Maths in Primary School

Including Results of an INTO Survey

Irish National Teachers’ Organisation Cumann Múinteoirí Éireann

35 Parnell Square 35 Cearnóg Pharnell
Dublin 1 Baile Atha Cliath 1

Telephone: 01 8047700 Guthán: 01 8047700

Fax: 01 872 2462 Fax: 01 872 2462
Email: [email protected] Ríomhphost: [email protected]
Web: http://www.into.ie Gréasán: http://www.into.ie

General Secretary: John Carr Árd Rúnaí: John Carr

CONTENTS

Foreword 1

C HAPTER 1
Mathematics in the Primary School
DISCUSSION DOCUMENT FOR THE INTO CONSULTATIVE
CONFERENCE ON EDUCATION, KILKENNY 2004 3

C HAPTER 2
Results of INTO Survey on Mathematics, 2004 21

C HAPTER 3
Report from the Maths Discussion Groups at
INTO Education Conference 2004 39

Bibliography 47

Appendix 1
SHARED MATHS / MATHS FOR FUN ACTIVITIES 49
Foreword

t is generally accepted that mathematics education is an important dimension of a

I general education. It is perceived as a core area of learning in probably most educa-
tion systems throughout the world. However, we may well question how well mathe-
matics are taught in the primary school. Ireland has participated in a number of
national and international assessments in the area of mathematics, the main findings
of which are summarised in this report. Though Ireland performs reasonably well in
overall terms, there is no doubt that there is room for improvement, particularly in
some aspects of the mathematics programme. The most recent international
research, conducted by the OECD among fifteen year old pupils, indicates Ireland’s
performance in mathematics to be in the average range. Mathematical questions in
real-world contexts were set to assess not only mathematical skills and knowledge but
also problem-solving strategies. The evidence from OECD countries shows that the
greater the social inclusion in schools the better the pupil performance in mathemat-
ics overall. Ireland’s performance in the OECD PISA study (Programme for
International Student Assessment) raises issues which warrant further discussion in
relation to the approach to teaching mathematics and the content of the curriculum
at both primary and second level.
The primary maths curriculum of 1999 has incorporated a number of concerns
that were identified by the INTO in its previous research on mathematics, and which
were raised at the consultative conference on education in 1990 . It is heartening to
know that many of the recommendations the Education Committee made in 1990 ,
particularly in relation to problem solving, overloading of content, estimation, mental
and oral maths and use of mathematical games, have been incorporated into the
revised curriculum. Initial responses from teachers to the revised curriculum are
included in this report.
Both the Department of Education and Science and the National Council for
Curriculum and Assessment carried out evaluations and reviews of the implementa-
tion of the mathematics curriculum in primary schools during the school year 2003-
2004 . The quality of the mathematics curriculum was found to be good in the
majority of schools. However, a number of issues were identified which require
addressing if the teaching of mathematics is to improve further. The INTO calls for
additional materials and resources and enhanced opportunities for professional devel-
opment for teachers as key elements in supporting mathematics teaching in primary
schools.

–1–
Maths in the Primary School

I would like to acknowledge the work of the INTO Education Committee in

preparing this report. It is a further contribution to education research carried out by
teachers. The Committee carried out quantitative research, by issuing questionnaires
to members seeking their views on the revised Maths curriculum and I would like to
thank all the members who completed the questionnaire, which informs this report. I
would also like to take this opportunity to thank members of the Head Office team
who prepared the report for publication, under the general direction of Deirbhile Nic
Craith, Senior Official.

John Carr, MA (Ed)

General Secretary
February 2006

–2–
1
Mathematics in the Primary School

Discussion Document circulated for the INTO

Consultative Conference on Education, Kilkenny, 2004.

INTRODUCTION

There is a general acceptance of the importance of mathematics education. It is

perceived as a core area of learning in probably most educational systems throughout
the world. Indeed many international studies have sought to compare achievement in
mathematics between various countries. Its inclusion as a curricular area in schools
reflects its value in providing pupils with knowledge, skills and procedures which are
necessary tools in understanding the physical environment and in exploring patterns
and relationships. Mathematics, though enjoyable and valid in its own right, is also
relevant to learning in many other curricular areas.
The INTO, in its report on Mathematics in the Primary School (1990 ) highlighted a
number of areas where changes were required in the primary curriculum. Many of
the Education Committee’s recommendations, particularly in relation to problem
solving, overloading of content, estimation, mental and oral maths and the use of
mathematical games have been incorporated into the revised mathematics
programme in the Primary Curriculum (1999 ). The proposal to develop a continu-
ous curriculum for the compulsory school years, as is common in most European
countries, has not materialised, as primary and post-primary curricula tend to be
developed separately, an issue which merits addressing by the National Council for
Curriculum and Assessment (NCCA). The INTO argued strongly that the needs of
pupils in compulsory schooling should not be subordinated by assessment. It was also

–3–
Maths in the Primary School

argued that the mathematics curriculum should not be designed for pupils who would
need applied mathematics for future careers in engineering, accountancy or the
sciences, but should instead focus on pupils’ needs in preparation for life as adults capa-
ble of dealing with practical mathematics in real-life situations (INTO, 1990 , p.64).
In addition to its economic utility and intrinsic social value, mathematics education is
an intellectual pursuit in its own right, a source of fascination, challenge and enjoy-
ment, (DES, 1999 , p.3) and this is reflected in the current mathematics curriculum
in primary schools.
It is too early to assess fully the impact of the revised mathematics curriculum.
Teachers were given an opportunity during the school year 2003-2004 , to review
their implementation of the mathematics curriculum, in addition to the English and
Visual Arts curriculum. The NCCA, in order to assist schools with this process,
designed review templates. A number of schools were invited to return their
templates to the NCCA for inclusion in a general review and evaluation of the curricu-
lum. The NCCA has compiled a report arising from the curriculum review process.
The Inspectorate, as part of their ongoing work on school evaluation, also considered
the implementation of the mathematics curriculum1. The INTO carried out a survey
of members to ascertain their views in relation to the current mathematics
programme, and these findings are included in this report.
Mathematics is recognised as one of the sciences and is used in everyday life.
Achievement in mathematics is regularly monitored by both teachers in classrooms as
an integral part of the teaching learning process and by the Department of Education
and Science (DES), who on behalf of the State, gathers information on the general
performance of the educational system. Ireland, therefore, has participated in many
international assessments of mathematics learning, in addition to national assess-
ments. A brief overview of Ireland’s achievements are included in this report, high-
lighting the areas in which Irish pupils achieve well and the areas where Irish pupils
achieve poorly by international comparison. Information from such assessments is
useful in guiding future curriculum development in mathematics education and in
informing the needs of teacher education, both initial teacher education and ongoing
professional development.

MATHEMATICS IN THE PRIMARY CURRICULUM

The Primary School Curriculum (1999 ) contains a number of revisions to the math-
ematics curriculum of 1971 . The implementation process for the revised Primary
School Mathematics Curriculum began in September 2002 following an inservice
1 The Department’s report ‘An Evaluation of Curriculum Implementation in Primary Schools’ was published in
May 2005

–4–
 Discussion Document Circulated for the INTO Consultative Conference on Education, Kilkenny 2004

programme provided by the Primary Curriculum Support Programme (PCSP). The

aims of this curriculum are as follows:
l To develop a positive attitude towards mathematics and an appreciation of both
its practical and its aesthetic aspects.
l To develop problem-solving abilities and a facility for the application of mathe-
matics to everyday life.
l To enable the child to use mathematical language effectively and accurately.
l To enable the child to acquire an understanding of mathematical concepts and
processes to his/her appropriate level of development and ability.
l To enable the child to acquire proficiency in fundamental mathematical skills and
in recalling basic number facts.
(Primary School Curriculum, 1999 , p.12)

Mathematics should be portrayed to children as being practical and relevant in their

everyday lives. It should be integrated with other areas of the curriculum, such as
social, environmental and scientific education (SESE), music and physical education.
Whenever possible it should be linked to the children’s environment and their own
experiences. Through the mathematics curriculum, children are being prepared to
deal effectively with the varied transactions of everyday life and to make sense of the
mass of information and data available through the media. It is essential, therefore,
that children see mathematics as relevant to their own lives. As stated in the teacher
guidelines for mathematics, the curriculum will be a key factor in preparing children
to meet the demands of the 21st century (p. 2). Children should enjoy mathematics
and be catered for according to their ability. They should look forward to the chal-
lenges of mathematics learning and be fully equipped to face them with confidence
and enthusiasm in order to experience the satisfaction of a job well done.
There is a great emphasis on children being the instruments of their own learning.
The constructivist approach is central to the mathematics programme, where chil-
dren must construct their own internal structures. They are encouraged to develop
their own mathematical strategies for solving problems by using their knowledge of
one area to explore another and enhance their growth of reasoning. Access to
concrete materials is considered necessary for pupils at all class levels from infants
through to sixth class. Language also plays an important role. Children need to
develop the ability to listen, question and discuss as well as to read and record.
Discussion can be in pairs, groups or among the class as a whole. The teacher supplies
mathematical language when necessary to enable children to build up an appropriate
mathematical vocabulary. Concepts need to be adequately developed orally before
children record them in writing, using symbols and mathematical expressions.

–5–
Maths in the Primary School

STRUCTURE OF THE CURRICULUM

The curriculum comprises five strands:

l Number.
l Algebra.
l Shape and space.
l Measures.
l Data.
The strands form a network of related and interdependent units which are further
developed as strand units. An overview of the strands, and the main differences intro-
duced to the curriculum in 1999 are outlined below.

Number
A ceiling has been placed on number work to allow for more extensive treatment of
the mathematics programme as a whole and to allow more time for concept develop-
ment. It places less emphasis than heretofore on long, complex pen-and-paper calcula-
tions and a greater emphasis on mental calculations, estimation and problem-solving
skills. Recording can be concrete, oral, pictorial or diagrammatic, or can include
model-making. Work on fractions and decimals, in general, will place more emphasis
on understanding the relationships between them.

Algebra
Algebra has always been part of the curriculum. It includes patterns, sequences and
statements such as 2 + _ = 5. It is, now, formally recognised at all levels. Positive and
negative numbers are introduced in senior classes. It is expected that numbers used
will be kept small so that the children can understand the concepts presented.

Shape and space

This strand explores spatial awareness and its application to real-life situations. It is
particularly suited to integration.

Measures
This strand has six strand units – length, area, weight, capacity, time and money.
Problems should be mainly practical with the totals easily verified by measuring. As
with the previous curriculum children should be taught from an early age to estimate.
Children will need to handle materials, investigate them and then to discuss and

–6–
 Discussion Document Circulated for the INTO Consultative Conference on Education, Kilkenny 2004

compare their findings. The reasons for using standard measuring instruments should
be explored in a practical way.

Data
Graphical representation and interpretation has always been part of the curriculum,
but data handling is, now, a separate strand. Interpreting and understanding visual
representation is essential, as the child needs to be enabled to interpret data in an
increasingly technological world. It is hoped that, where available, information tech-
nology will be used by children in data-handling exercises. Children must understand
how important it is to enter relevant data and ask clear questions if the information to
be extracted from the database is to be of any use. The concept of chance is of great
importance. It represents real-life mathematics and promotes thinking and discussion.
Topics can be introduced through problems, practical experiments and simulations
that help to develop intuitive foundations for future work and are fun for the child.

Linkage
Strands can be taught in parallel rather than one after the other. Children will use their
knowledge of one area to explore another. This facilitates the use of number through-
out the mathematics curriculum.

Calculators
Calculators have been introduced to schools for the first time from fourth to sixth
classes. They help the development of problem-solving skills by allowing the child to
focus on the structure of a problem and possible means of solution. They can be used
to check estimates, to perform long and complex computations and to provide exact
results to difficult problems. However, the calculator cannot be a substitute for practi-
cal activity with materials.

Assessment
Assessment should provide information that will enable the teacher to cater for indi-
vidual differences in ability, to assess previous learning, to address learning styles, and
to resist pressure to push the child to premature mechanical mastery of computational
facts and procedures.

–7–
Maths in the Primary School

ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES TO TEACHING MATHEMATICS

In addition to traditional approaches to the teaching of mathematics, a variety of

alternative approaches are used by teachers to support the teaching and learning of
mathematics – a selection of which are outlined below.

The Mathematics Recovery Programme

The Mathematics Recovery Programme draws on research into the learning and
teaching of early mathematics undertaken by Professor Leslie Steffe and his
colleagues at the University of Georgia in the US and by Professor Bob Wright who
worked with him as a doctoral student. Research has shown that there are already vast
differences in the mathematical knowledge of students when they begin school
initially (Aubrey, 1993 ; Young-Loveridge, 1989 ; Wright, 1991 , 1994 ). This gap
tends to remain and increase throughout their schooling. Strong negative attitudes to
mathematics can develop along the way. The Mathematics Recovery Programme is
directed towards early intervention.

ASSESSMENT
Children are assessed by way of an ‘Interview Schedule’. This is an oral assessment
seeking to find out what the child knows, what strategies, if any, s/he is using and
getting to the core of the concept problem. The assessment is concerned, primarily,
with number, addressing the following topics

l facility with number words and number word sequences;

l ability to recognise, identify and write numerals;
l emerging strategies for adding and subtraction;
l knowledge of the tens and units aspect of the numeration system;
l emerging methods of notating in arithmetic; and
l ability to ascribe number to spatial and temporal patterns.

FOCUS AND KEY FEATURES OF PROGRAMME

The focus of the programme is to identify low-attaining students at an early stage and,
subsequently, to provide a programme of intensive, individualised teaching. The aim
of the programme is to raise the student to a level where s/he can return and learn
successfully in the mainstream class. Instruction takes place on a one-to-one basis and
in conjunction with the class teacher.

–8–
 Discussion Document Circulated for the INTO Consultative Conference on Education, Kilkenny 2004

The ‘Interview Schedule’ (ie, the assessment that is done) is used to develop an indi-
vidual teaching framework for each student involved in the Mathematics Recovery
Programme. The programme deals with early number - counting on/back, counting
in 2s, 3s and so on, counting in tens for place value, visualising and manipulating
number. The instruction is problem-based and from a constructivist perspective. It is
mainly oral – extending the child’s current thinking. It should be challenging but with
a good possibility of success, thus, increasing self-esteem. Children are encouraged to
reflect on their own mathematical thinking.
The programme involves teaching cycles of 10-15 weeks duration. Students are
taught for 30 minutes daily, four or five days a week. In Ireland, at present, learning
support and special needs resource teachers are using the programme. Those partici-
pating in the programme are finding it very successful. There is great demand for the
limited number of in-service places available. Pilot projects, supported by the
Department of Education and Science, are planned for a number of schools in
Limerick.

Regrouping for Mathematics

Regrouping is a form of grouping where children remain in their normal teaching unit
for most of the day and are assigned to groups, according to ability, for certain subjects
eg, mathematics. Assignment to groups is made on the basis of actual performance in
the subject and there is mobility between levels so that students can move from one to
another according to their achievements. Instruction is adapted to the specific needs of
the students.
There are many advantages to grouping children according to ability. For example,
there is a greater challenge to brighter students as they can progress faster and children
with difficulties in learning mathematics will gain more confidence and perform
better if the class work is aimed at their level. In addition, teachers may find it easier
and more productive working with groups of children of similar ability. There are
various forms of grouping – mixed-ability grouping where children of different abili-
ties are placed in the one class and streaming, where children are placed in classes
according to ability. With regrouping children spend most of the day in a mixed-abil-
ity setting and are regrouped for certain subjects such as mathematics. Therefore, the
original class remains the primary reference group.
Lyons (1999 ) in her research on regrouping sought “to ascertain whether a
regrouping system for mathematics at fifth and sixth class level contributed to the
development of a more positive attitude towards mathematics and an increased level
of confidence in approaching study of the subject”. For the purpose of her research
she chose an all-girls, largely middle-class, convent school situated in an expanding
urban area. There were three classes of each level from second class upwards. The

–9–
Maths in the Primary School

system of regrouping pupils of both fifth and sixth classes for mathematics had been
in operation in the school for the previous five years. Teachers of the fifth and sixth
classes moved from one maths group to another each term. Pupils were not told the
ability level to which they were assigned although it became clear in the course of the
study that they succeeded in working that out for themselves. The three mixed-ability
classes in both fifth and sixth were regrouped according to ability – TOP MIDDLE
WEAK – for the teaching of mathematics. For the purpose of the investigation pupils
were chosen at random from each level and both pupils and their parents were inter-
viewed.

RESULTS OF INVESTIGATION

Almost all pupils were happy with their placement and understood the importance of
ability as a criterion for the formation of the groups, and that they were being
regrouped in an effort to assist them. The majority of the students understood that it
was possible to change groups. A minority in the weak-ability group did not seem to be
aware of this, possibly, because flexibility only existed in this particular study between
high-ability and medium-ability groups. According to Lyons, it is very important that
those in the weak ability group are aware of the possibility of upward mobility.
The majority of pupils and parents from sixth class were quite happy changing
teachers for instruction during the year, whereas, on the whole, they were unhappy
with this arrangement in fifth class.
There were more children in sixth class than in fifth class who rated mathematics
among their favourite subjects, leading to the conclusion that the overall attitude
towards the subject was becoming more positive since regrouping. Half of fifth class
compared to 87.5% of sixth considered the work easier than the previous year. Most
of sixth class pupils commented that learning mathematics was more enjoyable and
over half of fifth class reported an improved attitude. These comments were generally
supported by the parents of both classes.
Pupils and parents, alike, from both fifth and sixth classes were agreed on the posi-
tive effects of regrouping on the nightly ritual of homework. This was most evident in
the weaker ability pupils. It was thought that “the relatively new feelings of success for
weaker ability students would, hopefully, help to break the cycle of repeated failure
and lead to an increase in confidence and improved attitude towards maths”. The
majority of pupils and parents from both fifth and sixth classes considered that their
confidence in approaching mathematics had increased and no child reported a reduc-
tion in confidence levels.
Pupils in the middle and weaker groups were more sensitive to comments made
about placements. Those in fifth class were more affected than those in sixth class. It
was perceived by the author that by the time pupils reached sixth class, having been in
the system for a year, they generally tended to accept the process as the norm and,

–10–
 Discussion Document Circulated for the INTO Consultative Conference on Education, Kilkenny 2004

therefore, major discussion concerning it ceased. The majority of the parents and
pupils of both fifth and sixth expressed a preference for continuing with the practice of
regrouping.
A regrouping system in any school would need to be continuously monitored and
evaluated. The focus of the system is on the development of confidence and the
growth of a more positive attitude towards the subject. The correct assignment of
pupils to the different groups is essential, and such assignments must be flexible. There
is a need also to outline the philosophy underlying the system to both pupils and their
parents when introduced initially. According to Lyons “a regrouping programme may
offer pupils the support to develop mathematical skills at their own pace, to experience
success where they had previously known only failure and to work at an appropriate
individual level”.

Parental Involvement in Maths in Primary School

(A) SHARED MATHS / MATHS FOR FUN

Shared Maths/Maths for Fun is a teaching strategy where parents are involved in the
classroom. The children in the class are divided into groups. One parent works with
each group for a period of 40 minutes. The equipment is stored in crates, baskets or
boxes. The groups move from one game/activity to another. A timer is set to buzz
after 10 minutes signalling the end. Children tidy up before moving on to the next
game/activity. To encourage ease of movement and a low noise level Merit Stickers
may be given to groups who leave everything in its place and move quietly from table
to table. The group with the highest number of stickers (every group!) receive a Maths
Bookmark at the end of the session, which lasts six weeks. Suggested games and activ-
ities include: Tangrams; Relational Attribute Blocks; Pattern Blocks; Pentominoes;
BINGO; Bank Balance; Snakes And Ladders; Dienes Blocks; My Computer and Time
Games. See Appendix 1 for a description.

(B) PAIRED MATHS

Paired Maths is where parents are involved in playing mathematically-based games
with their children at home. The parents of the children involved attend a school-
based meeting. They are given instruction on how the system works. Each child in the
class will be given a game to take home for a period of one week. The whole process
lasts six weeks.

–11–
Maths in the Primary School

ASSESSMENTS OF MATHEMATICAL ACHIEVEMENT

Irish primary schools have participated in a small number of national and interna-
tional assessments of mathematics achievement since the introduction of Curaclam
na Bunscoile (DES 1971 ). Ireland has also participated in international assessments
at second-level. This section of the report highlights the main findings of both national
and international assessment in relation to mathematics, in addition to giving an
overview of the main findings of a recent study on mathematics teaching and learning
at junior cycle at second level. The latter study raises some issues of relevance regard-
ing the approach to mathematics teaching at primary level.

National Assessments
The Department of Education tested a national sample of second and fourth classes in
1977 and sixth classes in 1979 . Sixth classes were retested in 1984 and reports
were issued by the DES in 1977 , 1980 and 1985 .
The tests for second and fourth classes included items in seven content areas:
Operations with Whole Numbers, Whole Number Structure, Measurement,
Fractions and Decimals, Geometry, Graphs and Problems. At second class level, 85%
achieved mastery in Operations with Whole Numbers and 55% to 65% achieved
mastery over six content areas. Items which caused most problems at second class
related to subtraction and the commutative and distributive properties of addition.
Girls slightly outperformed boys in all areas with a marked difference on a few items.
At fourth class, mastery levels were lower across the board with 75% mastery at
Operations with Whole Numbers and a 40% - 60% range in the other areas. Items of
Unitary method, adding and subtracting decimals, interpreting graphs and timetables,
problems, relating fractions and decimals, symmetry, perimeter and long division all
achieved less than 50% mastery. Again girls outperformed boys in most areas of the
tests.
The achievement tests for sixth classes covered 10 content areas in mathematics:
Operations with Whole Numbers, Whole Number Structures, Fractional Number
Structure, Operations with Fractions, Decimals and Percentages, Metric Measure,
Algebra, Geometry, Charts and Graphs and Problems. Geometry, Measurement,
Problem Solving, Whole Number Structure and Algebra were the areas of lowest
mastery and boys, on average, outperformed girls.
In 1999 , the Educational Research Centre (ERC) tested national mathematical
achievement in 4th classes in 5 areas: Number, Algebra, Shape and Space, Measures
and Data. These correspond to the strand units in the Revised Primary School
Curriculum (NCCA 1999 ). Pupils performed best on Data (69% correct), Number
(60%) and Algebra (58%) and poorest on Measures (54%) and Shape and Space

–12–
 Discussion Document Circulated for the INTO Consultative Conference on Education, Kilkenny 2004

(46%). No significant gender differences arose but a much higher proportion of boys
scored at or below the 10th percentile.

International Assessments
Ireland took part in a number of international surveys of mathematical achievement
since the introduction of the 1971 Primary School Curriculum. The Second
International Mathematics Study (SIMS) in 1980-82 targeted 13 year olds, some in
sixth class and some in first year, at post-primary level. The International Assessment
of Educational Progress (IAEP) conducted studies of 13 year olds in 1988 and both
nine year olds and 13 year olds in 1991 . The Third International Maths and Science
Study (TIMSS) took place in 1995 and targeted third and fourth classes in primary
schools and first and second year pupils in post-primary schools.

IAEP I (1988)
IAEP I (1988 ) carried out tests in five countries: Ireland, UK, USA, Korea, Spain and
seven Canadian Provinces, in six content areas: Number and Operations; Algebra;
Relation and Functions; Geometry; Measurement; Data Organisation and
Interpretation and Logic and Problem Solving. Ireland, UK, Spain and French
Canadians performed at the mean level of all participants. English Canadians
performed above the mean, while Korea achieved well above the mean. The USA
performed below the mean. Ireland scored particularly badly in Data Organisation
and Interpretation and relatively badly in Geometry and Measurement. The remain-
ing three areas showed a much stronger performance. No significant gender differ-
ences were reported. However, a correlation between a greater amount of time spent
watching television and a lower maths achievement score was noted.

IAEP II (1991)
IAEP II (1991 ) tested 20 countries for 13 year olds and 14 countries for nine year
olds. The international average for 13 year olds was 58% and Ireland scored 61%. At
nine year old level, the average score was 63% and Ireland’s mean score was 60%.
IAEP II covered five content areas: Number and Operations; Measurement;
Geometry; Data Analysis; Statistics and Probability; and Algebra and Functions.
Ireland scored significantly below the mean in both geometry and measurement and
at about the mean in the other areas. Girls scored higher than boys in third and fourth
classes but not
significantly higher.

TIMSS (1995)
The TIMSS (1995 ) included 45 countries over two age groups – nine year olds and

–13–
Maths in the Primary School

13 year olds. The average score for the older age group was 484 for first year students
and 513 for second year students. The Irish pupils scored 500 for first year students
and 527 for second year students. In third class the international average was 470
and Irish pupils scored 476. In fourth class Ireland scored 550 over a mean score of
529.
The TIMSS (1995 ) tested six content areas: Whole Numbers; Fractions and
Proportionality, Measure, Estimation and Number Sense, Data Representation,
Analysis and Probability, Geometry and Patterns, Relationships and Functions. Pupils
in 4th class scored at the mean in two areas: Measure, Estimation and Number Sense
and Geometry. They scored significantly above the mean in the other four areas.
No significant differences showed up between boys and girls. Fourth class pupils
reporting more than 100 books at home scored significantly higher than those
reporting less than 25 books and fourth class pupils reporting a positive attitude to
maths scored significantly higher than those who did not. Irish pupils in smaller classes
scored higher than those in larger classes but not significant so.

PISA 2000
The OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) assesses the
knowledge and skills achieved by students near the end of compulsory schooling (ie,
15 year olds). In PISA 2000 Ireland scored just above the country average of 500
(502.9). Boys scored significantly higher than girls at this age which correlated with
that of most other countries tested. The number of books in the home was noted as
an
indicator of success in maths achievement.

PISA 2003
PISA 2003 focused on mathematics and two reports were published – Learning for
Tomorrow’s World and Problem Solving for Tomorrow’s World.
Mathematics was assessed in four domains, Shape and Space, Change and
Relationships, Quantity and Uncertainty. Mathematical questions in real-world
contexts were set to assess not only mathematical skills and knowledge but also prob-
lem-solving strategies. Ireland finished within the OECD average range and 17th out
of the 29 countries taking part. In the domains assessed, Ireland was significantly
above the average in both Uncertainty and Change and Relationships; was on the aver-
age for Quantity, and below average for Shape and Space.
Males outscored females in all four domains of mathematics assessed but the over-
all difference was not large except in Shape and Space which was significant. These
results seem at variance with Junior Certificate results in Ireland where females consis-
tently outperform male students. The types of real-world problems posed in the PISA
2003 survey may provide the answer to this variance in gender results. Pupil opinions

–14–
 Discussion Document Circulated for the INTO Consultative Conference on Education, Kilkenny 2004

amongst Irish students showed a more positive attitude to mathematics as a factor for
improving education and life skills than the OECD average.
In relation to variation between both students and schools, PISA found that Ireland
had one of the lowest ranges of student performance variation amongst OECD coun-
tries. Low achievers in Ireland performed stronger than many OECD countries but
conversely high achievers did not perform as well as their counterparts. PISA also
reported that Ireland is one of the few countries with little performance differences
between schools. This prompted the remark that “parents can be confident of high
and consistent performance standards across schools in the entire education system.”
The variation of performance between schools and between students, although small,
was best explained by socio-economic factors.
The initial recommendations of the PISA 2003 Report relate to the education
system and schools rather than pupils. The evidence from OECD countries shows that
the greater the social inclusion in schools the better the pupil performance in mathe-
matics overall. The first recommendation, therefore, is to develop social inclusion in
schools across the education system. Since there is little variation in pupil performance
between schools, the second recommendation is that policies aimed at improving the
performance of low achievers are likely to be the most effective.
PISA 2003 also included a section on cross-curricular problem solving which again
placed Ireland within the OECD average similar to that achieved in general maths
performance. A small portion of PISA 2003 was also given over to reading and
science. First indicators were that Ireland was well above the OECD average in read-
ing with only three countries scoring higher than Ireland. In science, Ireland was again
well above the OECD average but still some way behind the highest rated countries.
PISA 2006 will be a major assessment of science in the OECD. The full data for PISA
2003 remains to be completely interpreted and further reports will be produced in
due course.

Summary
Ireland has consistently scored at about or just above the mean in the international
studies in which it has participated. Items relating to number and data have been the
most successful, while those relating to geometry, measurement and algebra have
been less so. Little or no difference between the performance of boys and girls was
detected except at 15 year old level (PISA 2000 ). Pupils’ attitude to mathematics and
socio-economic backgrounds seems to have some significance relating to mathemati-
cal achievement.

–15–
Maths in the Primary School

JUNIOR CYCLE MATHEMATICS IN POST PRIMARY

SCHOOLS

The Gender Equality Committee of the Department of Education and Science initi-
ated and funded a study related to Junior Certificate Maths. The study is based on
Exam Results (1992-1996 ) and case studies of ten different second-level schools
around the country. With the co-operation of teachers and students an intensive video
study of twenty mathematics lessons and six English lessons involving second year
students was undertaken. The video studies were complemented by interviews with
students, teachers and parents in order to examine the relationship between teaching
practices and attitudes to learning.
The study was designed to explore co-educational and single-sex schools across
different types of school background to gain understanding about pedagogical styles
and priorities and their impact on the teaching and learning of mathematics. The
impact of gender and social class on outcomes was a related objective.
The study outlined two epistemological approaches to mathematics teaching.
These contrasting perspectives are the absolutist and the relativist. The former is
objective, consistent and knowledge based and favours a didactic approach to trans-
mission. The latter is based on interaction between individuals, society and knowledge
and is culturally situated. This lends itself more to problem based and constructivist
learning.
Second-level teachers, who are preparing students for public examinations, are
inclined to favour didactic teaching where it is known to be rewarded with good exam-
ination results. In preparation for the main video study, an analysis of Junior
Certificate Mathematics examination results for 1992 — 1996 was carried out.
Students have a choice between three levels: Foundation, Ordinary and Higher. The
uptake of each level is approximately in the ratio 1:3:2respectively. Mathematics has
a low take-up at the Higher level (36%) in comparison to Irish (40%) and English
(61%). It is conjectured that this may relate to a static syllabus that is perceived to be
difficult.
Gender differences vary widely with regard to type of school and social back-
ground. Girls in general tend to reject maths or under perform in maths more and this
is more pronounced in disadvantaged schools. However, it is shown that this cannot be
explained by teaching or school-specific variables alone. The wider socio-cultural
context where gender identities are created and reinforced is the prevailing basis for
gender differences in both participation and performance. However, the number of
girls taking Higher level papers has risen significantly over the last fifteen years.
Where major differences exist in performance they are, increasingly, linked to social
class background rather than gender. It would appear that differences in take-up rates
of different levels of mathematics between co-educational and single-sex schools is

–16–
 Discussioon Document Circulated for the INTO Consultative Conference on Education, Kilkenny 2004

not so much related to their coeducational status as it is to the social class composition
of their school population and the tradition of the school. The schools with the most
disadvantaged students are the ones in which there is the highest take-up of Foundation
and Ordinary levels. The most socially selective schools, fee-paying secondary, have the
highest take-up rates at Higher level. The analysis also suggests that teacher expecta-
tions and perspectives on students were influenced by the students’ social class and
background. The track, set, stream or band into which a student is placed influences
his/her experience of learning mathematics. Top tracks experience a more intense,
work-focused and competitive learning environment than the lower tracks.

Review of Case Studies

There was a high level of uniformity in how the lessons were organised and presented.
The didactic approach, teacher demonstration and student practice, was the preferred
choice of teachers. Learning was most often equated with the memorisation of
formulae and procedures. There was little time devoted to problem-solving, to the
practical application of mathematics in the physical world or to alternative methods of
solving problems. Teachers were more likely to use lower-level and drill questioning
with the emphasis on giving the ‘right’ answer. It was clear from the video that
students were not encouraged to ask questions. Interaction was for the most part
teacher-initiated with only 4% student-initiated. In general, boys received more
teacher attention than girls did. The classes that were most gender-balanced were
those in which the teachers were gender aware. There was a tendency for a small
number of boys to dominate classes in both coeducational and in single-sex boys’
schools. Praise was limited, although girls in all types of classes received somewhat
more praise than boys did.

Teachers’ Perspectives
Teachers, generally, attributed students’ improvements to having an innate ability and
to being encouraged and supported by the teacher. They did not hold themselves
responsible for any observed deterioration in students’ performance. Students’ own
attitudes, behaviour or lack of ability were deemed to be the main reasons. All of the
teachers adhered to the essentialist view about mathematical ability ie, that some
students have a natural talent for the subject while others do not. Six of the ten teach-
ers claimed that students from “poor” backgrounds were disadvantaged in learning
mathematics by their parents’ lack of knowledge of, and especially interest in, educa-
tion. Most of the teachers assigned homework in each lesson and corrected it in the
next. A number of teachers observed that certain students entered second level
schools educationally disadvantaged in mathematics, raising questions as to why this

–17–
Maths in the Primary School

was the case, and why the problems had not been addressed at primary level.

Student Perspectives
For pupils, mathematics, as a subject, seemed to be defined and interpreted in terms of
the person who taught it. They rejected the essentialist view of mathematics (innate
ability). Pupils were more likely to state that what was required for success in school
mathematics was having a good teacher and studying at home. They also thought that
good memorisation was important but not necessarily “learning the text book by
heart”. They were quite positive about the value and importance of mathematics
required for everyday life, for employment and for further education purposes. They
recognised it as an important subject that had both a short and long term value.
However, the study also highlighted that students were reluctant, even fearful, to ask
for help in mathematics class. In discussing their experience of learning mathematics
throughout their primary and post-primary education, students said they, generally,
preferred to ask their parents and/or other siblings for help at home or, alternatively,
to ask one of their friends or classmates. Students spoke about finding it “unnerving”
when questioned in class and feeling under pressure to “get it right”. For students,
teacher attitudes appear to have a big bearing on outcomes. Students related their atti-
tudes to mathematics in terms of their teacher. If the teacher was perceived as positive
and supportive, they were labelled “good”. Teachers were criticised for being negative
or “going too fast”.

Parent Perspectives
Parents from all types of social backgrounds held the essentialist view on children’s
“innate ability” for successful learning in mathematics. While very few parents
actively avoided co-educational schools there were those who actively chose single-sex
schools as these were reported to be strong academically and/or were prestigious
because of their socially selective intake. Parental expectations were a significant influ-
ence on student/teacher attitudes and performance.

Possible Implications for Primary School MathsTeaching

As evidenced from the above study, didactic teaching is the norm at second level.
However, while constructivist teaching is the basis of the revised primary curriculum
(1999 ) and was also implicit in the 1971 curriculum, there is still a lot of didactic
teaching at primary level. If primary teaching in the future evolves to a constructivist
approach as is envisaged, the students should be transferring to second level with
greater knowledge and more positive attitudes to mathematics. However, they may

–18–
 Discussion Document Circulated for the INTO Consultative Conference on Education, Kilkenny 2004

well be less suitably equipped to cope with a didactic approach, if such practices
remain at second level.
Students are often streamed at entry to second-level. Students who leave primary
with low attainment levels, irrespective of ability, will be unable to enter the higher
streams at second level. This raises the question of the quality of mathematics educa-
tion at primary level. Disadvantaged schools and disadvantaged students are being
discriminated against both socially and educationally. In second level schools where
streaming takes place, there is no real mechanism for the disadvantaged pupil to
change streams. This places a burden on primary level to bring children to a suffi-
ciently high level to give them the option to enter the highest stream on entry to
second level.
Gender differences are small in comparison to social differences. Parental values
and student and teacher attitudes have a major effect on mathematics achievements.
Attitudes to mathematics and resulting teaching styles and practices at primary level
need to be tailored to develop support and positiveness towards mathematics and to
reduce pupil anxiety. Parents also need to be informed about how the system works as
well as encouraged to develop positive attitudes to mathematics and education in
general.
Student attitudes appear to be very dependent on their concept of what a ‘good’
teacher is, in that teaching styles that incorporate positive reinforcement, supportive
and steady progress through topics and an emphasis on ‘anxiety-free’ environments
need to be encouraged for maximum effect. Teachers also need to be aware of gender
differences between boys and girls and also between dominant and non-dominant
boys in making classes more inclusive for all students.

–19–
Maths in the Primary School

–20–
2
Results of INTO Survey on
Mathematics (2004)

INTRODUCTION

The Education Committee of INTO conducted a national survey on the teaching of

mathematics in the primary school in March 2004 . A total of 505 (51%) question-
naires were returned and processed. Where responses were made by all or most partic-
ipants, results are given in percentages. Questions that required opinions or a variety
of responses are reported by giving the actual number of teacher replies. It was
decided to include some opinions that were expressed by relatively few respondents
since they provide additional information and illustrate practice in some instances.

School Details
Surveys were returned from 505 teachers of whom 20% taught infant classes, 15%
taught junior classes, 20% were in middle classes and 24% were in senior classes. The
remaining 20% taught in multiclasses. Respondents reported that 23% were in one
to four teacher schools, 44% were in five to 16 teacher schools and 33% were in
larger schools. Describing their location, 32% of teachers said they were in rural
schools, while 35% were in small towns and 29% were in city schools. Three-quarters
of teachers replying taught in co-educational schools, 13% taught in boys’ schools
and 10% taught in girls’ schools. One-quarter of respondents were working in
schools designated disadvantaged and 6% were teaching through the medium of
Irish. Teachers reported a variety of class sizes. One-tenth of teachers had classes of up
to 15 pupils, one-fifth had 16-20 pupils, one-quarter had 21-25 pupils, one-third
had 26-30 pupils and one-eighth taught classes of over 30 pupils.

Learning Support
Regarding the provision of Learning Support in Mathematics (LSM), 58% of teachers

–21–
Maths in the Primary School

reported that their schools provided LSM, while 39% teachers reported that they did
not. However, relatively little time out of total learning support time is allocated to
maths by most of those schools providing LSM. In total 184 (36%) teachers reported
children in their classes receiving LSM, as follows:

Table 1: Numbers of Pupils per Class receiving LSM/Number of Teachers with Pupils receiving LSM

Number of Pupils in Class Number of teachers who reported

receiving Learning Support pupils in their class receiving
in Maths learning support in Maths

1 pupil 34 teachers
2 pupils 42 teachers
3 pupils 35 teachers
4 pupils 29 teachers
5 pupils 21 teachers
6 pupils 13 teachers
More than 6 pupils 10 teachers

When respondents were asked how many should be receiving LSM, they reported
as follows: 48% felt up to 4 pupils needed LSM, 31% reported five to eight pupils in
need and 6% felt even more pupils required assistance. A total of 218 (43%) teach-
ers reported that children received support in maths from the special needs resource
teacher. Eighty six teachers reported one such pupil, 63 teachers had two pupils, 31
had three pupils, 20 had four pupils and 17 had more than four pupils receiving such
help.

Details of Respondents
Four-fifths of respondents were female and one-fifth of respondents were male, which
corresponds with the general representation of male and female teachers in the profes-
sion. Only 16% of respondents had mathematics as a degree subject while 82%
reported that they had not. Regarding the number of years spent teaching, 31% had
less than 10 years teaching experience, 23% had 11-20 years experience, 29% had
21-30 years experience and 18% had more than 30 years experience as a teacher.

Professional Development /Inservice

Apart from PCSP inservice seminars in Mathematics Teaching, 30% had attended

–22–
 Results of INTO Survey on Mathematics, 2004

INTO Maths courses and 22% had attended Education Centre Maths courses. A small
number had attended other Maths courses, while 25% reported not having attended
any other inservice courses. Three-fifths of teachers reported that their school had
availed of the cuiditheoireacht service for Mathematics, while one-third had not.

TEACHING AND LEARNING MATHEMATICS

Mathematical Activities
Teachers were asked how often they used six different mathematical activities. The
results are outlined in Table 2 below. There was liberal use of estimation, mental
maths, memorisation and problem solving, especially in the older classes. However,
less than one-fifth made much use of alternative algorithms or computerised proce-
dures, and this was mostly in the senior classes.

Table
2:
Methodologies Very Often Often Sometimes Never
How
Alternative 4% 16% 27.6% 33.0%
often
algorithms
teach-
Computerised 4% 12% 41.8% 38.8%
ers
procedures
used
Estimation 25% 48% 21.0% 0.8%
six
Memorisation of 33% 37% 20.0% 7.0%
differ-
facts/formulae
ent
Mental maths 48% 40% 10.6% 1.4%
math-
Problem solving 35% 51% 12.2% 1.4%
emati-
cal
activities

Teaching Methodologies
Teachers indicated how often they used eight particular teaching methodologies in
mathematics. The results are outlined in Table 3 below. The environment was regu-
larly used by less than one-fifth of respondents but its most frequent use was in infant
classes. Active and collaborative learning, talk and discussion, oral computation and
linkage within the maths programme were very frequently used by teachers.
Integration and investigation were also used frequently. Integration was practised twice
as often in infant classes as in more senior classes. As expected, early learning activities

–23–
Maths in the Primary School

are reported mostly in infant classes with some continuity into first and second classes.

Methodologies Very Often Often Sometimes Never

Active and
collaborative 35% 43% 19% 1%
learning
Early learning 24% 18% 31% 23%
activities
Integration with 17% 40% 39% 4%
other subjects
Investigation 11% 39% 44% 5%
Linkage within 24% 50% 24% 1%
Maths programme
Oral computation 40% 49% 10% 1%
Talk and discussion 53% 40% 7% 1%
Use of the environment 7% 17% 42% 32%

Activity learning was also reported as slightly more frequent in infant classes.

Table 3: How often teachers used eight teaching methodologies in mathematics

Teaching Resources
Teachers reported their use of teaching resources. Table 4 below outlines their

Resources Very Often Often Sometimes Never

Calculators 6% 18% 21% 53%
Concrete materials 41% 38% 20% 1%
ICT games 5% 13% 29% 52%
ICT programmes 8% 17% 45% 30%
Maths games 12% 30% 51% 8%
Resource books 30% 42% 24% 5%
Textbooks 74% 21% 3% 2%

responses. Textbooks, resource books and concrete materials were the most used
resources. Maths games were also used quite often. ICT games and programmes and
calculators were the least used resources.

–24–
 Results of INTO Survey on Mathematics 2004

Table 4: How often respondents report using teaching resources

Organisation Very Often Often Sometimes Never

Group work on tasks 16% 39% 37% 8%

Homework 64% 24% 6% 6%
Individual work 70% 25% 5% 0%
Pair work 16% 45% 33% 5%
Whole class 48% 21% 14% 13%
presentation

–25–
Maths in the Primary School

Organisational Structures in Mathematics

Teachers were asked how often they used five organisational structures in the maths
classroom. Their responses are outlined in Table 5 below. Group work and paired
work were used quite often, but homework, individual work and whole class presen-
tation were the most frequently used.

Table 5: How often teachers used five organisational structures in mathematics

Textbooks
Two-thirds of teachers reported that schools were using one particular textbook series
throughout the school. Ten different texts were in use. Among reasons given by the
one-third not using one textbook were – series not complete yet, undecided which
series to choose, preference for a variety of texts or unavailability of Irish texts. Almost
half of the respondents use workbooks and more than a quarter use additional text-
books to provide supplementary mathematics material.

Materials Percentage of teachers citing

ICT
availability of materials
and
Unifix cubes 51%
Sorting materials 62%
Counting equipment 45%
Place value materials 43%
Fraction/decimal/ 27%
percentage materials
Measure (length) 64%
Measure (weight) 35%
Measure (capacity) 22%
Measure (time) 38%

Calculators
A small number of respondents use ICT for specific areas of mathematics. Some 71
teachers use computers for tables drills and practice, 21 teachers use ICT for graphs
and logo activities, while 27 use ICT for problem solving. However, as many as 315
(62%) teachers use a variety of commercial games packages that cover wider aspects
of the curriculum.
Reporting on the success of the introduction of calculators in teaching and learning
mathematics, 9% of teachers said that the use of calculators was very successful,
30% said it was successful, 29% reported moderate success and 6% said the intro-

–26–
 Results of INTO Survey on Mathematics 2004

duction of the use of calculators was not successful. A total of 92 teachers said that

Equipment desired Number of teachers

by teachers desiring equipment
Measuring apparatus 79
Sorting and counting materials 48
Teaching and learning number 36
ICT hardware or software 70
Measure (time) 55
Shape and space materials 13
Fraction/decimal/ 24
percentage materials
Maths games 22
All types of resources 61

they use calculators for number operations, 86 use them for estimation and 45 use
them for money, percentages and place value. Some 32 respondents reported using
calculators for checking answers, while another 38 use them for maths games. Only
15 respondents use calculators for exploring patterns and sequences, while six make
use of them for problem solving and three teachers use calculators for supporting
weaker pupils. Most of the take-up on the use of calculators was reported in fifth and
sixth class. However, even in these classes, only 50% of respondents use calculators
often or very often.

Materials and Equipment

Respondents reported that Shape and Space was the strand of the curriculum best
supported by concrete materials. The majority (79%) of teachers had some form of
suitable materials available, although only 15% had access to large geometric equip-
ment. Early Mathematical Activities and Number were also fairly well supported by
available concrete materials. A variety of equipment was cited by teachers as outlined
in the following table:

Table 6: Materials used by teachers

Algebra and Data were poorly represented in the survey with little or no equipment
cited to support these strands.
Teachers were asked what types of maths materials they would like in their class-
rooms. Additional equipment desired by teachers is outlined in the following table.

–27–
Maths in the Primary School

Types of Questioning Very Often Often Sometimes Never

Discussion/
Higher order 37% 47% 15% 1%
Drills/Fast
paced review 26% 44% 24% 6%
Recitation/Activity 25% 46% 25% 4%

Seeking Assistance Very Often Often Sometimes Never

From peers 15% 44% 37% 2%
From teachers 63% 35% 3% 0%
From home 9% 38% 41% 4%

–28–
 Results of INTO Survey on Mathematics 2004

Table 7: Equipment desired by teachers

The
Indicators for Success Indicators of Limited Progress chal-
Intelligence innate ability lenges
Innate ability intelligence faced by
Pupil effort pupil attitude teachers
Pupil attitude pupil effort in using
Teaching methodologies pupil self-esteem maths
Pupil self-esteem teaching methodologies materi-
Pupil behaviour pupil behaviour als in the
Resources parental attitude class-
Parental attitude parental involvement room
Parental involvement resources were
Social class social class predom-
Gender gender inantly
organi-

sational. A total of 176 teachers reported problems with storage, maintenance and
retention of materials; 152 stated that large classes, supervision, explanation, suit-
ability and divergence of abilities were problematic in using equipment and 58 teach-
ers cited lack of resources and lack of space as detrimental to the use of materials.

Classroom Interaction
Regarding the percentage of classroom interaction that is pupil led, 45% reported
that less than 25% of classroom interaction was pupil led, 36% said that such inter-
action ranged between 26% - 50% and only 15% stated that pupil led interaction
was greater than 50%. Almost identical results were recorded for the percentage of
questioning initiated by pupils – 54% reported that less than 25% of questioning was
pupil led, 32% reported that between 26% and 50% of questioning was pupil led,
and only 11% stated that pupil questioning was greater than 50%. Only 2% of
respondents stated that
children were not encouraged to ask questions related to maths topics, while 98%
stated that they were. Regarding frequency, 41% were encouraged to ask questions
very often, 42% were often encouraged and 15% were sometimes encouraged.
Respondents were asked about the frequency of three types of teacher questioning
in the classroom. Their responses are outlined in Table 8 below. It is clear from the
table that teachers are slightly more likely to use discussion and higher order ques-
tions.

–29–
Maths in the Primary School

Table 8: The frequency of types of teacher questioning in the classroom

Assistance
Respondents were asked from where did their pupils seek assistance in mathematics.
It is evident from the table below that pupils were most likely to seek assistance from
their teacher.

Table 9: Teacher opinion as to where pupils seek assistance in mathematics

Challenges Posed Number of Respondents

Measures 47
Algebra 41
Decimals 22
Time 17
Number 9
Fractions 7
Shape and Space 7
Place Value 6
Estimation 5
Patterns 5
Probability 4
Subtraction 4
Problem Solving 3
Tables 3
Language 1

Indicators for Successful Learning in Mathematics

Teachers were asked to rank twelve indicators for successful learning in mathematics.
Respondents then placed the same indicators in order of significance in relation to
making limited progress in mathematics. The results are outlined in Table 10 next
page. It should be noted that the rankings reflect similar opinions between indicators
for success or failure. However, while their opinions show a clear pattern, there was
relatively little difference overall in teachers’ preferences between the highest and
lowest ranked indicators. A handful of opinions separate each indicator in the ranking
tables, although there was a clearer gap between the top and bottom of each table.

–30–
 Results of INTO Survey on Mathematics 2004

Table 10: Indicators for successful learning and for limited progress in Maths

Teachers’ opinions on reasons for constant failure at maths by some children were
elicited. Two fifths (40%) of respondents blamed failure on lack of interest, lack of
attention and lack of effort; 18% felt it was due to lack of ability and poor intelligence.

Teacher observation 98%

Teacher designed tests 90%
Standardised tests 81%
Diagnostic tests 30%
Portfolios 15%
Curriculum profiles 12%

Another 14% of teachers considered poor early learning experiences due to lack of
concrete materials and too little oral work had failed to lay a good foundation. A small
minority (4%) put it down to curriculum overload or to lack of parental support
(37%). Only 3% of teachers blamed a lack of self-esteem for constant failure, while
large classes and lack of individual attention were blamed by 4% of respondents.

Junior/Senior Infants 1st/2nd class 3rd/4th class 5th/6th class Multiclass

43% 88% 90% 95% 90%

Relating to the ability of children, two-thirds of teachers expressed the view that
catering to the average was most important in teaching mathematics. Almost one-
quarter felt that devoting time to low ability children was most pressing, while only
one in twenty considered providing for high ability children as paramount. Responses
to the query on which of these three groups consume most time during maths lessons,
elicited almost identical results.

Problem Solving
A large majority of teachers (83%) reported that they present many methods to
children for the solving of problems. Only 14% of teachers concentrate on using only
one method for problem solving. A resounding 93% of teachers responded that
children are encouraged to develop their own methods of problem solving and 92%
reported that they encourage pupils to think creatively and that children were encour-
aged to provide reasons for their conclusions. The largest majority (96%) encourage
the children to use mathematics in everyday life.

–31–
Maths in the Primary School

CURRICULUM AND ASSESSMENT

Curricular Changes
Teachers were asked what aspects of the new strands of the mathematics curriculum
posed particular challenges for them. A small number reported the following prob-
lems as outlined in Table 11 below.

Table 11:The challenges posed to teachers by the revised curriculum.

However, 56 teachers stated that it was too early to assess the impact of the revised
curriculum in the classroom to date. Three fifths (61%) of the teachers who
responded were happy with content changes in the mathematics curriculum. They
welcomed the emphasis on problem solving and relevance to everyday life, as well as
the opportunity to revitalise their approaches and methodologies. Though, 17% felt
there was little if any real change in content, a significant minority of respondents,
9%, expressed the view that changes were detrimental to the curriculum, citing poor
texts in maths and a possible lowering of standards.

–32–
 Results of INTO Survey on Mathematics 2004

Assessment
Teachers were asked what forms of assessment they used in mathematics. Their
responses are outlined in Table 12 below.

Table 12: The forms of assessment used by teachers in mathematics

When analysed by class level, it emerges that over 90% of teachers use standard-
ised tests in senior classes, as evident in Table 13 below.

Table 13: Use of Standardised Tests

Two thirds of teachers expressed satisfaction with the assessment resources and
materials available to them. The other third were not satisfied. When asked what
influence assessment had on their teaching of mathematics, 45% of teachers replied
that it helped them to plan for their pupils’ progress through the maths curriculum.
Another 17% of teachers found that it is a useful diagnostic tool and 9% felt it gave an
indicator for reinforcement and revision. A small percentage (4%) of teachers have
responded to assessment by teaching pupils how to tackle tests. In relation to stan-
dardised tests, 16% of respondents find them useful diagnostically, 21% find them
useful in comparing results with their own assessments and with a national average.
Only 10% do not find them helpful and 16% of respondents are critical of the word-
ing and out of date nature of standardised tests.

Planning
Over a quarter (28%) of respondents reported that their schools had completed their
planning in mathematics. Two thirds (68%) stated that planning was ongoing, while
only 2% had not yet begun. Seventy-eight teachers would welcome the sharing of
ideas and innovations and 11 cited the need for more collaborative planning. Thirty-
four respondents wanted more PCSP support, while 31 felt they would benefit from
inservice courses. Thirty teachers would particularly appreciate increased access to
learning support.
More than two-fifths of respondents (43%) reported a significant build up of
resources to implement the mathematics curriculum, more than half (55%) said that
the build up was in progress, and only 2% had not begun the process. 56 teachers felt
that increased access to mathematical resources and concrete materials would be the
greatest support in developing their teaching of mathematics.

Teacher Concerns

–33–
Maths in the Primary School

Teachers expressed many concerns in relation to teaching mathematics. Seventy-two

respondents were concerned with the progress of children of both low and high
ability through the maths curriculum and the provision of adequate learning support
for those in need. Sixty-three respondents felt worried that children would not learn
concepts or be able to develop abstractions of their previous work with concrete
materials. Sixty-nine teachers felt constrained by a lack of concrete materials and other
resources. Sixty-two respondents were concerned that pupils would have positive
attitudes and develop confidence in their mathematical ability. Forty-six teachers
expressed a concern that numeracy would not be neglected in the face of new
emphases. Seventeen respondents had a difficulty with textbooks, especially the lack
of texts in Irish. A smaller number expressed concerns with the following areas:
mathematical language (8), continuity between schools or classes (10), discipline (8),
class size (12), lack of time (9) and curriculum overload (9).

Curriculum Continuity
Continuity of curriculum between primary and post-primary school was an issue for
40 of the responding teachers. Thirty-eight felt that communication or the lack of it
was a problem, while 36 felt primary assessments were ignored. Forty-three saw the
awareness by second level teachers of the primary curriculum as being paramount.
Eighteen teachers worried about levels of learning support at second level and 13
worried about the lack of concrete materials for low ability pupils. Fifty-eight teachers
saw problem solving skills as the single most important ability that needed to be
acquired before transfer to post-primary.
Referring to issues concerned with pupil transfer within the primary school, teach-
ers cited progress reports (50), curriculum continuity (37), good school planning
(39) and the need to develop similar methodologies (69) as being the major prereq-
uisites to success. In addition, 138 placed great emphasis on revision, while 16 high-
lighted the importance of individual needs.

DISCUSSION

Introduction
Responses to the present survey reflect the opinions of a broad cross-section of the
teaching cohort across all class groups, single and multi-class, advantaged and disad-
vantaged, urban and rural. The vast majority of teachers are embracing the philoso-
phy of the revised curriculum, although it is a little early to assess implementation.
There were some reservations expressed and these are highlighted below. In general,

–34–
 Results of INTO Survey on Mathematics 2004

teachers seem happy with the way mathematics is progressing but give
pointers as to how the situation could be improved.

Learning Support
The only disturbing factor uncovered in the first section of the survey relates to the
level of learning support provided for mathematics. Less than 60% of those polled
have access to mathematical learning support in their schools, yet almost half felt they
had up to four pupils in need of support and almost a third felt they had up to eight
such needy pupils. The amount of time allocated to mathematics for those children
receiving learning support is very little compared to language support. Access to learn-
ing support in mathematics for all those children who require it must be made a prior-
ity in any programme for special needs provision.

Teaching and Learning Mathematics

The survey has ascertained that estimation and problem solving are regularly used by
three-quarters of teachers and that mental arithmetic and memorisation of facts is
used by even more. This appears to show that teachers are embracing the new order
without the abandonment of the old! Both discussion and oral computation are highly
used in classrooms, as well as active and co-operative learning. This indicates a
commitment to constructivism as envisaged in the revised curriculum. However, the
poor use of the environment is a cause for concern. Reasons for only one quarter of
teachers using the environment are unclear from the survey, although informal
discussion has indicated that safety issues may be a major contributory factor. In
organising the maths classroom, teachers make much use of individual work and
whole class presentation. Teachers also use pair work and group work but less often.
A great emphasis is placed on homework
There is still a large dependence on texts and workbooks, with most schools using
one text series throughout the school. About half of the respondents use workbooks
and many also use additional texts.
There has not been a huge take up in the use of calculators and computers,
although most teachers use ICT on a limited basis. It is perhaps too early to expect the
introduction of calculators to have made an impact in schools. However, it is a little
disappointing to see computers so little used for specific areas of the mathematics
curriculum.
While some schools have made a good start in the collection of mathematical mate-
rials, it is obvious that teachers are not yet satisfied with the amount of resource mate-
rials available to them. There is a large wish list of equipment desired by teachers to
implement the revised curriculum. It is acknowledged, however, that equipment

–35–
Maths in the Primary School

brings problems of storage, maintenance and organisation.

Classroom Interaction
Interaction in the classroom that is led by pupils is comparatively high as is the amount
of questioning initiated by pupils. Children are actively encouraged to raise queries
and teachers use a lot of discussion and higher order questioning. Over 60% of chil-
dren seek assistance from their teacher and respondents felt that there was little reluc-
tance to seek such assistance. However, a substantial number also seek assistance from
peers or home.
When asked to rate indicators to successful learning in mathematics, the highest
indictors to success in the eyes of teachers were in the hands of the pupils themselves
– their abilities, their efforts and their attitudes. Respondents placed teaching method-
ologies at number five and resources at number eight. The perceived indicators in rela-
tion to making only limited progress in mathematics were almost identical. Likewise
the lowest considered indicators – social class and gender – were the same in both sets
of ratings. These indicators were reiterated in the reasons given by teachers for
constant failure, although a minority blamed such failure on poor early learning expe-
riences in maths.
Two-thirds of teachers considered that catering to the average pupil was most
important in their teaching and this was reflected in the amount of time given to this
group of children. The majority of the remaining respondents give their greatest
attention to pupils of below average ability. Little time is given to high achievers.
In relation to one of the newer emphases of the revised curriculum, teachers seem
to have taken on board an enlightened approach to problem solving. Pupils are
encouraged to develop their own solutions and teachers strive to present many meth-
ods for solving problems. They are also encouraged to define their reasoning and to
use mathematics in everyday life. This is a welcome development and shows a
commitment to the aspirations of the revised maths curriculum.

Curricular Changes
Over 60% were happy with content changes, especially in the areas of problem solv-
ing and the emphasis on relevance to everyday life. While it may well be a little early
to assess the impact of the revised mathematics curriculum, remarkably few teachers
reported difficulties with the new strands. Algebra, because of its abstractions, and
measures, mainly in terms of large classes and insufficient resources, were the greatest
concerns. Other problematic areas that were highlighted were only done so by an
insignificant number of respondents.

–36–
 Results of INTO Survey on Mathematics 2004

Assessment
It is significant to see that almost all respondents use teacher observation as part of
their assessment procedures. A large majority (90%) also use teacher designed tests,
while more than 80% use standardised tests, though this rises to over 90% in senior
classes. This shows an increase in the use of assessment procedures from previous
surveys and shows that almost all schools are developing their assessment plans and
putting them into operation. Just under one third (30%) use diagnostic tests, usually
for the identification of learning difficulties. It is important that having identified
pupils with difficulties that such pupils would then have access to the learning support
that they require.
While two-thirds of teachers are satisfied with assessment resources, it is significant
that one-third are not. Concerns of teachers need to be addressed, especially in the
provision of up-to-date and reliable tests and education in their administration and
interpretation.
The greatest influence assessment had on teachers was that assessment was seen as
a resource to help them plan their maths programmes. Standardised tests were said to
be most useful in providing a baseline for how pupils are progressing. However, there
was criticism of the fact that tests based on the revised curriculum have not been stan-
dardised and made available to date.

School Planning
Just over a quarter of schools have prepared a school plan in mathematics and over
two-thirds are in the process. This means that only a small minority of schools have yet
to begin their planning for mathematics. Similarly, more than two-fifths of schools
have built up a significant resource of mathematics equipment and well over half of
schools are proceeding towards their goal. These two facts alone point to a highly
successful introduction for the revised mathematics curriculum. Many teachers felt
that access to resources and materials would be their greatest support for implemen-
tation. Other teachers would welcome the collaboration with colleagues to share
ideas, learn of innovations, develop plans and observe best practice.

Concerns
While a large number of concerns were raised in relation to teaching mathematics,
they were only alluded to by a small number of respondents. The greatest concerns
related to learning support, an issue that appeared, again and again, throughout the
survey and the development of confidence and positive attitudes to mathematics. It
can be assumed that the lack of concern shown by the vast majority of respondents
shows a general satisfaction with the revised maths curriculum. This assumption is

–37–
Maths in the Primary School

borne out by other sections of the survey.

Teachers in senior classes continue to find issues related to the transfer of pupils to
post-primary schools. Lack of communication with second level teachers, lack of
awareness of the primary curriculum by second level teachers and lack of continuity
between the two curricula were seen as the major concerns.
Transfer within primary school itself raises some issues, although for relatively few
respondents. These issues mainly relate to better planning and progress reporting.
Again it must be assumed that the lack of concern expressed by most respondents indi-
cates a general satisfaction with the ongoing state of affairs in the schools.

–38–
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The level of concerns in relation to learning support in mathematics and the still
relatively low provision of that support must be addressed, if mathematics is not to
remain the poor relation of the basic skills.
The take up of ICT in mathematics is disappointing and reflects the poor support in
training and resources given by DES to date. There has been a dearth of initial train-
ing for teachers which has only been filled by individuals. ICT training needs to be
universal and skills updating needs to be introduced on an ongoing basis. There also
needs to be constant updating of hardware and software and access to adequate
technical support.
There is still a need for in-service for teachers in mathematics teaching and learning,
as well as a forum for the exchange of ideas and best practice.
While there has been a marked improvement in the provision of teaching materials,
there is still some way to go. The excellent start teachers have made to the revised
curriculum must not be allowed to falter from a lack of resources. An annual grant for
the maintenance and replacement of maths equipment should be available to all
schools.
Teachers appear to have embraced the revised curriculum for the most part, albeit
with some constraints and considerations. An enthusiasm for a change is evidently
there to be built on. It would be unfortunate if that enthusiasm were diminished by
not addressing teachers’ needs and requirements.
There is still a large emphasis on textbooks but when the maths curriculum is
embedded in the primary school system this dependence may well decrease substan-
tially.
The information on pupil interaction in the classroom indicates a swing towards
constructivist teaching as envisaged in the revised curriculum. This is particularly visi-
ble in approaches to problem solving.
The low emphasis placed by teachers on their teaching methodologies as indicators
of success and failure appears to be at odds with their acceptance of constructivist
views.
The use of teacher designed and standardised tests is almost universal. There is a
pressing need for the most up-to-date and constantly revised standardised tests based
on the revised curriculum to be readily available for primary schools.
The development of planning in mathematics is very encouraging. It is vital that all
schools complete the process in the near future.
There remains some disquiet and problems over transfer of pupils to post-primary
schools. These need to be addressed as a matter of urgency while the revised curricu-
lum is in its infancy.
Overall the teaching cohort is happy with the revised curriculum and teachers are

–39–
Maths in the Primary School

doing their best to implement it. They must be given the support and resources to
continue that development so that the standard of mathematics learning can be raised
to new heights and successes.

–40–
 Report from the Maths Discussion Groups at INTO Conference 2004

3
Report from the Maths Discussion
Groups at INTO Education
Conference 2004

QUESTION 1:
INDICATORS OF SUCCESS/FAILURE IN LEARNING MATHEMATICS
Many indicators of mathematics success/failure were suggested during this discus-
sion. The following indicators for success were among those that emerged:
l Receptivity to the subject.
l Enjoyment of maths.
l Accuracy in estimating and ability to solve problems.
l Understanding and ability to master concepts.
l Positive attitude.
l Confidence in performance.

From this discussion, delegates went on to debate the factors that contribute to success
in mathematics. These included:
l Teacher and teaching styles.
l Good teaching methodologies.
l Teachers being aware of children’s learning styles.
l Ability.
l Effective and differentiated group work and close monitoring.
l Reward given for use of correct method – answer not sole important factor.
l Language that accompanies free play extremely beneficial to early childhood
mathematical concepts.
l Attitude of parents.

The discussion then moved on to focus on failure in learning mathematics, which

included a discussion on some of the indicators outlined below:

–41–
Maths in the Primary School

l Fear of failure.
l Inability to transfer maths concepts learned to everyday life.
l Forgetting the concepts.
l Having a poor knowledge of number facts.
l Frustration.
l Constant struggle and dislike of subject.

It was agreed that there were many factors that influence mathematical failure,
chief among which were:
l Lack of parental involvement and knowledge of the language of maths.
l Language deficit especially in children from disadvantaged homes.
l Emphasis on ‘getting it right’.
l Textbooks geared to good readers.
l Over reliance on textbooks.
l Lack of suitable tests.
l Teachers not willing to embrace new methodologies.
l Too much concentration on number.
l Attitude of both teachers and pupils.

It was generally agreed that success indicators would vary depending on the indi-
vidual child. A child who is weak at maths can succeed at a level which would be
regarded as below the norm for a brighter child. It was considered important to have
consistent approaches and methodologies throughout the school regarding maths
teaching.

QUESTION 2:
SOME TEACHERS HAVE CRITICIZED THE REVISED CURRICULUM IN
MATHEMATICS AS BEING TOO FOCUSED ON NUMBER AND AS NOT BEING CHAL -
LENGING ENOUGH TO ALL PUPILS. IS THIS THE CASE?
Delegates agreed that the Revised Curriculum for maths was very positive as it allowed
the teachers to mediate the approach to maths teaching according to the level of the chil-
dren. However, one group felt that it was not challenging enough for bright children at
the upper end of the scale whose special needs were not being catered for. One group felt
that more learning support in maths was urgently needed to allow the classroom teacher
extend and challenge the more gifted children in the class. One group disagreed that the
curriculum was too focused on number. They felt it focused on other areas – some to too
great an extent, eg, geometry. They welcomed the focus on estimation, which, they felt
gave a better sense of number. Another group agreed that the curriculum is very focused
on number but felt that this was a good thing. They expressed the view that number
underpins all areas of maths and that the focus could not be too much.

–42–
 Report from the Maths Discussion Groups at INTO Conference 2004

QUESTION 3:
TO WHAT EXTENT HAVE TEACHERS EMBRACED THE USE OF CONCRETE MATERI -
ALS IN ALL CLASSES?
Concrete materials were viewed as an essential tool in the development of abstract
thought particularly in today’s world where children do not have opportunities avail-
able to previous generations eg, going to the shop on their own. They are being widely
used in the junior end of primary schools but not so much in the senior classes. There
was a call for more suitable and age-appropriate materials to be made available in
senior classes. Not all teachers recognise that mathematics is part of everyday exis-
tence and should be taught using the environment and concrete materials at all ages.
It was suggested that the idea that maths could be fun needed to be investigated
through maths games. However, there was also a view that maths was an abstract
subject and that therefore, teachers should not become over reliant on concrete mate-
rials – including pen and paper. While teachers urged widespread use of concrete
materials it was thought necessary to make the vital connection between the concrete
and the symbolic. One group had problems with time management in relation to
distributing/collecting and storage of materials. Another group reported that large
classes were one of the major inhibitors to maths learning. They claimed that it was
impossible to use maths equipment satisfactorily when teaching classes of up to 30 or
more children. There was a strong view that class size matters. There was some
disagreement in one group with regard to multi-classes. Some members were of the
opinion that multi-grade classes militate against the use of concrete materials whereas
one teacher claimed that they work well in multi-grade classes. One group felt that
sharing materials among classes was not appropriate.

QUESTION 4:
MATHS IS A SCIENCE, THEREFORE, TRIAL AND ERROR SHOULD BE CENTRAL TO
THE PROCESS OF MATHS LEARNING. HOW, THEN, CAN WE SEPARATE GETTING
THE ANSWER WRONG FROM AN ASSOCIATION OF FAILURE IN MATHS?
Delegates were of the view that maths should be a partnership where pupils become
aware that others also have problems and fears in relation to the subject. There was
agreement that the concept of the ‘wrong answer’ must go and that the emphasis
should be on understanding, on the process rather than the product and on creating
efficient learners. It was thought that there should be much more emphasis on esti-
mation at all levels and the idea that it was okay to make a guess and test the result
needed to be reinforced. Children need to be encouraged and made to realize that the
answer was not the sole important factor. Number, especially in the early years, had
been regarded as what maths was all about but had to be seen as much broader.
Another view put forward was that reward should be given for use of the correct
method and that how children’s maths was corrected needed to be re-examined – posi-

–43–
Maths in the Primary School

tively mark what is good. In one group the most important aspect was felt to be the
development of a logical thought process. Children needed to be encouraged to ask
questions that advance them. To combat the feeling of failure, it was suggested that
more time should be spent playing maths games to allow maths concepts and
language to be developed – leading to more enjoyment. Delegates thought that maths
could and should be fun and suggested that as Book Fairs were held regularly in
schools, why not Maths Fairs?

QUESTION 5:
TO WHAT EXTENT SHOULD TEACHERS RELY ON THE USE OF TEXTBOOKS IN THE
TEACHING OF MATHEMATICS?
In one group it was unanimously agreed that teachers should not be relying on text-
books in a maths class. However, there was general agreement that classroom situa-
tions often dictate otherwise. In multi-grade class situations textbooks were
considered vital and in large class sizes teachers needed to work with textbooks.
Where children needed to advance to a level of understanding using abstract thought
processes, then it was thought that textbooks were invaluable, particularly in prepar-
ing pupils for transfer to second level. One group stated that changes needed to take
place within textbooks in order for them to be more user friendly. The recommended
changes include:
l Less written work to be more inclusive of weaker children.
l Less emphasis on number.
l More fun elements.
l More opportunities for constructivist approaches.
l More emphasis on estimation.

Some teachers urged that maths textbooks should not be used at all as they were
thought to be too restrictive. Workbooks could be encouraged but the revised curricu-
lum should be the guide for teachers. One teacher tried to go without using a textbook
for a year and she reported finding it very difficult. Some teachers expressed the opin-
ion that textbooks were a crutch for “traditional teachers”, others felt that parents lead
the drive for textbooks. Completion of a book could be seen as a sign of good teach-
ing. It was thought that schools needed to resist pressure for texts and should seek to
re-educate parents in this area. It was also noted that the development of mathemati-
cal language was vital before pupils use textbooks.

QUESTION 6:
HOW ARE SCHOOLS PROVIDING FOR LEARNING SUPPORT IN MATHEMATICS? IS
THERE ROOM FOR IMPROVEMENT?
Delegates felt that very limited provision was being made at present for learning

–44–
 Report from the Maths Discussion Groups at INTO Conference 2004

support in maths as the learning support guidelines give priority to language and
literacy. In relation to shared learning support teachers, it was considered very difficult
to have any continuity, something that was vital for children with maths difficulties,
when those same children were only seen by a learning support teacher twice weekly.
There was a strong call for extra, separately appointed, numeracy support teachers. It
was pointed out that there were many children in schools requiring support who were
not receiving it, and that early intervention was vital. The timing of this support also
caused concern, as pupils could miss other subject areas. Some teachers stated that
much could be done in the classroom with the help of the learning support/resource
teachers or indeed with outside helpers. Many teachers thought that the Maths
Recovery Programme was a great idea and should be actively supported. Use of equip-
ment was cited as a great help in maths and it was also seen as bringing more enjoy-
ment to maths learning. It was felt that a greater emphasis needed to be placed on the
enjoyment of maths and much work needed to be done on inservice for teachers in
maths – particularly in the area of maths games and fun maths. Resources were not
there from the DES to put learning support in place for maths. One group
indicated that schools would supply the support if the resources were in place. It was
thought that much of the difficulty with standard maths tests was that they were
literacy-based – tests were too text-based. The difficulties experienced in getting good
diagnostic tests was frustrating for teachers, and in some cases Sigma Ts were being
used as diagnostic tools. There was a consensus that there was a great need for
improvement.

QUESTION 7:
TO WHAT EXTENT AND FOR WHAT PURPOSE ARE (A) CONCRETE MATERIALS (B)
ICT AND (C) CALCULATORS USED IN THE TEACHING OF MATHEMATICS?
(a) Concrete materials were considered very important. The expense and scant avail-
ability of materials in relation to maths frustrated teachers. A strong call was
made for concerted professional development for teachers in relation to the effec-
tive use of a wide range of concrete materials from Infants right through to sixth
class. Teachers needed to be guided through programmes.
(b) Teachers did not trust ICT enough to include it into their teaching styles to a large
degree. There is a great need for ICT maths programmes for Infants to sixth class.
(c) There was a consensus that teachers needed to move away from the traditional
way of teaching maths and that children should be taught how to use calculators.
In one group the majority of teachers thought that it was essential that first and
second class children should be allowed play with calculators. They felt that chil-
dren should have fully grasped the concept in question before using calculators
seriously. If they get the answer using calculators they must be encouraged to
make stories using the numbers involved. Weaker children need help manipulat-

–45–
Maths in the Primary School

ing and using calculators. One group, while acknowledging that they were neces-
sary tools, claimed that they should be used only to teach children their use. In
another group the consensus was that children must continue to learn tables.
Memorising was considered training in itself. It was thought that children had
difficulties with memorisation because of lack of practice and that they would not
have difficulties if they were ‘built’ properly – tables should not be a failure
experience and by the end of primary school children should have a good concept
of tables.

QUESTION 8:
TO WHAT EXTENT ARE TEACHING APPROACHES SUCH AS:
(A) SHARED/PAIRED MATHS
(B) MATHS RECOVERY AND
(C) REGROUPING USED IN CLASSROOMS?
ARE THERE OTHER APPROACHES TO MATHS TEACHING THAT ARE USED BY
TEACHERS?
Some teachers were involved in Paired Maths and thought it was a very good idea but
felt that it required the teacher to be very organized in the checking and storing of
equipment. Some teachers involved parents in Shared Maths in the classroom. One
delegate raised a point about homework and its usefulness and stated that parents do
not always understand what the child was being asked to do. It was thought that
programmes such as ‘Maths for Fun’, which is structured over a five-six week period
helped to bring parents (or grandparents) up to speed with the maths programme and
how they can help at home. It was felt this reinforcement had shown spectacular
improvement in the work of low achievers. In another group it was noted that only
one teacher had heard of the Maths Recovery Programme. During a discussion on
learning support one group reported that many teachers thought that the Maths
Recovery Programme was a great idea and should be actively supported. Regrouping
based on ability was being implemented in some classes. In one school the Principal
(who was an administrative principal), the learning support teacher and the class
teachers were involved in the regrouped classes.

QUESTION 9:
HOW BEST CAN ASSESSMENT BE USED TO IMPROVE CHILDREN?S LEARNING IN
MATHEMATICS?
Most comments on assessment related to standardized testing. There was no mention
of formative assessment apart from the comment that assessment in maths needed to
be ongoing in order for the teacher to employ new strategies to help the less able child.
One group felt that the Sigma T was demoralizing and inappropriate for many pupils.
It was thought that assessment should be appropriate to the level of the pupils. It was

–46–
agreed that there was a need for a new type of maths assessment, which would meas-
ure a child’s grasp of mathematical concepts and abilities. Maths was an everyday life
skill but not always taught or assessed accordingly. Another group claimed that new
improved assessment tests that could show that a child has potential and that could
indicate a child’s learning style were needed. In yet another group it was stated that
teachers felt that assessments were a waste of time as they elicited no Departmental
response in terms of providing additional support for pupils who were identified as
requiring same. They were seen as useful for diagnostic purposes and for the teacher’s
own information.

Other points raised during group discussions:

TRANSITION BETWEEN PRIMARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOL

There was general agreement that there was a need for more continuity between
primary and second level. Some fifth/sixth class pupils still have to prepare for
entrance exams. It was argued that the primary approach was holistic while the
approach at second level was exam-driven. It was felt that there was no link between
the curriculum in sixth class primary and that of post primary although it was
explained that fifth/sixth class maths programme was similar to the Junior Certificate
maths programme (ordinary level). A representative from the post primary sector
advised primary teachers to teach to the integrity of the primary school curriculum
and not to distort because of pressure of entrance exams. Many students were intimi-
dated out of higher level maths at second level because of elitist assumptions in rela-
tion to higher level maths.

TIME ALLOCATION
There was general concern about the amount of time required for maths in the
context of all the other subjects in the primary school. This was a particular issue for
small schools with multi-grade and large classes. Concern was expressed in relation to
the shortening of the allocated time for maths in the Revised Curriculum and it was
thought that this could lead to a dilution of standards.

TEACHER EDUCATION
Concern was raised regarding the standard of mathematical ability in student teach-
ers. High points in the Leaving Certificate were not necessarily an indicator of maths
ability. In addition, it was thought that the constructivist approach posed challenges
for classroom management. It was noted that mental maths was very beneficial for
children and that teachers needed to ‘talk’ maths more and do more visualizing with
the subject. It was also suggested that there should be a national move to standardize

–47–
Maths in the Primary School

terminology, eg, ‘units’ or ‘ones’, ‘away’ or ‘minus’.

EQUALITY

Children do not start from the same base. Many children have no pre-school experi-
ence with Lego, jigsaws puzzles or other such materials and were therefore, disadvan-
taged before they even begun. There was general agreement that children should be
taken from where they were at on the learning continuum and their concept of devel-
opment facilitated. Children with high levels of absenteeism, including travellers and
non-nationals students were more likely to have gaps in their knowledge due to the
lack of continuity in maths.

–48–
Bibliography

Aubrey, C. (1993 ) An Investigation of the Mathematical Knowledge and Competencies

which Young Children bring into School. (19 [1]).
Department of Education, (1971 ) Curaclam na Bunscoile. Dublin: Stationary Office.
Department of Education, (1999 ) Primary School Curriculum. Dublin: Stationary
Office.
Department of Education and Science (1999 ) National Assessment of Mathematical
Achievement. Dublin: Stationary Office.
INTO (1990 ) Mathematics in the Primary School. Dublin: INTO.
Young-Loveridge J. (1989 ) The Development of Children’s Number Concepts: the
First Year of School. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies 24(1). Pp 47-64 .
Lyons, M., Lynch, K., Close, S., Sheerin, E., Boland, P. (2003 ) Inside Classrooms: The
Teaching and Learning of Mathematics in Social Context. Dublin: UCD.
Lyons, U.M. (1999 ) Regrouping for Mathematics in Primary Schools. Unpublished
Thesis: UCD.
IEA (1980-82 ) Second International Mathematics Study (SIMS).
IEA (1996 ) Third International Maths and Science Study (TIMSS). Chestnut Hill,
MA:Boston College.
International Assessment of Educational Progress (IAEP) 1988 and 1991 .
OECD (2000 ) Measuring Student Knowledge and Skills – The PISA 2000 Assessment of
Reading, Mathematical, and Scientific Literacy. OECD:Paris.
OECD (2003) Learning for Tomorrow’s World – The PISA 2003 Assessment Framework:
Mathematics, Reading, Science and Problem Solving Knowledge and Skills. OECD:Paris.
Steffe, L.P., Von Glaserfeld, E., Richards, J. and Cobb, P. (1983 ) Children’s Counting
Types: Philosophy, Theory and Application. New York: Praeger.
Wright, R.J. (1994 ) Mathematics in the Lower Primary Years: A Research-based
Perspective on Curricula and Teaching Practice. The Mathematics Education Research
Journal 6 (1) : pp. 23-36 .

–49–
Maths in the Primary School

–50–
 Appendix 1 – Shared Maths/Maths for Fun Activities

Appendix 1

SHARED MATHS/MATHS FOR FUN ACTIVITIES

Tangrams
l Infants – sixth class.
l Graded.
l One set per pupil in group.
l Develops spatial awareness, concepts of shape and area, visualising skills,
problem-solving skills.

Relational Attribute Blocks

l Size: large, small.
l Colour: red, yellow, blue.
l Shape: triangle, circle, square, rectangle, hexagon.
l Thickness: thick, thin.
l First upwards.
l One set shared between two.
l Development of oral maths vocabulary/logical thinking/problem-solving skills
through listening, relating, identifying, matching, classifying, comparing,
contrasting, sequencing.
l A lot of concentration required.

Pattern Blocks
l Shape: triangle, square, hexagon, trapezium, parallelogram, rhombus.
l Infants – sixth class.
l One set shared between two.
l Use pattern blocks to make pictures.
l Estimate number of blocks needed.
l Transfer or reconstruct design on blank page.

–51–
Maths in the Primary School

Pentominoes
l Develop full concept of shape: flat surfaces, faces, edges, shape of object – remains
constant even though its location or position may change.
l Identify the motions SLIDE, FLIP, TURN.
l Develop spatial awareness, concept of tessellation, problem-solving skills
involving visualising, combining and manipulation of shapes.
l Line/rotational symmetry, perimeter, area.

Bingo
l Infants – sixth class.
l Individual Bingo cards and counters.
l Develops mental computational skills.
l Flash cards based on:
– Addition/subtraction Senior Infants – second class.
– Addition/subtraction/multiplication/division third – fourth class.
– Fractions/decimals/percentages fifth – sixth class.

Bank Balance
l Group board game with parent/teacher as ‘Banker’.
l Dice and large counters.
l Enables children to perform basic addition and subtraction leading to more
complex calculations as they accumulate their answers.
l Multiplication and division (senior classes).

Snakes And Ladders

l Using large board and one or two dice – especially good for first/second classes.

Dienes Blocks: My Computer

l Th.H.T.U.
l Place value and regrouping.
l Laminated sheets – A3 – one shared between two.
l Large dice and a box for the person (‘Cashier’) changing the blocks from Units to
Tens, Hundreds and Thousands and back again.
Maths in the Primary School