Search

We demonstrate the power of Variation Theory as an analytical tool used to understand the underlying conceptual structure of mathematics lessons taught by English primary school teachers. We study excerpts of three lessons that are posted on a professional website. We show how lesson analysis using variation allows us to focus on what is made available to be learnt in the lesson excerpts. We identify some differences in their use of dimensions of variation and the associated ranges of change and discuss how suitable patterns of variation and invariance might differ according to the nature of the learning focus. We reflect on the value of our analytical approach.

We take "mathematical structure" to mean the identification of general properties which are instantiated in particular situations as relationships between elements or subsets of elements of a set. Because we take the view that appreciating structure is powerfully productive, attention to structure should be an essential part of mathematical teaching and learning. This is not to be confused with teaching children mathematical structure. We observe that children from quite early ages are able to appreciate structure to a greater extent than some authors have imagined. Initiating students to appreciate structure implies, of course, that their appreciation of it needs to be cultivated in order to deepen and to become more mature. We first consider some recent research that supports this view and then go on to argue that unless students are encouraged to attend to structure and to engage in structural thinking they will be blocked from thinking productively and deeply about mathematics. We provide several illustrative cases in which structural thinking helps to bridge the mythical chasm between conceptual and procedural approaches to teaching and learning mathematics. Finally we place our proposals in the context of how several writers in the past have attempted to explore the importance of structure in mathematics teaching and learning. (Contains 1 figure and 3 footnotes.)

This paper arises from a study of how concepts related to understanding functions develop for students across the years of secondary/high school, using small samples from two different curricula systems: England and Israel. We used a survey consisting of function tasks developed in collaboration with teachers from both curriculum systems. We report on 120 higher achieving students, 10 from each of English and Israeli, 12-18 years old. Iterative and comparative analysis identified similarities and differences in students' responses and we conjecture links between curriculum, enactment, task design, and students' responses. Towards the end of school, students from both curriculum backgrounds performed similarly on most tasks but approached these by different routes, such as intuitive or formal and with different understandings, including correspondence and covariational approaches to functions.

This study aims to explore the conceptualisations of function that some students express when they are responding to fictitious students' statements about functions. We also asked them what is meant by "function" and many voluntarily used examples in their responses. The task was developed in collaboration with teachers from two curriculum systems, England and Israel. It was given to 10 high-achieving English students from each of the years 10-13 and to 10 high-achieving Israeli students from comparable years (total of 80 students). Data analysis included identifying students' dominant ideas for functions as expressed in their responses, and analysing the types of examples that students used to explain their responses. Differences found between the samples from the countries led to conjectures about the influence of curriculum and teaching, and in particular, about the role of word, in this case "function", in concept image development. Whereas most students showed that they had a meaning for the word, those students whose relevant experience of earlier concepts had been organised around the word "function" generally showed stronger understanding of function as object.

This study examines expressions of reasoning by some higher achieving 11 to 18 year-old English students responding to a survey consisting of function tasks developed in collaboration with their teachers. We report on 70 students, 10 from each of English years 7-13. Iterative and comparative analysis identified capabilities and difficulties of students and suggested conjectures concerning links between the affordances of the tasks, the curriculum, and students' responses. The paper focuses on five of the survey tasks and highlights connections between informal and formal expressions of reasoning about variables in learning. We introduce the notion of "schooled" expressions of reasoning, neither formal nor informal, to emphasise the role of the formatting tools introduced in school that shape future understanding and reasoning.

This paper reports the activity of three secondary school mathematics departments in England in self-initiated states of change that led to overall improvements in students' achievements when compared to previous cohorts. This took place without intervention and without their participation in external projects. They provide examples of departments that can work effectively on their own development, and hence, their work adds to our knowledge of the potential for development through collaboration. The departments were monitored over 3 years, and data were analysed using the lens of activity theory. In contrast to departments in many studies, these departments worked overtly on mathematics pedagogy through the shared production and discussion of resources, shared planning and task design. Also in contrast to several other studies, they developed distinct ways to handle differences of subject knowledge among the teachers in the department. Their focus changed during the study from developing resource banks to supporting students' learning through hybrid teaching.

It is a well-established norm in England that secondary school mathematics is taught in groups categorised by prior attainment. It is therefore worthwhile to report alternative practices of all-attainment teaching--but these are rare. In this article, we report aspects of all-attainment mathematics teaching in a secondary school that has maintained this practice as its norm over a considerable time, including in recent years, when a hierarchical approach to measuring mathematics learning has become the norm for accountability purposes. The teaching described here takes account of the needs and progress of different students within a common curriculum focus, and we identify key principles behind it. The article is intended to contribute to a record of all-attainment grouping practices in mathematics in England, so that these practices are not lost.

We draw on two studies of mathematics departments in 11-18 comprehensive maintained schools in England to compare and contrast the insights provided by differing theoretical perspectives. In one study, activity theory was used to describe common features of the work of three departments. In the other, a mathematics department was viewed and analysed as a complex system. In both cases, it was the learning of the departments as systems rather than of individuals that was of interest. The affordances and limitations of the analytical perspectives are discussed. Taken as a whole, this paper opens up the workings of school mathematics departments in a country which has a strong department culture.

Discusses fairness and equity in mathematics assessment. Illustrates these issues with two studies of teachers' informal classroom assessment practices and their interpretation and evaluation of students' formal written mathematical texts. Indicates that different teachers could interpret similar work differently. Discusses and critiques approaches for improving the quality and equity of teachers' assessment. (Author/KHR)