The world is constantly adapting, why shouldn’t the style and the goals of teaching and
learning be evolving as well? Implementing a new form of pedagogy that can be best utilised
to promote greater engaged and proactive learning is transformative pedagogy. This student
centred learning benefits students’ critical and creative thinking, as well as adaptive
reasoning (the understanding of the relationships amongst a mixture of concepts and
situations). The development of the least K-10 Mathematics syllabus has made note of the
increasingly sophistication and increased demands within maths and numeracy in the 21st
century (BOSTES, 2014). The focus is not solely on procedural fluency, but has included
mathematical understanding, communication, logical reasoning, analytical thought and
problem solving skills. There was this change in focus because it is recognised that numeracy
is an essential skill for students to become successful learners (MCEETYA 2008).
Numeracy is the key that enables individuals to successfully participate within the schooling
environment (Kraayenoord, C., & Elkins, J.2004). This statement represents the changing
processes and beliefs of how great of an impact understanding all facets of mathematics and
numeracy. In previous years of education the focus was purely on mathematical processes.
Students didn’t truly understand the purpose of numeracy and how they could implement this
knowledge in everyday life, understanding numeracy has greater use than literacy in life
(Watson, D. 2010). The role of the teacher is vital in introducing and improving student’s
knowledge and application of numeracy; however since the goals and processes have
changed to benefit students, so teaching techniques should adapt to facilitate these changes. A
typical classroom will be structured either transmissional pedagogy (teacher centred, little
interaction between students and teacher) or transactional pedagogy (curriculum focus on
problems and solutions), for students to progress further the implementation of a
transformative pedagogy/constructivist approach is necessary. A constructivist approach
encourages students to decipher their own understanding from their own experiences; also it
promotes a holistic view of education within one bracket (concept relationships), rather than
see them as separate articles (Kraayenoord, C., & Elkins, J.2004). The importance of students
being able to construct their own personal meaning is pivotal for students to develop their
base knowledge; however the role of the teacher as a facilitator needs to be more than this. A
teacher needs to be able to understand the needs of the students and recognise that there isn’t
just one avenue of learning. This is why the mixture of stimuli is necessary because if
students are only taught through one avenue of learning they become restricted in their
knowledge, only when students are constantly provided with different materials will they
fully grasp knowledge of numeracy (Rice, D., 2008). The focus of numeracy in Australia has
been neglected, causing students to become illiterate in their numeracy knowledge.
PARAGRAPH 2: Critically discusses results in relation to research context reflects critically
on links to current practice.
PARAGRAPH 3: There are difficulties in integrating/implementing quantative literacy into
the curriculum and classrooms; this is because students have not been provided the necessary
framework knowledge and skills (Frith, V.2012). For this method to be effective of
maths/numeracy to be effective it must be implemented throughout the schooling experience
because it is a process that must be constantly adapted and challenged to further progress the
student’s knowledge (Watson, D. (2010). As previously noted the research mentioned that the
stimuli must be constantly varied students to develop full understanding. However this may
be detrimental to learners because if they are constantly changing stimuli students may not
develop the necessary knowledge to connect relationships with other facets of numeracy
(Watson, D. 2010).
REFERENCE LIST:
1) BOSTES. NSW Government, (2014). Mathematics K–10 Syllabus. Retrieved from
Board of Studies Teaching & Educational Standards NSW website:
http://syllabus.bos.nsw.edu.au/mathematics/mathematics-k10/
2) Frith, V. (2012). Quantitative Literacy Interventions at University of Cape Town: Effects of
Separation from Academic Disciplines. Numeracy, 5(1), 1-23. Retrieved March 11, 2015,
from http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/numeracy/vol5/iss1/art3/
3) Kraayenoord, C., & Elkins, J. (2004). Learning Difficulties in Numeracy in Australia. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 37(1), 32-41. Retrieved March 17, 2015, from ProQuest Education
Journals.
4) Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs
(Australia). (2008). Melbourne declaration on educational goals for young
Australians. Retrieved from ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training
and Youth Affairs website:
http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0C
CAQFjAA&url=http://www.curriculum.edu.au/verve/_resources/national_declaration
_on_the_educational_goals_for_young_australians.pdf&ei=otUHVde3D8HbmAXFlo
DADg&usg=AFQjCNFypuFrEcp6Ot-30TlwY_UY1-
EqVw&sig2=2a8UZY7ITdil_QrIpnX_oQ&bvm=bv.88198703,d.dGY
5) Rice, D. (2008). What Teachers Need to Know about Numeracy. Adult Education, 19(3/4),
50-50. Retrieved March 10, 2015, from ProQuest Education Journals.
6) Watson, D. (2010). Critical Numeracy in Context. National Numeracy and Literacy.
