 9 to 12 were implemented
one year at a time from 2009 to 2012. This article provides a summary of the findings of the
literature review component of the report. To get a complete picture of the findings, you are
encouraged to read the complete Final Report.
Before determining the content and pedagogy that is appropriate at each level from
kindergarten to grade 12, the Final Report outlines a theoretical basis for understanding how
children learn and, more specifically, how they learn mathematics. A quotation has been
attributed to Albert Einstein saying, “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not
simpler” (Everything should,” 2011). Relating to those words, Davis & Maher (1990) stated,
“Those of us who study the learning and teaching of mathematics are handicapped by
encounters with theories that are, indeed, simpler than the allowable minimum” (p. 65). Rather
than reducing the research on the teaching and learning of mathematics to an over-simplistic
theory, the Final Report finds common elements described in eighteen theories along with their
implications for curriculum, instruction, and assessment. The theories range from behaviourism
to constructivism and the “multiplicity of theories does not automatically imply a contradiction.
Few theories are truly contradictory. More often they are complementary, simply concerned with
different aspects of the same phenomena” (McAskill et al., 2004, p. 15). Although not all

theories discussed are specifically focussed on mathematics education, they all have
implications for mathematics education.
A few ideas are common to several of the theories. Six of the 18 theories mention the
importance of embedding student learning in a real context. The importance of hands-on
experience, or learning by “doing,” was highlighted by five theories and for two others, wherein
the need to address individual differences was specifically mentioned, hands-on experience will
be of particular importance for some of the population. Five theories talked about the
importance of helping students think about misconceptions and incongruences in their thinking.
Finally, the importance of making connections between mathematical concepts was mentioned
by five theories. These common ideas and others are addressed in the Final Report when citing
Sfard (2003), who identified “ten student needs that appear to cross all learning theories”
(McAskill et al., 2004, p. 35) The ten student needs are each discussed in some detail in the
Final Report and have been summarized here.
The needs identified by Sfard (2003) that cross the learning theories are as follows:
1. The need for meaning 6. The need for social interaction

2. The need for structure 7. The need for verbal-symbolic interaction
3. The need for repetitive action 8. The need for well-defined discourse
4. The need for difficulty 9. The need for belonging
5. The need for significance 10. The need for balance
(McAskill et al., 2004, p. 35)
The needs are described and summarized individually. The order of the first two needs is not
arbitrary; the need for structure follows the need for meaning. Furthermore, after establishing
meaning and structure, the other needs can be met.
First is the need for meaning. Student motivation is tied to the meaningfulness of learning,
because “learners look for order, logic, causal dependencies behind things, events, and
experiences” (McAskill et al., 2004, p. 36). Consistent with constructivist theory, “Abbott and
Ryan (1999) describe learning as an active process in which an individual assimilates new facts
and experiences into a pre-existing web of knowledge and understanding” (McAskill et al., 2004,
p. 36). Furthermore, when students have conversations with peers or an adult in order to
resolve misconceptions, they are in the process of making mathematics concepts more
meaningful. Kamii & Dominick (1997) explained common errors made by students when they
add several numbers: “These patterns of errors show that students focus on trying to remember
the steps of an algorithm instead of making sense of number” (p. 51). Analyzing student work
may unveil misconceptions that students have about place value. In this instance, there is a
need for understanding the meaning of place value in the context of an algorithm (Kamii &
Dominick, p. 54).
The need for structure follows the need for meaning. The structure comes from students’
understanding of the connections between concepts that they know and concepts that are being
introduced. Wu (1997) is quoted in the Final Report as saying, “Such connections must include
not only real-world applications and relevance, but also assistance in building mathematical
abstractions, so students can see how the results can be transferred from one context to
another” (McAskill et al., 2004, p. 36) Students may develop the structure on their own, or they
may need to be explicitly shown the connections between concepts. Someone else can explain
the connections and the relationship between concepts, but these are not learned until the
student makes the connections and sees the relationship for him/herself.

The need for repetitive action is the third need, following the need for meaning and structure.
When the learning is meaningful and is connected to other ways of knowing, the repetitive
action can lead to mastery of basic skills. McAskill et al. (2004) cited several authors as follows:
“A reasonable level of mastery of basic skills is an important element in constructing
mathematics knowledge (Fuson & Briars, 1990; Fuson & Kwon, 1992; Hiebert & Wearne, 1996;
Siegler, 2003; Stevenson & Stigler, 1992)” (p. 37). However, they also immediately noted, “This
does not mean a focus on rote repetition. Rather, it should be a process of reflective practice,
where mastery of the action leads to reflection on the meaning of that action which leads to
further understanding and learning” (p. 38). In order to become proficient, students need
immediate opportunities and long-term opportunities to practice the skills they have learned and
to connect those skills to broad mathematical ideas.
The fourth need identified is the need for difficulty. Students must be challenged so that they
stretch their minds to connect what they know to new concepts. However, the new learning
must be within reach of each student. Vygotsky and social cognition theory refer to this concept
as the zone of proximal development (McAskill et al., 2004, p. 34).
The need for significance and relevance is related to the need for meaning, since the learning
will be more meaningful and relevant if it is presented in a context with which students have
some familiarity, by connecting to prior learning or to prior experiences. Several studies cited in
the Final Report (Nunes, Schlieman, & Carraher, 1993; Saxe, 1991; Schlieman & Carraher,
1996) show that students tend to do better applying mathematics to problems in a real context
rather than in the context of typical school problems. It was acknowledged that students must
also be exposed to abstraction, because “focusing only on real-life applications would lead to a
fragmented, incomplete picture of the mathematics, particularly at the pre-calculus level”
(McAskill et al., 2004, p. 38). Some abstract topics in mathematics have relevance only in their
requirement for further study in mathematics. However, students’ needs will be more
adequately met if they can relate what they are learning to a familiar context.
The needs for social interaction, verbal-symbolic interaction, well-defined discourse, and
belonging are treated separately in the Final Report, but are grouped together in this summary.
First, “The importance of social interaction in the mathematics class has been reported by many
researchers (Cobb, 1995, 1999; O’Connor, 1996, 1998; Schoenfeld, 1996)” (McAskill et al.,
2004, p. 39). Social interactions in the classroom are primarily between student and teacher or
between students, but student interactions with print resources can also be considered social
interactions. McAskill et al. (2004) acknowledged the thoughts of Bruner (1985), stating, “Social
transaction is the fundamental vehicle of education and not, so to speak, solo performance” (p.
39). Second, students need to be encouraged to talk to each other, in order to satisfy their need
for verbal-symbolic interaction: “Classroom discussion provides many learning opportunities
(Ball, 1991; Cobb, Wood, & Yackel, 1991, 1993; Lampert, 1990; Schoenfeld, 1996)” (McAskill et
al., p. 39). In the Final Report, a study by McConney (2003) is discussed, in which comparisons
were made between U.S. and Chinese students. Chinese students gave almost four times the
number of explanations as U.S. students, and the Chinese students gave more detailed
explanations, using 16 words per explanation as compared to 5 for U.S. students (McAskill et
al., p. 39). Third, students’ need for belonging may influence the social interactions. Students
need to feel safe to speak and actively participate in the classroom. Furthermore, the degree of
need for belonging to a mathematical community “will be influenced by the value given to
mathematics by the wider community culture (Comiti & Ball, 1996)” (McAskill et al., p. 40).
Lastly, opportunities for both verbal and written communication are necessary to satisfy the
need for a well-defined discourse. Teachers in the U.S. and, by extension, Canada need to
“shoulder the responsibility to initiate, moderate, and coordinate discussions in the classroom”

(McAskill et al., p. 40). The students’ need for social interaction, verbal-symbolic interaction,
discourse, and belonging must not be neglected in mathematics classrooms.
The final need in the list of 10 is the need for balance. Its importance is identified in the Final
Report in order to meet the varied needs of students. Again, Sfard (2003) is referenced as
articulating the balance required:
The reality is that there must be a bit of everything in the classroom: problem solving as
well as skills practice, teamwork as well as individual learning and teacher exposition,
real-life problems as well as abstract problems, learning by talking as well as silent
learning” (McAskill et al., 2004, p. 41).
The 10 needs identified by Sfard (2003) bring together the common themes in the 18 learning
theories discussed in the report.
The next part of the Final Report discusses research in five other areas that influence
mathematics teaching and learning: cognitive variability and strategy choice, individual
differences, relations between conceptual and procedural knowledge, technology in the
mathematics curriculum, and the impact of the teacher in educational change. First, when
considering cognitive variability and strategy choice, McAskill et al. (2004) noted, “Research in
the 1980’s described children’s thinking as progressing from simple strategies to more
advanced strategies” (p. 41). However, more recent research has shown that the path may not
be as linear as that: “Rather than using a single strategy, children use a wide range of strategies
from early learning through more advanced grades. They may use both simple and complex
strategies at the same time” (McAskill et al., p. 41). Furthermore, according to Siegler (2002),
deeper understanding can be the result when students are guided and encouraged to think
about their strategy choice (McAskill etal., p. 42). McAskill et al. added,
Although it makes sense to discourage use of less efficient strategies, children actually
learn better when they are allowed to choose the strategy they wish to use (Siegler,
2003). Immature strategies tend to decline in use as children feel comfortable using
more sophisticated approaches. (p. 42)
Rather than the choice of strategy only being the prerogative of the teacher, strategy choice is
part of the learning in which students need to participate.
Individual differences identified in the report include background knowledge, processing

capacity and conceptual understanding. The differences in students’ mathematical ability can be
determined at an early age. McAskill et al. (2004) quoted Siegler (1988), “As early as grade one
children can be divided into three groups based on their choices of arithmetic strategies: good
students, not-so-good students, and perfectionists” (p. 42). Many of the “not-so-good” students
identified in grade one are classified as having learning difficulties by grade four. McAskill et al.
surmised, “Reasons for these difficulties point to limited exposure to numbers before entering
school” (p. 43). It is important to diminish the gap in individual differences by identifying and
dealing with those students with greater need.
McAskill et al. (2004) discussed relations between conceptual and procedural knowledge in
considerable detail. According to a study by Siegler (2003), conceptual understanding and
procedural skill are usually highly correlated (McAskill et al., p. 43). Teachers need to help
students achieve conceptual understanding and competence with procedural skill. Although
both are important, in another study McAskill et al. found, “instruction that emphasizes

conceptual understanding as well as procedural skill is more effective in building both kinds of
competence than instruction that focuses only on procedural skills (Fuson & Briars, 1990;
Hiebert & Wearne, 1996)” (p. 44). A study by Correa, Kumar, and Sims (2003), of the
differences in the instruction methods of Chinese and U.S. teachers, indicated that U.S.
teachers are more focused on procedural knowledge, as “Chinese students were responsible
for suggesting ideas. In U.S. classes the teacher primarily showed the procedure and then
asked students to apply it” (McAskill et al., p. 44). A study by Rittle-Johnson and Alibali (1999)
showed that conceptually oriented instruction can help students achieve both kinds of
knowledge while procedurally oriented instruction did not have the same gains in conceptual
knowledge (McAskill et al., p. 45). Another study (Boaler, 1998) showed that students, who were
introduced to mathematical procedures and techniques and then presented a range of
questions, had difficulty using the procedures and techniques in unfamiliar situations.
(McAskill et al., 2004, p. 46). The implications are that “mathematics curricula and classroom
instruction must include learning outcomes that focus on both conceptual and procedural
knowledge. Assessment must also test both types of knowledge” (McAskill et al., p. 46).
Conceptual understanding aids students’ development of procedural skill and, in the end, both
of these aspects of teaching and learning mathematics are important.
The role of technology in the mathematics curriculum is also reviewed in the Final Report:
A number of studies have been conducted that look at the impact of technology on
students’ mathematics achievement. These studies (e.g. Ellington, 2003; Schacter,
1999) consistently concluded that informed use of technology in the mathematics
classroom improved student achievement in mathematics. (McAskill et al., 2004, p. 48)
It is important that technology be used appropriately in the classroom. That is, technology
should be used for concept development and inquiry rather than for drill and practice. When
used in this way, “the development of elementary students’ computational skills was not
hindered by calculator use during instruction” (McAskill et al., 2004, p. 50). It was noted,
however, that calculator use should be restricted in the early grades pending more research at
that level (McAskill et al., 2004, p. 51). With informed use, technology will continue to play an
important role in teaching and learning mathematics.
The last area of research dealt with in the Final Report is the impact of the teacher in
educational change. McAskill et al. (2004) reported that, in the last two decades, the National
Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) advocated for a more constructivist approach to
teaching mathematics (p. 52). However, as noted by Klein (1997), changing teacher practice is
tough even when teachers have changed their views of how mathematics should be taught
(McAskill et al., p. 52). When implementing reform approaches, changing curriculum documents
is not enough to initiate change in teacher practice. Collopy (1999) and Remillard (1999a,
1999b) found that teachers’ beliefs influence their practise much more than the content and
intent of new curriculum materials (McAskill et al., p. 52). A study by Schorr, Firestone, and
Monfils (2003), involving interviews and observations of 63 teachers, found, “Teachers may talk
about the importance of conceptual understanding but continue to emphasize practice
operations either on paper or when using manipulatives” (McAskill et al., p. 54). Furthermore, it
is difficult for teachers to improve their mathematics instructional practice when they are not
confident in their understanding of the mathematics content (McAskill et al., p. 55). The literature
review ends on a hopeful note stating, “There are studies that show substantive change can be
achieved with appropriate professional development (Arcavi & Schoenfeld, 2003; Callingham &
Griffin, 001; Schoenfeld, 2003; Sykes, 1996; Wilcox & Jones, 2003)” (McAskill et al., p. 56). The
importance of professional development for teachers regarding mathematics content, pedagogy,

and beliefs about the nature of mathematical knowledge is stressed due to the great impact that
teachers have on educational change.
The findings of the literature review given in the WNCP Mathematics Research Project: Final
Report, and summarized in this article, formed the rationale and starting point for the curriculum
revisions made by Manitoba and the other WNCP member jurisdictions and implemented by
Manitoba for kindergarten to grade 12 mathematics courses, starting September 2008.
References
Davis, R.B. & Maher, C.A. (1990). What do we do when we “do mathematics”? In R. B. Davis,
C. A. Maher, & N. Noddings (Eds.), Constructivist views on the teaching and learning of
mathematics (pp. 65-78). Reston, VA: The National Council of the Teachers of
Mathematics.
Kamii, C. & Dominick, A. (1997). To teach or not to teach algorithms. Journal of Mathematical
Behavior, 16(1), 51-61.
McAskill, B., Holmes, G., Francis-Pelton, L., & Watt, W. (2004). WNCP mathematics research
project: Final report. Victoria, BC: Holdfast Consultants. Retrieved from
http://www.wncp.ca/media/39083/final_report.pdf
Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler. (2011, May 13). Quote
investigator: Exploring the origins of quotations. Retrieved from
quoteinvestigator.com/2011/05/13/Einstein-simple/#more-2363)

MATHEMATICIANS TEACHING MATHEMATICS TO K-8 PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS:
THE END OF AN ANACHRONISM
Jerry Ameis
Abstract
The article concerns the relationship between a research university and a teacher preparation
program. This is considered briefly in general and more deeply in relation to K-8 mathematics
education. The argument is that a paradigm shift is necessary if we are seriously going to
improve the quality of teacher preparation (in all areas). That shift involves faculties of education
controlling the academic preparation of teachers. Mathematics departments currently control
and provide mathematics courses for K-8 teacher candidates. The argument is that the current
situation does not lead to appropriate and adequate mathematics preparation for two primary
reasons: (1) there is a significant mismatch between the messy world of K-8 classrooms and the
tidy world of university mathematics, and (2) mathematicians tend to have a limited view of
teaching and learning mathematics.
Mathematicians Teaching Mathematics to K-8 Pre-Service Teachers:

The End of an Anachronism
The Hare and the Tortoise were basking in the sun, chatting about the road ahead. Their days
of youth were over. They were entering adulthood.
Tortoise, with a concerned countenance, lamented,
Let me tell you my angst. I am a grey tortoise. To do community service, I have to move
to a field where blue tortoises live. They like to think thoughts mostly about invisible
things. Many of them look down on grey tortoises because we like to think thoughts
about how to use our claws better to dig tubers and how to help others learn to do that. I
am not sure how I will fit in with the blue tortoises. They may try to make me become like
them.” Hare, with a tut tut look, asked, “Who told you move to that field?” Tortoise
replied, with a grimace, “The Supreme Leader of all tortoises made the rule years ago. It
seemed to make sense back then, but times have changed. It doesn’t make sense
anymore, but grey tortoises have no say in the matter. I’m afraid the quality of our help
will suffer.
(Apologies to Aesop)
The focus in this article is on the relationship between a university and a teacher preparation
program. This relationship is considered briefly in general and more deeply in relation to K-8
mathematics education.
Historical Background
The road towards officially sanctioned teacher education (and thus, by association,
respectability) can be partly traced back to the Roman Emperor, Julian the Apostate (Watts,
2006). As part of his attempt to weaken the influence of Christianity in the Roman Empire, his
School Edict forbade Christian teachers to teach grammar (literature) and rhetoric (language
arts), and required that the emperor approve all public teachers. This edict can be seen as more

or less accidentally helping to trigger a movement towards state-sanctioned teacher certification
in the Western World.
Canada is in its second era of state-sanctioned teacher education. Currently, K-12 teacher
education programs are housed in a university or associated setting, wherein teacher
preparation requires at least three years of undergraduate coursework, typically in a faculty of
arts/science, and one or two years of coursework in a teacher education program. This
arrangement has not always been the case. Prior to the 1950s (with few exceptions), high
school teachers were educated in a university setting and elementary teachers in a normal
school setting.
Why did K-12 teacher preparation move entirely into a university setting? The literature does not
provide a clear and satisfactory answer, but it seems that two threads (European and
American), a confluence of tangential forces and accidents with hardly anyone having a clear
intent, fortuitously came together to bring us to our present situation (Smith, 1962).
The European Thread
Early in the 20th century, Canadian high school teachers (predominately male) were educated in
a university setting, with programs that seemed appropriate in a time when learning was
perceived as filling the tabula rasa of the mind. Elementary teachers were predominantly female
and educated in normal schools. The curricula and underlying philosophies of these two
approaches to teacher preparation were distinctly dissimilar.
Preparation for teaching high school was embedded in the European liberal arts tradition of
training the mind. It embodied notions of fostering intellectual habits and skills necessary for
continued learning and for developing humane values and a sense of social responsibility.
According to this tradition, "to be liberally educated and to be prepared to teach are equivalent"
(Borrowman, 1965, p. 1). Any additional preparation that might concern pedagogy (practical
preparation (for example, teaching strategies and knowledge about how children learn) was
deemed unnecessary.
The emergence of the research university near the beginning of the 20th century did not result in
the abandonment of the liberal arts tradition, but enlarged it. Research itself became valued as
a vital endeavour that expanded the human knowledge base and the mind. The effect was to
further devalue practical preparation for teaching high school.
In sharp contrast, elementary teachers were educated in normal schools, an approach that
originated in Europe. The term normal was derived from France's École Normale Supérieure of
the 1790s, because the teaching methods used therein became the norm for all schools within
the government's jurisdiction (Feiman-Nemser, 2000). The underlying philosophy was that
practical training was essential to teacher preparation. The typical curriculum consisted of
elementary subjects (e.g., reading, spelling, arithmetic), some secondary academic subjects
(e.g., geometry, philosophy) and pedagogical subjects (e.g., history of education, psychology,
teaching methods, observation and practice).
The American Thread
The teachers' colleges that were created in the U.S. typically began life in a normal school
(based on European approaches to teacher preparation), but subsequently turned into multi-
focused state colleges/universities (Imig, 2005). For example, Washington State began as

Washington State College. Eventually, it became Washington State University, focusing on
agriculture, education, some low-level engineering, and the like. The elite, heading for law,
medicine, and other high-status offerings, attended the University of Washington. This typically
American phenomenon appears to have been a slide into vacant territory rather than a
deliberate creation.
The state teacher colleges/universities adopted the research paradigm of the natural sciences.
One result was an overriding concern for developing a “science of education” through research.
This concern evolved into a confidence in the capacity of research to solve broad social
problems, and led to a focus of research that rarely addressed problems confronting teachers in
classrooms. Education courses that treated pre-service teachers as though they were preparing
to do research became an important part of programs (Powell, 1976).
The dominant ethos in these American teacher preparation institutions of the early and mid 20th
century included the precedent of professionalization through graduate training, the ideal of
scientific research as the key to an authoritative knowledge base, a devaluing of experience, the
separation of academic content and pedagogical knowledge, and estrangement from teachers
in the field and academic colleagues in the university (Judge, 1982).
The Combining of Threads
After the Second World War, the American model – with few modifications – was imported into
Canada. The 1940s, 50s, and 60s became a time of major change in Canadian teacher
preparation. High school and elementary school teacher preparation became the responsibility
of a newly created Faculty/School of Education housed in a university. The evolving high school
and elementary programs involved a similar curriculum and underlying philosophy. A study of
pedagogical matters (e.g., psychology/learning theory and methods courses) was a central part
of both programs. A research ideal permeated the programs, with education perceived as an
applied social science (Clifford & Guthrie, 1988). Graduate study was the important road to
professionalism, with experience continuing to be devalued.
An Atypical Event
While the intent is to paint with a broad brush the history of teacher education in Canada, a
description of an exception to the dominant form of early teacher education serves to remind us
that not everything of recent vintage is actually “brand new” and that major shifts in teacher
preparation programs and institutions can occur in a relatively short time. It also points to
tensions between teacher preparation programs and university academic programs that still
inhabit the landscape today.
Prior to 1906, the University of Toronto granted a Bachelor of Pedagogy degree for teaching
high school by examination of academic content knowledge, but did not provide any courses
specifically for teacher preparation (Smyth, 2007). A university degree was deemed sufficient
preparation. As a result of recommendations by a 1906 Royal Commission, a Faculty of
Education and model high school were created as part of the University. When the Faculty
opened its doors in 1907, it had 215 teacher candidates, two full-time academic staff, and 45
ancillary staff. The Faculty prepared teachers for high school and elementary school, and
developed a graduate program. A university degree was required only for admission to the high
school program.

This experiment of educating both elementary and high school teachers within a university
setting was short-lived. The Faculty ceased to operate in 1920, and shortly thereafter began life
anew as the Ontario College of Education (OCE), with the mandate of preparing secondary
school teachers. The Ontario Ministry of Education dictated the daily business (staffing,
curriculum, etc.) of OCE, rather than these matters being dictated by the University of Toronto’s
customs and regulations. One result was that OCE’s culture differed dramatically from the rest
of the university. Tensions arose and persisted. (The grey tortoise described some in
metaphorical terms.)
As the decades passed, Ontario teacher education was examined by a number of provincial
reviews. A consensus emerged: teacher education would best be served in a university setting
wherein research-informed practice would be a governing principle. In the late 1960s, the
Ministry of Education moved to divest itself of direct involvement in teacher education and
transferred that responsibility to the university, culminating with the creation of the Faculty of
Education of the University of Toronto (FEUT).
General Consequences of the Move
By the 1970s, K-12 teacher education located in a university setting was essentially fait
accompli. There were two large consequences of this circumstance.
First, the preparation of teachers became largely dominated by the customs, values, and
regulations of a university. This situation led to an almost complete separation of content
knowledge and pedagogical knowledge, the dominance of research and theory, and the
concomitant devaluing of experience. It can be argued that this consequence contributed
significantly to the creation of faculties of education having fragmented undertakings (producing
research, scholarship, and publication; preparing teachers in a large number of areas; fitting into
the university culture and policies). In such a fragmented environment, the mandate of preparing
well-qualified teachers can become subservient to the demands and values inherent in a
research university.
Second, although high school teachers did gain contact with the field, the overall result was to
reduce the importance of and contact with the field (Sheenan & Fullan, 1995). The normal
school was devoted exclusively to the preparation of teachers and championed teaching as a
noble calling. Its curriculum gave explicit attention to pedagogical training, and the fostering of
close ties between theory and practice (British Columbia, 1928). These close ties largely
disappeared from the teacher preparation landscape.
It seems that raising the status of teachers and teacher preparation was one of the reasons for
the move to a university setting. Has that goal been attained? No research evidence exists that
can provide a satisfactory answer to this question. We are left to speculate on the matter. There
are underground rumblings in faculties of education across Canada about the low status
accorded to a Faculty of Education by the academic faculties of Arts and Science. Faculty of
Education members tend to be viewed as having less-than-adequate intellectual capability and
engaging in research of dubious quality. At the same time, faculties of education tend to be
seen as “cash cows” by universities because they bring in large numbers of students who are
required to take arts and science courses to obtain an academic degree. An interesting
situation! The rumblings may become an earthquake at some point in the future.

Mathematics Education Consequences
The impact of the move on the preparation of K-8 teachers of mathematics has not been an
overt research question. The move is one of those assumed to be good decisions for which the
continuance of the unexamined status quo becomes proof that it is, in fact, a “good.” One
consequence of the move is clear: in most jurisdictions, mathematics departments, not faculties
of education, control the teaching of mathematics to pre-service teachers. Two types of
mathematics courses are offered by mathematics departments: (1) regular courses such as
linear algebra and calculus, and (2) specialty courses whose content is based on K-12
mathematics curricula. This author’s 2013 perusal of the mathematics courses of 10 major
Canadian university mathematics departments indicated that five of the 10 departments did not
offer a mathematics course specifically intended for the needs of K-8 teachers. In Manitoba, two
of the three English language-based universities offer such a mathematics course. This finding
suggests that some attention is being paid to the mathematical needs of K-8 teachers. However,
the data comprise only “bean counting.” They tell us nothing about “nutritional” value. In other
words, they reveal nothing about substantive and critical concerns:
• the effectiveness of the mathematics content: Does it improve the mathematical

knowledge and understandings necessary for teaching K-8 mathematics?
• the teaching methodology used in the course: Is the teaching methodology supported by
research? Does it reflect the research-based teaching methodology espoused by
faculties of education?
• the connection between the mathematics content in the course and the K-8 curriculum:
Is sufficient connection being made?
• the lowering of mathematics anxiety of preservice K-8 teachers (a well-documented
research finding): Is that anxiety reduced in the course? Or is it increased?
• the impact of the course on the subsequent teaching of mathematics by the pre-service
teachers: Is the impact positive? Does it lead to more effective mathematics teaching?
There is no research in the Manitoba jurisdiction about these important questions. We must look
further afield for answers. The research literature, however, is sparse and only minimally
attends to the issues. Research of significance about the questions would have to traverse a
politically-loaded minefield, and organizations (whether public or private) seem to prefer
avoiding scrutiny on important matters.
Carlson and Rasmussen (2008) provided an overview of the situation. They asserted that, over
the past 30 years, there has been substantial research in undergraduate mathematics education
that has produced knowledge about the development of mathematical understandings and ways
to support students’ mathematical learning. However, little of this knowledge is affecting
university teaching practice, because mathematicians are mostly not paying attention to it. The
lecture method of teaching, which tends to promote minds-off note taking, dominates the
undergraduate mathematics teaching landscape. Star, Smith, and Jansen (2008) found that the
dominant instructional mode at a university that did not subscribe to reform-based mathematics
teaching was lecturing, even when the class sections were small, and that student participation
was minimal during class sessions. Barton (2011) commented, “A public lecture I gave in April,
2010, made the point that undergraduate delivery of mathematical courses was founded more
on tradition and habit than on any deep consideration of educational aims or extant research”
(p. 3). The evidence indicates that the teaching methodology employed by mathematics
departments is likely to be in conflict with that espoused by faculties of education. One can
argue that this not an empowering circumstance for prospective K-8 teachers.

Matthews, Rech, and Grandgenett (2010) examined the effect on mathematical knowledge and
student attitudes towards mathematics of two kinds of undergraduate mathematics courses
taught by mathematicians: (1) specialized courses that focussed on mathematical knowledge
relevant to teaching elementary mathematics, and (2) a general mathematics course that did
not. The study found that the pre-service teachers who took the specialized courses had
significantly higher achievement in geometry-related matters, but not in fraction-related matters.
No difference was found with respect to improving attitudes towards mathematics. The study did
not provide an in-depth explanation for these findings. It did, however, provide information on
similar studies. The conclusions of those studies were varied. Some found significant
differences in content knowledge; some did not. Only one of the studies concerned attitude. It
found a lowering of math anxiety, but no difference in content knowledge.
Why these mixed results? Why was there almost no improvement of pre-service teachers
attitudes towards mathematics? Perhaps an answer dwells in the domain of teaching
methodology and making connections to K-8 curriculum. Zerpa, Kajander, and Van Barnveld
(2009) examined factors that affect pre-service teachers’ growth in mathematics conceptual
knowledge. Zerpa et al. concluded,
More university courses in mathematics are not the answer to develop teachers’
understanding. We argue that specialized methods courses, or other specialized
mathematics-related courses, are needed to help teachers learn how to teach
mathematics in a reform-based manner, in order to support sustained student growth.
(p. 73)
They also concluded that any specialized mathematics course should be centred around
mathematical problem solving and should emphasize conceptual understandings. Nardi,
Jaworski, and Hegedus (2005) noted that teaching methodology should engender sharing of
ideas in order to build understandings and that –
A substantial gap between secondary and tertiary mathematics teaching approaches

has led to increased student alienation from the traditionalism of university-level teaching
. . . Teachers of university mathematics courses, on the whole, have not been trained in
pedagogy and do not often consider pedagogical issues beyond the determination of the
syllabus; few have been provided with incentives or encouragement to seek out the
findings of research in mathematics education. In days gone by, it was assumed that the
faculty’s responsibilities were primarily to present material clearly, and that “good”
students would pass and “poor” ones fail. (p. 285)
These studies do not support the lecture method as an appropriate teaching methodology for
teaching pre-service teachers mathematics. They support inquiry and problem-based
methodology recommended by faculties of education. Unfortunately, mathematicians seem to
prefer lecturing – a teaching methodology that does not well support improvement in attitudes
and development of deep understandings (Andra, 2013).
Mathematicians tend to assert that mathematics content is the sole matter. The typical
argument is that if a teacher knows higher level mathematics content well, then effective
teaching and learning of mathematics will follow. They tend not to appreciate knowledge that
concerns making deep, unpacked connections to K-8 curriculum and that concerns the way
children learn. Although mathematical content knowledge is important for teachers to lead
mathematical discussions, that knowledge in itself is not strongly linked to student learning

(Wilson, Floden, & Ferrini-Mundy, 2002). Additional kinds of knowledge play a substantial role in
teachers’ practices and the learning situations they create for students. Of particular note are
pedagogical content knowledge (Shulman, 1986) and specialized content knowledge (Hill, Ball,
& Schilling, 2008). For example, Baumert et al (2010) found that teachers’ pedagogical content
knowledge was a better predictor of gains in student learning than mathematics content
knowledge. A grasp of procedures, or even more advanced knowledge, was not critical to
student learning. Rockoff, Jacob, Kane, and Staiger (2008) found teachers’ specialized
mathematics knowledge to be a better predictor of student mathematics learning than other
indicators such as students’ cognitive ability.
Pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) bridges content knowledge and the practice of teaching.
It is the unique province of teachers – a content-based form of professional knowledge that is
designed to ensure that content is relevant to teaching and that teaching pays attention to
content (Shulman, 1986). PCK is deep knowledge that concerns representing, formulating, and
organizing concepts; understanding what makes concepts difficult or easy to learn; and being
aware of students’ prior knowledge and its influence on learning. PCK also concerns knowledge
of teaching strategies that incorporate appropriate conceptual representations, that address
learner difficulties and misconceptions, and that foster meaningful understanding.
Specialized mathematical knowledge (SMK) can be interpreted as a subset of PCK. SMK is

distinct mathematical knowledge that is strongly linked to the work of teachers. It concerns
content that is required for purposes of teaching and how deeply teachers understand that
content (Ball, Thames, & Phelps, 2008). This type of knowledge requires that connections be
made between the mathematics content and the teaching of mathematics (as outlined in K-8
curricula).
Given the research evidence about the importance of PCK and SMK to the teaching and
learning of mathematics of quality, one can appreciate why mathematicians tend not to be in the
best position to teach mathematics to K-8 pre-service teachers. Someone who thinks that all
there is to teaching mathematics is knowing mathematics content is ill-disposed (and ill-
prepared) to appreciate and understand the complexities of teaching and learning and is also ill-
disposed (and ill-prepared) to teaching mathematics that is relevant to the needs of K-8
teachers.
An important question, then, is why should mathematicians who have minimal background in
pedagogical matters and sparse knowledge of K-8 curricula be given sanction to teach
mathematics to K-8 pre-service teachers? Mathematics teacher educators in teacher
preparation programs are in a better position to do that because they reside at the intersection
of mathematics and pedagogy.
There is another critical matter to address: the tension between building K-8 pre-service
teachers’ mathematical confidence and knowledge and helping them to develop a positive
attitude towards the subject that, for many, was a subject that brought on less-than-desirable
emotional reactions known as math anxiety (Hadley & Dorward, 2011). Are mathematicians in a
position to resolve this tension? It seems unlikely. Their expertise is in mathematics, not
pedagogy, and there is no research evidence that indicates they are well positioned to resolve
the tension. On the other hand, mathematics teacher educators have appropriate expertise in
mathematics and in pedagogy. There is evidence that they are well positioned to resolve the
tension (Steele & Hillen, 2012). Stols, Olivier, and Grayson (2007) provided further evidence, as
well, and commented that “We would conclude that teacher training programmes that are
organised around problem-solving and that are directly related to teachers’ work with their

students are a powerful means of helping teachers who are preparing to teach mathematics” (p.
37). The evidence suggests that mathematics courses taught by faculties of education are more
likely to reduce the mathematics anxiety of prospective K-8 teachers.
It can be argued that many mathematicians prefer to view the world in terms of black and white
because of their reliance on logical analysis to prove or disprove something. Mathematics itself
is an artificial creation that does not attempt to match reality. Einstein (1921) once commented,
“So far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain. And so far as they are
certain, they do not refer to reality.” Mathematics concerns clean logic whereby understanding
the learner is not a consideration. On the other hand, the K-8 classroom is a messy place that
requires understanding the learner, not just the content that the learner is supposed to learn.
There is a significant mismatch between the messy world of K-8 classrooms and the tidy world
of university mathematics.
Some mathematicians see beyond a limited view of teaching and learning mathematics. They
have reflected on the results of their teaching, not simply in ways that see the learner as the
problem (poor math background, bad attitude, . . .), but rather have reflected on their own
practices and assumptions. For example, Barton (2011), upon viewing his taped lectures,
noticed how much his teaching involved doing examples and exercises rather than asking open
questions and exploring deep understanding. He concluded that a focus on mathematical
correctness, especially when the teaching mode is transmission (lecturing) , conveys to the
learner that mathematics is a given – this how it is, learn it, use it, and give it back on a test. Any
other way is wrong. Barton realized that this dead view of mathematics runs counter to how
mathematicians tend to view it. To them, it is something that is alive and open to inquiry. One
has to ask the question, Why do mathematicians tend to teach mathematics as a dead thing
when they themselves do not see it that way? (Perhaps the answer lies in the realm of tradition,
elitism, and simplistic thinking about pedagogy.)
Related to teaching mathematics as a “dead” thing is mathematical literacy. This is an important

goal in K-12 mathematics curricula. According to Ojose (2011) , “Mathematics literacy does not
imply detailed knowledge of calculus, differential equations, topology, analysis, linear algebra,
abstract algebra, and complex sophisticated mathematical formulas, but rather a broad
understanding and appreciation of what mathematics is capable of achieving” (p. 1). In short,
mathematical literacy concerns relevance. We leave it to the reader to decide whether the
university mathematics courses [that] they took involved relevance.
Another matter to consider is that mathematics courses designed by mathematicians tend to be

extremely stable over long periods. Research and publication comprise the dominant value in a
university (teaching is usually given lip service), and personal and factional investments in
courses create strong inertial barriers to change. Any course revision of substance and import
tends to happen infrequently. Instead, courses tend to be minimally revised (topic alteration,
name change, technology delivery. . .). This reality is quite different from the K-12 school
system wherein major curricular changes happen, on average, every 10 years. The result is
that, in a university, change is slow in coming, with the “old ways” dominating the agenda. This
situation does not mesh well with a Faculty of Education that, of necessity, is at the forefront of
school system curricular changes (for example, in mathematics).
What can we conclude from the discussion on the impact of the move to a university setting on
the preparation of K-8 teachers of mathematics? It seems that there is reasonable research
evidence and opinion that indicates that the move has created an unfavourable situation that is

unlikely to improve the quality of mathematics teaching and learning in K-8. What can be done
to rectify the situation?
First, we should shed our dogmatic faith in the benefits of a liberal arts education for the
preparation of teachers. That faith is derived from 19th and early 20th century thinking. We are in
the 21st century. There is no research that indicates a causal link between a liberal arts
education and quality of teaching. There is some research about the benefits of a liberal arts
education. Mostly, it concerns financial benefits. Individuals who have a liberal arts education
earn more money than those who do not. But even this research cannot be taken as definitive
proof of benefit, because it involves correlation, not causation. That correlational research is
akin to saying that the leaves that drop from the trees in the fall cause the snow to drop from the
clouds in winter. A better explanation for why those who obtain a liberal arts education earn
more money is likely to be found in their personal characteristics, and in their family
backgrounds and connections.
Shedding our dogmatic faith in a liberal arts education requires paying attention to research.
The research indicates that pedagogical content knowledge and specialized mathematical
knowledge that is well connected to the demands of teaching are critical factors for successful
teaching and learning of mathematics. The implications of this go beyond preparation for
teaching mathematics. They encompass all domains of K-8 curricula.
One solution, from a practical and research perspective, might be to have a Faculty of
Education remain physically located in a university setting. However, a Faculty of Education
should be an autonomous entity within that setting, free to determine all degree requirements for
its students, all course offerings, and all regulations and policies for its faculty members.
Faculties of arts and science would be welcome to design courses (likely with significant input
from a Faculty of Education) that are appropriate for pre-service teachers, in this case
mathematics course(s) for K-8 teachers. In this scenario, pre-service teachers no longer would
be required to take Arts and Science academic courses that have little or no connection to their
future teaching needs.
This offered solution is a paradigm shift in the sense of who controls the academic agenda of
teacher preparation. Currently, faculties of Arts and Science control it (with occasional and
minimal input from a Faculty of Education). Perhaps it is time that this archaic and inappropriate
situation be removed from the teacher preparation landscape. Removing it would also likely
improve the status of a Faculty of Education (and thereby teacher preparation) within a
university setting. No longer would pre-service teachers be faced with an academic menu
largely not designed to meet their teaching needs. They would not be metaphorically forced to
take courses that too often are seen as “hoop jumping” through the system. The academic
faculties would have to pay serious attention to their course offerings if they want to attract
Education students.
Who can bring about this paradigm shift? In the words of the grey tortoise, the Supreme Leader
created the current situation. Perhaps it is up to the Supreme Leader to undo the situation.
References
Andra, C. (2013). How do students understand mathematical lectures? Note-taking as retelling

of the teacher’s story. For the learning of mathematics, 33(2). 18-23.
Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it
special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 383-388.

Barton, B. (2011). Designing alternative undergraduate delivery. Paper presented at CERME
(Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education) 7.
Retrieved from http://www.cerme7.univ.rzeszow.pl/WG/14/CERME7-WG14-Paper---
Barton-REVISED-Dec2010.pdf. 1-10
Baumert, J., Kunter, M., Blum, W., Brunner, M., Voss, T., Jordan, A., . . . Tsai, Y-M. (2010).
Teachers’ mathematical knowledge, cognitive activation in the classroom, and student
progress. American Educational Research Journal, 47(1), 133-180.
Borrowman, M. (1965). Liberal education and the professional preparation of teachers. In M. L.
Borrowman (Ed.), Teacher education in America (pp. 1-53). New York, NY: Teachers
College Press.
British Columbia Department of Education. (1928). Regulations and courses of study for
provincial Normal Schools. Victoria, BC: King's Printer.
Carlson, M. P., & Rasmussen, C. (Eds.). (2008). Making the connection: Research and teaching
in undergraduate mathematics. Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of America.
Clifford, G., & Guthrie, J. (1988). Ed school: A brief for professional education. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
Einstein, A. (1921, January). Geometry and experience. Lecture given at the Prussian Academy
of Sciences in Berlin.
Feiman-Nemser, S. (2000). Teacher preparation: Structural and conceptual alternatives. East
Lansing, MI: National Center for Research on Teacher Education. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED312261)
Hadley, K. M., & Dorward, J. (2011). The relationship among elementary teachers’ mathematics
anxiety, mathematical instructional practices, and student mathematics achievement.
Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 5(2), 27-44.
Hill, H. C., Ball, D. L., & Schilling, S. G. (2008). Unpacking pedagogical content knowledge:
Conceptualizing and measuring teachers’ topic-specific knowledge of students. Journal
for Research in Mathematics Education, 39, 372-400.
Imig, D., & Imig, S. (2005). The Learned Report on Teacher Education: A vision delayed.
Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 37(5). 58-65.
Judge, H. (1982). American graduate schools of education: A view from abroad. New York, NY:
Ford Foundation.
Matthews, M., Rech, J., & Grandgenett, N. (2010). The impact of content courses on pre-service
elementary teachers’ mathematical content knowledge. Issues in the Undergraduate
Preparation of School Teachers: The Journal,1, 1-11.
Nardi, E., Jaworski, B., & Hegedus, S. (2005). A spectrum of pedagogical awareness for
undergraduate mathematics: From “tricks” to “techniques.” Journal for Research in
Mathematics Education, 36(4), 284-316.
Ojose, B. (2011). Mathematics literacy: Are we able to put the mathematics we learn into
everyday use? Journal of Mathematics Education, 4(1), 89-100.
Powell, A. (1976). University schools of education in the twentieth century. Peabody Journal of
Education, 54(1), 3-20.
Rockoff, J. E., Jacob, B. A., Kane, T. J., & Staiger, D. O. (2008). Can you recognize an effective
teacher when you recruit one? (NBER Working Paper Series: No. 14485, JEL No.
I21,J45). Washington, DC: National Bureau of Economic Research.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational
Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.
Sheenan, N., & Fullan, M. (1995). Teacher education in Canada: A case study of British
Columbia and Ontario. In M. Wideen & P. P. Grimmett (Eds.), Changing times in teacher
education: Restructuring or reconceptualization (pp. 89-101). New York, NY: Routledge
Press.
Smith, E. R. (Ed.) (1962). Teacher education: A reappraisal. New York, NY: Harper and Row.

Smyth, E. (2007, January 9). Centennial milestone: Celebrating 100 years of study in education
at the University of Toronto. University of Toronto Bulletin. Retrieved from
http://www.oise.utoronto.ca/newsletters/january_2007_newsletter.html
Star, J. R., Smith, J. P., & Jansen, A. (2008). What students notice as different between reform
and traditional mathematics programs. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,
39(1), 9-32.
Steele, M. D., & Hillen, A. F. (2012). The content-focused methods course: A model for
integrating pedagogy and mathematics content. Mathematics Teacher Educator, 1(1),
53-70.
Stols, G., Olivier, A., & Grayson, D. (2007). Description and impact of a distance mathematics
course for grade 10 to12 teachers. Pythagoras, 65, 32-38.
Watts, E. J. (2006). City and school in late antique Athens and Alexandria. Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press.
Wilson, S. M., Floden, R. E., & Ferrini-Mundy, J. (2002). Teacher preparation research: An
insider’s view from the outside. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(3), 190-204.
Zerpa C., Kajander, A., & Van Barnveld, C. (2009). Factors that impact preservice teachers’
growth in conceptual mathematical knowledge during a mathematics methods course.
International Electronics Journal of Mathematics Education, 4(2), 57-76.

PROVINCIAL MATHEMATICS ASSESSMENT IN MANITOBA
Ken Clark
Assessment Unit, Manitoba Education and Advanced Learning
Abstract
An overview is provided of provincial assessment initiatives in terms of how student

performance data related to mathematics is collected and used. The assessments include the
classroom-based provincial Grade 3/4 Assessment and the Middle Years Assessment (Grades
7 and 8), Provincial Grade 12 Tests, the national Pan-Canadian Assessment Program (PCAP;
Grade 8), and the OECD’s Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA; 15-year-
olds). Each assessment provides a particular perspective on achievement in mathematics. The
classroom-based assessments focus on helping teachers to identify and address learning gaps
immediately. PCAP and PISA provide system-wide insight into overall achievement, including in
relation to other provinces and countries. Provincial Grade 12 tests, though summative from a
student perspective, yield data about student achievement that can be used to support school
and division planning.
Provincial Mathematics Assessment in Manitoba
Manitoba has a balanced approach to the collection and use of data about student
achievement. Achievement data are collected at the early, middle, and senior years, and
various approaches are used, including classroom-based assessment, provincial tests, large-
scale tests, and national/international assessments. Each is designed to provide insight into
student achievement from different perspectives.
Overview4
Provincial assessment programming in Manitoba supports student learning by providing

feedback to students, teachers, and parents in relation to the degree to which students have
acquired certain critical competencies in mathematics. Three approaches are used. Classroom-
based assessments in mathematics are conducted by teachers at grades 3 and 7. Final,
‘summative’ provincial tests are administered at the end of Grade 12. National and international
assessments are administered at Grade 8 and to 15-year-olds. Each approach is described in
turn.
Classroom-Based Assessments5
These assessments are conducted by teachers with their students, using evaluation criteria,
including the competencies, scoring scales, and indicators of achievement provided by
Manitoba Education and Advanced Learning (the Department). Results are reported to parents
and to the Department.
Teachers use results to identify and address specific learning needs of their students. Schools
may use the web application developed for capturing student results, in order to generate
school-level summaries. Results are compiled by the Department at the division and provincial

4
Manitoba’s provincial assessments addressing language arts are not addressed in this article.
5
Details are available from links at <www.edu.gov.mb.ca/k12/assess/index.html>

levels, and provided to superintendents on a confidential basis, in order to support planning and
programming decisions.
Grade 3/4 Assessment
Early in the school year, Manitoba students in grade 3 (all programs) undergo classroom-based
provincial assessments in numeracy competencies that address patterns, the equal sign, whole
numbers, and addition and subtraction.
Teachers report on students’ level of performance to parents, and use the information to
address any learning gaps that are identified.
The Middle Years Assessment (Grades 7 and 8)
Manitoba students in grade 7 undergo a mid-year assessment in numeracy competencies that

address fractions, decimals and representation of numbers, and in number skills that address
problem solving and mental math.
As with the Grade 3/4 Assessment, teachers report on students’ level of performance to
parents, and use the information to address any learning gaps that are identified.
Provincial Grade 12 Tests – Mathematics
These provincial tests in “S” level (specialized) mathematics courses are required for students
seeking credit, and are administered near the end of each semester. They count for 30% of
students’ final course grades, except for the Essential Mathematics test which counts for 20%.
The tests reflect the learning outcomes described in the respective curricula, to the extent they
can be fairly reflected in a large-scale, paper/pencil test. (The Essential Mathematics test is
worth 20% rather than 30% of course grades because portions of the curriculum cannot be
reflected in the tests.) The tests are developed by teachers who serve on provincial committees
under the leadership of Manitoba Education. The tests are marked by teachers in their schools
or divisions, using marking guides provided by the Department, which also provides marking
training.
The Department collects samples of test booklets from each jurisdiction for remarking,
conducted by teachers under Departmental supervision. Feedback is provided to inform
jurisdictions of the consistency and accuracy of their marking. This information is provided
confidentially to jurisdictions, and summarized at the provincial level in “general comments”
documents posted at <www.edu.gov.mb.ca/k12/assess/archives/index.html>.
Students’ test marks are reported separately on report cards. The Department compiles results
at the school, division, and provincial levels, and provides this information on a confidential
basis to superintendents, in order to support planning and programming decisions at the school
and division levels.
Provincial summary results for provincial assessments are available online from links found at
<www.edu.gov.mb.ca/k12/assess/results/index.html>.

National and International Assessments
Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA)
The Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) is an initiative of the OECD and
targets 15-year-old students. It began in 2000 and is administered once every three years,
focussing on the domains of mathematics, science, and reading. Each domain takes its turn as
the “major” domain – more thoroughly assessed and contextual information gathered for more
detailed analysis – at each administration. The most recent assessment for which data is
available at the time of writing is PISA 2009 in which reading was the major domain. In PISA
2012 (results pending December 2013), mathematics was once again the major domain after
being the major domain in PISA 2003.
Pan-Canadian Assessment Program (PCAP
The Pan-Canadian Assessment Program (PCAP) began in 2007 and is administered to grade 8
students (as of 2010; the target group was 13-year-olds in 2007). Like PISA, PCAP addresses
mathematics, reading, and science, alternating major domains at each administration. The
rotation of domains is timed so that PISA addresses the same major domain two years later with
largely the same student cohort. Mathematics was the major domain in 2010, and results have
been published. Results for PCAP 2012 (focus on science) are expected to be published within
the first few months of 2014.
Reports from both of these assessments rank provincial performance in the domains, as well as
in sub-domains in the case of the major domain. Numerous other analyses are done for various
student, teacher, and school variables in relation to test performance.
Reports from PISA and PCAP are available on the Council of Ministers of Education, Canada
website: www.cmec.ca/131/Programs-and-Initiatives/Assessment/Overview/index.html
Conclusion
Provincial assessment programming in Manitoba employs various approaches to gather and

share information about student achievement in mathematics with students, the school system,
and the public. In the early and middle years, classroom-based assessments focus on helping
teachers to identify and address learning gaps in key areas. At the middle and senior years,
national and international assessments provide insight into overall student performance and
educational context. Grade 12 provincial tests confirm students’ achievement in mathematics at
the end of high school, and the results assist schools and divisions with planning to support
student learning.

THE RECENT MANITOBA K-8 MATHEMATICS CURRICULUM REVISION:
INTERROGATING ITS RATIONALE AND OUTCOME6
Thomas Falkenberg
University of Manitoba
Abstract
Recently, the Government of Manitoba revised its K-8 Mathematics Curriculum. This article
discusses two aspects of the review and the process involved: the rationalization provided for
the review and the interpretation of the outcome of the review. The conclusion section makes
briefly the case for a different direction in reviewing the school mathematics curriculum, a
direction that would give greater consideration to the mission of public education promoted by
the provincial government.
The Recent Manitoba K-8 Mathematics Curriculum Revision:

Interrogating Its Rationale and Outcome
In 2012, Manitoba Education (Manitoba’s ministry of education) undertook a review of the

province’s 2008 K-8 Mathematics Curriculum (Manitoba Education, Citizenship and Youth,
2008), which led to a revised curriculum in 2013 (Manitoba Education, 2013). In this article, I
discuss a number of aspects linked to (a) the rationalization of the review and (b) the
interpretation of the outcome of the review. I do not report on a formal research study of the
review process. Rather, I draw for some parts on my own observations of aspects of the review
process as someone who was directly involved in the process, and on my understanding of the
scholarly literature on school mathematics education and related fields of study.
Rationalizing the Curriculum Review
In 2012, the quality of K-8 mathematics education in Manitoba was discussed quite intensely in
the local media and other venues. The most media-published critics of the quality of current K-8
mathematics teaching in Manitoba made ample reference to (a) Manitoba students’ standing in
national and international standardized tests and (b) students’ perceived lack of “basic skills in
mathematics,” in their rationale for the inadequacy of K-8 school mathematics teaching in
Manitoba and for shortcomings of the 2008 K-8 Mathematics Curriculum (for example, see
Stokke, 2012). In the first section, I question a rationale for this critique and for the curriculum
review that is grounded in Manitoba students’ standing in large-scale mathematics testing. In
the second section, I do the same for a rationale for the critique and for the curriculum review
that is grounded in a claim of a lack of “basic skills” in Manitoba students.
Large-Scale Mathematics Test Results as a Rationale
The curriculum review process was explicitly structured by Manitoba Education to include a
direct comparison between the 2008 K-8 Mathematics Curriculum and curricula from
jurisdictions that had been ranked relatively higher on international and national standardized

6
This article draws on two earlier publications, Challenging the claim of the inadequacy of the 2008
Manitoba K-8 Mathematics Curriculum and Challenging the claim of the inadequacy of the 2008 Manitoba
K-8 Mathematics Curriculum, both available at
http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~falkenbe/Essays/Essays.html

tests. I have the following concerns with this approach to rationalize a critique of inadequate K-8
mathematics teaching in Manitoba and of the 2008 curriculum.
First, according to the 2009 PISA study (OECD, 2010), Canadian students “perform[ed]
significantly above the OECD average in mathematics” (p. 14).7 While on the 2010 Pan-
Canadian Assessment Program (PCAP) Manitoba students ended up second last among
eleven Canadian provinces and territories and a bit lower than in the 2007 assessment,
Manitoba students are still relatively close to the average Canadian mean score. The smaller
giants might be small among giants, but they are still giants. The results of Manitoba students
on these national and international standardized tests should be taken seriously as one of a
number of indicators for the quality of school mathematics teaching and learning, but they
should not give rise to concern about the K-8 mathematics teaching in Manitoba, and
particularly not to an out-of-cycle curriculum review. Rationalizing a curriculum review based on
the standing of Manitoba students on the 2010 PCAP is particularly questionable in light of the
fact that students in Alberta scored significantly higher on the mathematics component of the
2010 Pan-Canadian Assessment Program testing (third highest) than students from Manitoba
(second lowest) (see Council of Ministers of Education Canada, 2011), while the general and
the specific learning outcomes of the Alberta K-8 Mathematics Curriculum almost completely
match those of the 2008 Manitoba Mathematics Curriculum.
Second, there are many reasons to be cautious in using results from large-scale standardized
tests. To draw helpful conclusions from the performance of Manitoba students on those tests,
one needs to look closer at the types of problems that Manitoba students found challenging. A
thorough analysis of the types of problems that Manitoba students may have had on such
national and international tests has not been part of the discussion in the review process.
Third, other factors might have had an impact on Manitoba students’ performance in
mathematics assessment. For instance, might there be a link between the relative low
performance of Manitoba students in the mathematics component of the 2010 Pan-Canadian
Assessment Program testing and the relative low performance in the reading component?
Mathematics problems in such assessment programs are mostly presented as word problems.
A certain level of English language proficiency is thus required to perform well in those
assessment programs.
Fourth, in some of the discussions about K-8 mathematics education in Manitoba and in the
review process, comparisons were explicitly drawn between the performance of Manitoba
students and the performance of students from countries that performed at the top (by scores)
of the mathematics portion of the PISA studies, such as students from Singapore. Such
comparisons per se are not very helpful, unless they serve to support a position already taken
about the flaws of K-8 mathematics education in Manitoba. Provincial and national mathematics
education programs – as is true for all educational endeavours – are value driven. For one, they
are driven by a vision of what it means to be mathematically literate; and the question needs to
be asked, to what degree do these kinds of testing tools do justice to the respectively developed
visions of being mathematically literate? Also, educational endeavours are driven by educational
issues such as gender and socio-economic equality and the development of other human
capacities such as artistic and creative capacities. Provincial and national decisions made on
these educational issues are not reflected in a province’s or country’s standing in the score
ranking of the respective assessments.

7
For information on the PISA studies undertaken every three years by the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development (OECD), see http://www.oecd.org/pisa/aboutpisa/

Lack of “Basic Skills” as a Rationale
The underlying structure of the 2008 K-8 Mathematics curriculum puts constraints on any
curriculum review. A sole focus on a perceived lack of “basic skills” as a rationale for a
curriculum review does not give sufficient consideration to these constraints.
The 2008 K-8 Mathematics Curriculum was quite explicit about the overall mathematics
education objectives for Manitoba students, rephrased here as follows (in no particular order):
• that students understand what they do (conceptually as well as procedurally)

• that they develop a positive attitude towards mathematics and the life-long use of
mathematics;
• that students develop strategic competency, i.e., students have a variety of strategies
available to solve problems mathematically and can select intelligently the use of
particular strategies in particular problem contexts
• that students can communicate mathematically;
• that students can reason mathematically
• that students develop competency in fundamental mathematical skills (such as counting
and the four basic number operations)
Memorization of procedures can be counterproductive in achieving these objectives if

understanding of the procedure (i.e., understanding why and how they work the way they do
and in what contexts they can be used) has not been developed. What a curriculum built on the
objectives described above would want to see happen in its implementation is learning
opportunities that integrate these objectives, as illustrated in the following quotation from the
well-referenced report by the US-based Mathematics Learning Study Committee:8
A fourth observation is that children can and do devise or invent algorithms for
carrying out multidigit computations. Opportunities to construct their own
procedures provide students with opportunities to make connections between the
strands of proficiency. Procedural fluency is built directly on their understanding.
The invention itself is a kind of problem solving, and they must use reasoning to
justify their invented procedures. Students who have invented their own correct
procedures also approach mathematics with confidence rather than fear and
hesitation. (Kilpatrick, Swafford, & Findell, 2001, p. 197)
In this sense, memorization of procedures – including algorithms – that are not linked to
understanding, reasoning, and strategic competency can be counterproductive in achieving the
stated objectives of the curriculum.
The last objective listed above, the developing of fundamental mathematical skills, must include
the development of fluency in executing mathematical procedures for which a student has
develop conceptual and procedural understanding. Successful teachers of mathematics have
always known that, and have engaged students in developing fluency in executing procedures
as appropriate for the context. My knowledge of K-8 classrooms in mathematics suggests that
that is indeed happening in Manitoba. However, I also know from experience as a mathematics
teacher and from observations of classrooms that rote calculations, drill, and practice of not-
understood procedures and algorithms have traditionally been very prominent in Canadian K-8

8
The quotation includes references to the literature that are not reproduced here.

mathematics classrooms. For that reason, the 2008 curriculum tries to represent an approach to
the teaching of mathematics that is more balanced in regards to the development of
fundamental mathematical skills and the other curricular objectives, as expressed in the
following statement from the 2008 curriculum: “By decreasing emphasis on rote calculation, drill
and practice, and the size of numbers used in paper-and-pencil calculations, more time is
available for concept development” (Manitoba Education , Citizenship and Youth, 2008, p. 17).9
Because memorization and fluency of the skill-aspects of procedures are not learning objectives
per se – compared to the development of fundamental mathematical skills – but are rather ways
of achieving some of the objectives of mathematics education as characterized above,
memorizing and practicing skills should not appear in the curriculum as specific learning
outcomes, but should rather be considered aspects of good mathematics instruction. The 2008
curriculum did exactly that, when learning outcomes, for instance, expect that students will
“demonstrate an understanding of multiplication,” “demonstrate multiplication facts,” and “apply
mental math strategies for multiplication.” The specific learning outcomes provided in the 2008
K-8 Mathematics Curriculum provided a very good curricular basis for achieving the stated
general objectives of mathematics education in Manitoba.
The 2008 curriculum provided a range of general objectives for the teaching and learning of K-8
Mathematics, and research suggests an integrated approach to addressing those objectives
(see above). Therefore, any review of any aspect of the curriculum needs to give consideration
to the group of general learning objectives and the integrative nature of accomplishing those
objectives. To focus on only one aspect – such as (the perceived lack of) “basic skills” in the
curriculum – in a curriculum review does not give due consideration to the complex structure
and the range of curricular objectives, and to the integrative approach needed to address them.
Interpreting the Outcome of the Review Process
In the media, the dominant interpretation of the outcome of the review process in Manitoba was
described as a “back to basics curriculum” (McDonald, 2013) that brings “basic arithmetic back”
(Martin, 2013), which now (as compared to the 2008 curriculum) requires of students “to
memorize their times tables and learn to multiply and divide on paper and in their heads”
(Martin, 2013). The changes made to the 2008 curriculum are actually rather minor in scope.
The claim that “basic arithmetic [is] back in class” (Martin, 2013) is completely misleading
because it wrongly suggests that basic arithmetic was not in the previous version of the
curriculum. It also suggests that there is a fundamental shift in the orientation of the arithmetic
objectives in the curriculum. That is not the case at all. There are basically two types of changes
made to the curriculum. The first change is the explicit mentioning of the standard algorithms for
the four basic number operations as means of solving problems and understanding the
operations. However, students are also expected to use other means, such as personal
strategies and estimation. As I know from my own work with Manitoba school teachers, good
classroom teachers have always helped their students to develop multiple ways of solving those
types of problems – and the previous version of the curriculum made room for exactly that
approach. Furthermore, the revised curriculum continues to insist that students understand what
they are doing when using any of the strategies to solve problems.
The second change concerns the explicit reference to recalling number facts in the early
grades. The same as above applies here: There continue to be many more ways for students to

9
This statement has been removed from the revised version of the curriculum.

arrive at number facts, and good classroom teachers have always helped their students to
develop arithmetic fluency. The changes to the curriculum are, indeed, minor and blown out of
proportion in light of the fundamental ideas of good mathematics education that are still the
basis of the new curriculum, just as they were the basis of the 2008 curriculum.
Conclusion
The recent mathematics curriculum review in Manitoba had no substantial rationale to its credit,
and the outcome of the review process was quite inadequately characterized by those whom
the media have primarily drawn upon. The latter point is particularly concerning, because public
education is – and should be – at its core a political endeavour, which requires a well-informed
public and a rich public discourse about purpose and success in public education. I suggest that
we indeed could have used a mathematics curriculum review, but one of a different kind.
The students affected by the curriculum changes will graduate from high school in 8 to 12 years.
At that time, paper and pencil calculations – one of the central foci of the review concerns – will
be as obsolete as writing with a pen will be and partially already is at this time. The expansion of
technology use and availability in our day-to-day living will include in the near future, for
instance, the extensive use of sophisticated voice recognition programs that will have us dictate
any arithmetic problems at the time they occur and provide us with an answer faster than we will
be able to find a pencil and a piece of paper. In eight to twelve years, there will be no practical
use to learn an effective standardized paper and pencil algorithm for the four basic whole
number operations, as there is today no practical use for Newton’s algorithm of finding square
roots to any desired accuracy. On the other hand, the ministry’s vision for public education is for
it to prepare students “for lifelong learning and citizenship in a democratic, socially just and
sustainable society” (Province of Manitoba, 2013). Mathematics education in Manitoba can and
should contribute explicitly to this vision much more than it currently seems to do through
curriculum and practice. Would this not be a worthy point of a mathematics curriculum revision?
References
Kilpatrick, J., Swafford, J., & Findell, B. (Eds.). (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn
mathematics. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Manitoba Education. (2013). Kindergarten to grade 8 mathematics: Manitoba curriculum
framework of outcomes. Winnipeg, MB: Author.
Manitoba Education, Citizenship and Youth (2008). Kindergarten to grade 8 mathematics:
Manitoba curriculum framework of outcomes. Winnipeg, MB: Author.
Martin, N. (2013, June 18). Basic arithmetic back in class. Winnipeg Free Press, p. A3.
McDonald, M. (2013, September 13). Frustrated professors convince elementary schools to
step back from “new math” and go “back to basics.” National Post. Retrieved from
www.nationalpost.com
Ministers of Education Canada. (2011). Pan-Canadian Assessment Program: PCAP-2010.
Report on the Pan-Canadian assessment of mathematics, science, and reading. Toronto,
ON: Author.
OECD. (2010). PISA 2009 results: What students know and can do – Student performance in
reading, mathematics and science (volume 1). http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264091450-en
Province of Manitoba. (2013). Mandate, mission, vision, overarching goals and priority action
areas. Education and Advanced Literacy. Retrieved November 27, 2013, from
http://www.edu.gov.mb.ca/edu/mandate.html
Stokke, A. (2012, May 15). Raise the lowered bar for math. Winnipeg Free Press. Retrieved
from www.winnipegfreepress.com

UNDERSTANDING CONTEXTUAL TEACHING IN MATHEMATICS
Don Metz
Abstract
Teachers of mathematics typically promote the application of mathematics in “real world”

contexts. The assumption is that the contextualization of mathematics will make it less abstract,
more interesting, and easier to understand. It is less well understood that the context itself
invokes additional demands on the learner. In an effort to shed some light on teaching
mathematics contextually, several layers of context are described and the advantages and
disadvantages of teaching in context are discussed. In their efforts to reduce the distance
between the world in which mathematics find its meaning and the world in which the student
finds meaning, teachers should select their contexts for mathematics instruction carefully,
considering the inherent problems that every context presents.
Understanding Contextual Teaching in Mathematics
High school mathematics teachers have traditionally tried to develop students’ mathematical
abilities by using a range of contexts and teaching strategies that connect them to “real world” or
everyday situations. Teachers generally want their students to learn some mathematical
concepts and to apply such concepts under various conditions, sometimes in the classroom and
sometimes in the real world. However, many complex issues surround the use of contextual
methods for teaching mathematics.
Primary reasons for employing contextual teaching and learning centre on increasing students’
motivation through a more authentic and realistic approach while highlighting the relationships
between textbook mathematics and real-world problems. While these are admirable goals, I
argue that contexts and how they are used are poorly understood, and often misrepresented.
Even though contextual teaching and learning may have the potential to positively enhance the
learning process, diluted contexts supported by inadequate examples and poor practice have
led some to consider contextual approaches in a negative light (Bond, 2004). My discussion is
intended to sort out the various layers of contextual approaches, how they might be used in the
classroom, and the problems that one might incur with such contextual methods, in an effort to
provide a foundation for better utilization of contextual approaches.
Context is generally considered to give meaning to mathematical concepts. The umbrella of

context stretches across a wide variety of phenomena, such as environment or setting (Lave &
Wenger, 1991), real-world problems (Laughbaum, 2001), technical applications (Specht &
Zimmerman, 2006), and societal situations (Stocker, 2009). It is often used to encourage
students to see how mathematics connects to the learner’s everyday world, including career-
orienting activities. Contextual methods often cited include problem-based learning, situated
learning, service learning, project-based learning, and work-based learning (Williams, 2007).
In practice, classroom contextual references most often refer to adult real-world activities, such
as banking, calculating income tax, sales commissions, drafting, design, and so on, which are
presumed to be meaningful to students and which intend to connect abstract mathematical
concepts to practical situations.

A Model of Contextual Understanding
In my judgment, especially with respect to mathematics instruction, discussions surrounding

context often treat various contextual situations as equal. I argue that in terms of instruction, we
can view contextual experience in terms of several layers, all of which have a place in the
classroom.
Context of the Discipline
Many educators refer to mathematical concepts, most often found in the textbook, as de-
contextualized. However, there is always a context for mathematical understanding, and that is
the context of the discipline: how the concepts fit in the broader field of mathematics and the
interrelationships and connections between concepts within the domain. Thus, it would be more
appropriate to consider these concepts as non-contextualized. When they become de-
contextualized, it is only by choice or through an unawareness of the context of the discipline.
Often, students and their teachers, preoccupied by procedural matters, either hold an
unawareness of the broader domain or suspend that awareness temporarily (most likely the
former).
For example, under the contextual guise of banking, students are often asked to calculate, using
a specified formula, the amount of money accrued given a principal value, an interest rate, and
compounding period. No context is needed, or perhaps even desired, to make the calculation.
However, within the context of the discipline, a deeper understanding reveals a myriad of
connections to such entities as the constant e, natural logarithms, the exponential function, and
a host of interesting relevant applications in nature (Maor, 1998). While such an advanced
perspective may require a great deal of expertise and may not even be desirable for many
students, the context of the discipline provides a setting wherein abstract mathematical
concepts can be found within a broader framework of understanding. The teacher’s grasp of the
context of the discipline will go a long way towards choosing more appropriate, and often very
interesting, contexts for students to focus on understanding mathematical concepts.
Ball and Bass (2000) also illustrated this idea with a simple example of the definition of even
numbers. In the context of the discipline, even numbers can be viewed as a “fair share”
principle, pairing, alternating numbers on a number line, or by the status of the units’ digits.
They point out that beyond the context of the discipline, it is important to understand the domain
in which these definitions can be applied. However, far too often, students are required to
impose their own organization of concepts within the mathematical discipline. A few do well, but
most students remain unaware of the intricacies of the discipline and the conceptual ties that
abound within a disciplinary framework.
The Contrived Context
The contrived context is a fictional context, using words and events that may have some degree
of familiarity to the student. It is generally designed or planned by the teacher who invents the
context to illustrate a point. In some cases, the context is not even a normal or common
situation that we would typically encounter or even be initially interested in. If a calculation is
made, it may have no inherent value other than to support instruction.
For example, consider instruction in permutations and combinations, in order to investigate the
odds of choosing objects from a group. To facilitate instruction, the teacher uses a bag with five
marbles inside: three are blue and two are red. Students are asked to think about the chances

of selecting a blue or red marble, given one opportunity. Students can test their ideas and a
discussion follows. They could further consider the chances of selecting two blue marbles, one
blue and one red, or two red marbles when they select two marbles at a time, and so on. The
context of using marbles in a bag is contrived; it is not an act that one would normally perform. It
has been invented for the purpose of making the mathematical concepts more understandable.
When the context of the discipline, the numbers and selections, and calculation of odds are in
agreement with the physical context (the bag, the marbles, the colors), students are better able
to construct mental models to support the abstract mathematical concepts. In this case, the
context, even though contrived, serves instruction as it gets the students thinking about the
problem in the right way, using the appropriate cognitive processes guided by the teacher.
Moreover, such a contrived context can be used to scaffold instruction to a more practical
context such as, in our example, the odds of drawing a pair in a game of cards.
The Familiar Context
The familiar context uses words and events that relate to what students already know, and often
what they like, in order to appeal to their interests and connect to their likely experiences. A
good context, in this sense, is a natural fit between the intended mathematical concepts and the
context. Boaler (1994) suggested that for many students, the domain of mathematics is
synonymous to a “cold, detached, remote body of knowledge” (p. 552). She argued that this
perspective may be addressed by more subjective and personal contexts. In her view, real-
world, local community, and individualized examples are intended to motivate and engage
students such that they become involved with mathematics, creating an awareness of the value
of mathematics in their lives and in the real world (Boaler, 1993). Many common, familiar
contexts are being used in mathematics classrooms today, of which a large number are career
oriented. The interested teacher needs only to browse through various mathematical resources
to find such contexts as designing logos (Williams, 2007), pharmaceutical dosage (Crawford &
Witte, 1999), and skating (Heck, 2009), to mention a few. However, as discussed later in this
article, the teacher should be clearly aware of the problems associated with the so-called
“familiar contexts.”
The Extended Context
The extended context is designed to use mathematics as one aspect of a problem situation. For
example, in teaching mathematics for social justice, students are not only confronted with using
mathematical concepts to address a serious social issue but must also integrate these concepts
with other ideas from domains such as social studies, science, politics, and culture. In Stocker’s
(2009) book, Math That Matters, students use mathematics as a tool to model or interpret data
associated with a societal concern. Many extended contexts can be found in the relation
between science and mathematics, and the large context problem approach of Stinner (1995)
can be used to provide a framework for such integration by using a storyline. One criticism of
the extended context is the extent to which students are capable of addressing a wide range of
perspectives taken from an unfamiliar environment. Students may become engaged in tasks
requiring them to consider a variety of issues that may be worthwhile in their own right, but
which are a lot more “real” to adults (Boaler, 1993).
The Real Context
Although many contexts are portrayed as “real life” contexts, they are mostly fictional contexts
that simulate real experiences. The real context occurs when students are involved with the
mathematics embedded in a situation in an authentic manner. In other words, they experience

the context themselves while they are learning and applying the mathematics. The real context
is not often used, but can be very effective and engaging for the right students. Examples of a
real context would be students whose mathematics class operates the school store or cafeteria,
teachers whose students build a house while learning and doing all of the mathematical
calculations that are required, students running their own business, and so on. The use of such
real contexts is rare, but they can be very effective and engaging for students who would
otherwise feel disconnected with traditional symbol-manipulation mathematics.
Many students struggle with the traditional approach to mathematics instruction, wherein they
receive concepts as facts or algorithmic processes and are required to impose their own context
to link to meaningful understanding. When students lack the ability to impose a disciplinary
context, or lack the experience to relate to known contexts, it is not surprising that students
experience difficulties learning mathematics. Using the real context helps to bridge the gap
between abstract mathematical concepts and everyday experiences and applications. Students
become actively engaged in their own learning.
Problems with Contextual Approaches
Most proponents of contextual teaching advocate its use for motivation, interest, and as a link
between complex mathematical concepts and everyday life. It is often assumed that contexts
are beneficial for students, especially the less able, by making the learning situation more
concrete and less demanding (Ahmed & Pollitt, 2007).
The assumption that these benefits are automatic is somewhat misleading. Ahmed and Pollitt
(2007) outlined the demands that context makes in terms of language, familiarity, and attention.
They argued that context inevitably leads to the use of more complicated language, often
involving metaphors or culturally specific terms. Additionally, the familiarity of the context will
vary from student to student. In addressing the context, students’ attention must be focused on
the relevant parts while ignoring the irrelevant pieces. Students who are unfamiliar with the
context will likely be distracted and even believe that there is some content that they may have
failed to learn. Mevarech and Stern (1997) suggested that in reading a context, students begin
to look for relevant concepts and processes and they match these with their mental
representation of the problem. This representation, they argue, is vulnerable to interference
from irrelevant concepts embedded in the context.
Most familiar contexts are fictional events or problems intended to motivate students by making
the task seem more relevant. Ironically, if the context is not related to the mathematical content
being taught in a meaningful manner, the student needs to decontextualize the mathematics in
order to understand the requirements of the task (Mevarech & Stern). Wiliam (1997) called this
“math looking for someplace to happen” (p. 1) and further added, “In a very real sense, the
situation is a ‘con’-text – a deception that the activity is worthwhile” (p. 3).
Several studies also show that students focus on contextual aspects of a problem embedded in
the context rather than on the salient mathematical concepts. Students tend to choose their
procedures based on the context (Boaler, 1993), focus on single elements of the context
(Nickson, 1998), experience difficulty with pictures that may influence their reasoning (Sweiry et
al., 2002; Ahmed & Pollitt, 2007), or invoke everyday knowledge to solve their problems
(Mevarech & Stern, 1997).
In their research, Meravech and Stern (1997) found that different contexts lead learners to
activate different kinds of knowledge structures. In sparse contexts, the students in their study

used abstract logical mathematics more often than students who used more complex contexts.
They reasoned that extraneous information can be distracting to students, shifting their attention
from the mathematic features of the problem to non-mathematic features. They speculated that
the context acts as a filter for information processing by the student. If the context is enriched,
the student’s attention can be diverted away from the mathematical features of the problem,
activating simplistic mathematical models of disconnected elements of the context.
Meravech and Stern (1997) highlighted the fundamental dilemma that teachers face when
choosing appropriate contexts for mathematics instruction:
On the one hand, introducing problems embedded in sparse contexts may be too
abstract, not interesting to many students, and detached from their everyday experience.
On the other hand, initial examples embedded in real contexts, may exert debilitating
effects on the solution of problems embedded in a sparse context, particularly if the real
contexts are unfamiliar or non-meaningful to students. (p. 90)
Thus, teachers need to think carefully about the type of context that they wish to employ in their
instruction.
Teachers who wish to use a contextual approach should look for contexts such that the central
mathematical concepts are also central to the context. The context should not just be a fictional
real-world setting used to place the mathematics somewhere, but should be chosen
purposefully because of how it connects to the mathematics. This approach is not intended to
eliminate the choice of contexts selected to motivate students or to provide an appealing setting.
However, teachers must remain cognizant of the pitfalls (described previously) that students can
experience. If a context is appropriate for a topic, then aspects of the context should fit in well
with the mental model that the student is constructing (Ahmed & Pollit, 2000). Additionally, if
students have understood the abstract concepts addressed in the context, they will be less
vulnerable to be distracted by irrelevant aspects of the context. Mevarech and Stern (1997)
described several examples. For learners who conceive multiplication as repeated addition, a
context that invokes the product of fractions (which grows smaller) will be disconcerting.
Similarly, learners who comprehend graphs only point by point will experience difficulties with
contexts that involve continuous functions.
Mevarech and Stern (1997) also concluded, “Given these studies, it is questionable whether
real contexts can prove important when the task is rich with abstract mathematical concepts that
are apart from concrete realities or specific objects” (p. 71). In this light, imposing a context for
learning mathematical concepts, as opposed to applying mathematical concepts already
learned, demands careful attention. Thus, well-placed contexts for learning abstract
mathematical concepts should be chosen judiciously.
Ahmed and Porritt (2007) introduced the concept of focus when selecting a well-grounded
context. In their view, a question in a given context is focused when it addresses the aspects of
the context that are most relevant for the student. In this way, a more “focused” context alerts
students to relevant concepts, reducing noise and interference with comprehension and
reasoning. In all cases in their study, more focused questions proved better than less focused
ones.
When using contexts, teachers should select them to match pedagogical goals, taking into
consideration the abstract mathematics and the relevance of the context to the mathematics
and to the students’ understanding. A historical approach, as found in Maor’s (1998) Story of a

Number, may be an excellent approach for developing a more advanced perspective within the
context of the discipline for compounding concepts. A well-chosen contrived context could be an
excellent way to scaffold instruction to more complex and familiar context situations. A familiar
context can be used as a means to generate interest, and the extended and real contexts are
well placed for independent project work. However, each context must be chosen carefully to
fulfil these needs.
Conclusion
We often think that by introducing “real world” and “everyday” contexts, mathematics
automatically becomes less abstract. As discussed, this is not to be taken for granted. A deeper
understanding of mathematics, and indeed a more authentic understanding, dictates that we
reduce the distance between school mathematics, the context of the discipline, and
mathematics as it is practised in the real world.
More focused contexts, which are consistent with the mathematical concepts under
consideration and reduce the irrelevant aspects of the context to a minimum, are likely to be
more successful. Teachers should carefully select their contexts for mathematics instruction,
clearly understanding the inherent problems that every context presents.
References
Ahmed, A., & Pollitt, A. (2007). Improving the quality of contextualized questions: An
experimental investigation of focus. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice,
14(2), 201-232.
Ahmed, A., & Pollitt, A. (2000, May). Observing context in action. Paper presented at The
International Association for Educational Assessment Conference, Jerusalem.
Boaler J. (1993). Encouraging the transfer of "school" mathematics to the "real world" through
the integration of process and content, context and culture. Educational Studies in
Mathematics, 25, 341-373.
Boaler, J. (1994). When do girls prefer football to fashion? An analysis of female
underachievement in relation to “realistic” mathematic contexts. British Educational
Research Journal, 20(5), 551-564.
Ball, D. L., & Bass, H. (2000). Interweaving content and pedagogy in teaching and learning to
teach: Knowing and using mathematics. In J. Boaler (Ed.), Multiple perspectives on the
teaching and learning of mathematics (pp. 83-104). Westport, CT: Ablex.
Bond, L. (2004). Using contextual instruction to make abstract learning more concrete.
Techniques: Connecting Education and Careers, 79 (1), 30-33.
Crawford, M., & Witte, M. (1999). Strategies for mathematics: Teaching in context. Educational
Leadership, 57(3), 34-38.
Heck, A. (2009). Bringing reality into the classroom, Teaching Mathematics and Its Applications,
28,164-179.
Laughbaum, E. D. (2001). Teaching in context: Enhancing the processes of teaching and
learning in community college mathematics.Community College Journal of Research and
Practice, 25(5), 383-390.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York,
NY: Cambridge University Press.
Maor, E. (1998). e, the story of a number. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Specht, M., & Zimmermann, A. (2006). An architecture for contextualized learning experiences.
Sixth IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT’06,
pp.169-173).

Mevarech, Z., & Stern, E. (1997). Interaction between knowledge and contexts on
understanding abstract mathematical concepts. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,
65, 68-95.
Nickson, M. (1998). What is the difference between a pizza and a relay race? The role of
context in assessing KS2 mathematics. British Journal of Curriculum & Assessment, 7(3),
19-23.
Stinner, A. (1995). Contextual settings, science stories, and large context problems: Toward a
more humanistic science education. Science Education, 79(5), 555-581.
Stocker, D. (2009). Math that matters: A teacher resource for linking math and social justice.
Ottawa, ON: Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.
Sweiry, E., Crisp, V., Ahmed, A., & Pollitt, A. (2002, September). Tales of the expected: The
influence of students’ expectations on exam validity. Paper presented at the British
Educational Research Association Conference, Exeter, England.
Wiliam, D. (1997, September). Relevance as MacGuffin in mathematics education. Paper
presented at the British Educational Research Association Conference, York, England.
Williams, D. L. (2007). The what, why, and how of contextual teaching in a mathematics
classroom. The Mathematics Teacher, 100(8), 572-575.

AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES
(in the order in which their names appear in this journal volume)
PAUL BETTS
Dr. Paul Betts is an associate professor in the University of Winnipeg’s Faculty of

Education. He teaches mathematics teaching methods to K-8 pre-service teachers. He
spends considerable time working with school teachers on effective means of teaching
mathematics. Paul’s research interests include the professional learning of teachers and
the learning needs of children who struggle to understand mathematics.
DAVID ANDERSON
Dave Anderson has been with the Kenanow Faculty of Education at the University College
of the North in The Pas, Manitoba, since it began in 2008. His primary responsibility is
coordinating the community-based programs currently being delivered in six Manitoba
communities. In addition, Dave teaches Math Methods and Aboriginal Perspectives for
Teachers. His focus is to help all teachers honour all students and provide learning
opportunities for students to learn and live Mino Bimadiziwin (a Good Life).
SHERI-LYNN SKWARCHUK
Dr. Sheri-Lynn Skwarchuk is an associate professor in the University of Winnipeg’s

Faculty of Education, specializing in research on children’s early numeracy
development. She has worked on several large scale funded projects studying children's
mathematical learning with researchers from across Canada. Her university teaching
focuses on the inclusion of children, assessment and helping students with learning
difficulties. Sheri-Lynn consults as a school psychologist and is a parent of three school-
aged children.
JERRY AMEIS
Dr. Jerry Ameis in an associate professor of mathematics education at the University of

Winnipeg. His research interests concern how children learn mathematics and the kinds of
mathematics they can learn. Jerry’s view of teaching and learning borrows from the
fundamental notions of a complex chaotic system where predictability is suspect.
Translated into educational research and practice, this means that we must be wary of our
fondness for using narrow lenses to view phenomena and our penchant for adopting
bandwagon approaches to pedagogy.
MARC KULY
Marc Kuly is a teacher in Winnipeg School Division's Professional Learning and

Leadership Centre. Previous to his current work with supporting new teacher development
he has worked as a university lecturer, high school teacher and educational consultant.

VAL MYTOPHER
Val Mytopher is a Nursery to Grade 8 math support teacher at Niji Mahkwa School in the
Winnipeg School Division. She is a member of a committee that collaborates in creating
the divisional end of year math exam for all grade 8 students. Val is also a mentor in
Winnipeg School Division's Induction Program.
CHRIS NEUFELD
Chris Neufeld is a teacher, team leader, and mathematics department head at General
Wolfe School in Winnipeg School Division. He is a member of a committee that
collaborates in creating the divisional end of year math exam for all grade 8 students. As
well, he has self-built a growing collection of smartboard lessons and games that
complement his mathematics programming.
IAN DONELLY
Ian Donnelly is a mathematics curriculum consultant for Manitoba Education and

Advanced Learning. He has enjoyed more than 25 years teaching mathematics and
computer science to high school students in Manitoba. Ian has an M.Ed. (Curriculum:
Mathematics and Natural Sciences) from the University of Manitoba.
KEN CLARK
Ken Clark is the coordinator of the Assessment Unit which, in collaboration with the
Bureau de l’éducation française, oversees provincial assessments at grades 3, 4, 7 and 8,
national and international assessments, and the provincial report card. The unit also
implements the grade 12 mathematics and English language arts provincial tests. Ken has
led several provincial assessment projects over the years, and coordinated the
implementation of the provincial middle years assessment and the provincial report card.
Prior to joining the unit in 1997, he was a mathematics and science teacher during which
time he completed a master’s degree in measurement and evaluation. He began his
professional career as a chemical engineer in the pulp and paper industry.
THOMAS FALKENBERG
Dr. Thomas Falkenberg is an associate professor in the University of Manitoba’s Faculty of

Education. Before he came to Winnipeg, he worked as a high school mathematics teacher
and department head at a North Vancouver high school.
DON METZ
Dr. Don Metz is an associate professor in the University of Winnipeg’s Faculty of

Education. Don holds a B.Sc. in physics, and an M.Ed. and Ph.D. in science education.
Don has been extensively involved with curriculum development in Manitoba as the
principal writer of the Manitoba physics program and as the author of several teaching
resources, including In Motion and Teaching Electrostatics. He has been very active in the
professional development of in-service teachers for many years.

AUTHOR CONTACTS
The following authors have generously contributed their email addresses, as a courtesy to
readers who have queries about their articles.
Paul Betts
(p.betts@uwinnipeg.ca)
Advancing the Counting Strategies of Young Children Identified as Struggling
To Learn Mathematics
David Anderson
(dbanderson@ucn.ca)
Anishinabe Mathematics: A Way of Seeing and Doing
Sheri-Lynn Skwarchuk
(s.skwarchuk@uwinnipeg.ca)
Encouraging the “Mathematical Genius” that Is in Every Child
Jerry Ameis
(j.ameis@uwinnipeg.ca)
Joe and Sigmund: A Looking-Back Chat with Implications for Today’s Math Debates
Marc Kuly Val Mytopher Chris Neufeld

(mkuly@wsd1.org) s (vmytopher@wsd1.org) (cneufeld@wsd1.org)
Learning To Fail: Our Journey through Math, Social Justice, Action Research, and
Collaboration
Ian Donnelly
ian.donnelly@gov.mb.ca
Literature Review Summary of the WNCP Research Project Final Report
Jerry Ameis
(j.ameis@uwinnipeg.ca)
Mathematicians Teaching Mathematics to K-8 Pre-Service Teachers: The End of an
Anachronism
Ken Clark
(kenneth.clark@gov.mb.ca)
Provincial Mathematics Assessment in Manitoba
Thomas Falkenberg
(thomas.falkenberg@umanitoba.ca)
The Recent Manitoba K-8 Mathematics Curriculum Revision: Interrogating Its
Rationale and Outcome
Don Metz
(d.metz@uwinnipeg.ca)
Understanding Contextual Teaching in Mathematics

INVITATION TO AUTHORS
The articles that are published in The MERN Journal bridge the gaps between research and
practice in a variety of educational settings: K-12 and adult/post-secondary schools,
classrooms, and administrative offices; government and other community service agencies; etc.
The MERN affiliates listed on page 2 represent different languages and cultures that we are
blessed to serve in our province. The MERN Journal is dedicated to promoting best practices in
education by sharing the expertise and experiences of forum presenters with various
experiential backgrounds.
The MERN Journal features articles based on MERN forum presentations, both past and
current. All forum presenters are welcome to contribute manuscripts. The submissions are
vetted through Heather Hunter, MERN director (heather.hunter@mern.ca). Our editor, Marion
Terry, then works with the successful authors to polish their manuscripts for publication.
We publish annual “all-inclusive” volumes and periodic “special issue” volumes based on
specific forums. Volume 7 is a special issue volume dedicated to the spring 2013 forum on
mathematics education. Volume 8 will be our annual volume dedicated to MERN forums held
during the 2013-14 academic year.
Each annual volume may include manuscripts from prior forums. If you presented in a previous
year and did not contribute to that year’s volume, do not despair. We invite you to revisit your
presentation notes and turn them into a manuscript for consideration by Heather Hunter at any
time.
Our manuscript specifications are as follows:
• Times New Roman 12-point font
• Double-line spacing
• APA style for in-text citations and the list of references
• Include your name, institutional affiliation, and email address on the title page. The email
address is for communication purposes during the editing process. We print email
addresses only when space permits at the end of a volume.
• Include a biography (maximum 100 words). We print biographies only when space
permits at the end of a volume.
• Include an abstract (maximum 150 words) under your title on page 2.
For more information about MERN and its other publications and services to the field of resarch
and education in Manitoba, visit the following website: www.mern.ca
– Marion Terry,
Editor

MERN Journal-V07 2013

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

MERN Journal-V07 2013

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The MERN Journal, Volume 7, 2013 1

For parents of pre-school children, I recommend the contribution by Sheri-Lynn Skwarchuk.

The MERN Journal, Volume 7, 2013 1

MERN's purpose is twofold:

1. to disseminate Manitoba-based education research, and

2012-13 Research Affiliates

copy editing for volume 7 by Marion Terry

online cover design for volume 7 by Michael Nantais

2 The MERN Journal, Volume 7, 2013

Advancing the Counting Strategies of Young Children Identified as Struggling 5

Anishinabe Mathematics: A Way of Seeing and Doing 11

Encouraging the “Mathematical Genius” that Is in Every Child 15

Literature Review Summary of the WNCP Research Project Final Report 29

Mathematicians Teaching Mathematics to K-8 Pre-Service Teachers: The End 35

Provincial Mathematics Assessment in Manitoba 46

The Recent Manitoba K-8 Mathematics Curriculum Revision: Interrogating Its 49

Understanding Contextual Teaching in Mathematics 54

The MERN Journal, Volume 7, 2013 3

“Inquiry into Mathematics Education”

Friday, March 15, 2013

4 The MERN Journal, Volume 7, 2013

Advancing the Counting Strategies of Young Children

The MERN Journal, Volume 7, 2013 5

Can a Number Race Game be a Learning Environment

Playing the Game

6 The MERN Journal, Volume 7, 2013

The MERN Journal, Volume 7, 2013 7

Fit of the Game with Numeracy Learning Environment Models

8 The MERN Journal, Volume 7, 2013

Another possibility is to consider a neuroscientific idea: learning is supported by “informational

The MERN Journal, Volume 7, 2013 9

10 The MERN Journal, Volume 7, 2013

David Anderson (WahWahbigiinoojii)

Anishinabe Mathematics: A Way of Seeing and Doing

Tansi, Boozhoo, Edląnét’e. WaaWaabiiginoojii nindizhnikahz.

The MERN Journal, Volume 7, 2013 11

12 The MERN Journal, Volume 7, 2013

The MERN Journal, Volume 7, 2013 13

Miigwech, Ekosi, Maa Sii Chōk

Benton-Banai, E. (2004). Aanda Wenjigewin. Lecture conducted from Seven Generations

14 The MERN Journal, Volume 7, 2013

Encouraging the “Mathematical Genius” that Is in Every Child

As a school psychologist, a parent, and a professor who studies children’s mathematical

The Development of the Numeracy Brain

The MERN Journal, Volume 7, 2013 15

Figure 1: The “ab-string” Symbol

Supporting Numeracy Learning at Home

16 The MERN Journal, Volume 7, 2013

Pursuing Interests and Involvement

The MERN Journal, Volume 7, 2013 17

Summing Up: Counting on Parents To Provide Numeracy Opportunities

When I grow up, I want to be an astronaut or a mathematician or a horror screenplay

18 The MERN Journal, Volume 7, 2013

Other Recommended Readings

The MERN Journal, Volume 7, 2013 19

Joe and Sigmund:

A one act play set in 1950.

20 The MERN Journal, Volume 7, 2013

The MERN Journal, Volume 7, 2013 21

[Joe looks amused for a moment and then continues.]

22 The MERN Journal, Volume 7, 2013

LEARNING TO FAIL: OUR JOURNEY THROUGH MATH,

Marc Kuly, Val Mytopher, and Chris Neufeld

The MERN Journal, Volume 7, 2013 23