teste Proceedings

Ben Sinclair — Sun, 03 Mar 2024 12:42:27 GMT

1. Introduction

Mathematics is a core discipline that sits at the heart of primary and secondary education in the UK. Despite this, it has recently been noted by Andreas Schleicher, the Education Director of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), that if the UK education system continues to progress at its current rate, “it would take a very long time to catch up with the highest achieving countries” [1]. These remarks were in response to the UK’s performance in the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) 2018, an assessment conducted every three years, across 79 different countries, which explores the abilities of 15-year-olds to solve problems set in real-world contexts, in reading, science, and mathematics. In PISA 2018, the UK was ranked 14th for reading and science, but only 18th for mathematics, with students in 12 countries with maths abilities that were at least four months ahead of the comparable UK cohort [2]. Within the top scoring countries, there were gender differences in performance. In some cases, girls outperformed boys (e.g., Finland), but in most countries, including the UK, boys outperformed girls. Moreover, within the UK, the gender gap was greater than for all countries that outperformed the UK. Given this poor performance in mathematics, it is timely to reflect on what can be done to improve this in the UK. One approach is to examine practices in PISA’s top performing countries, such as Estonia, Finland, the Netherlands, and several in East Asia, and compare these to the UK.

There are, of course, likely to be many factors that have led to these countries being more successful, including performance in other areas—research suggests that mathematics ability is, in part, underpinned by reading performance [3]. However, it is not possible to examine all of these and, as such, we have chosen to focus on two core areas: 1. curriculum and assessment and 2. teacher effectiveness, considering several factors within each of these (Figure 1).

Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 141. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11030141 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/education

Sci. 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 141

2 of 15

Figure 1. Areas for consideration when examining poor UK mathematic performance.
Figure 1. Areas for consideration when examining poor UK mathemati

Furthermore, we focus on secondary education (ages 11–18 years, Year 7–13) because

this period is associated with a significant drop-off in mathematics performance [4], and Furthermore, we focus on secondary education (ages 11–18

evidence suggests that students often find secondary school mathematics particularly

dtihffiicsulpt bercaiuosde thise inafsosrmoacliaptperodachwtaikthen at psriigmnariyfischaonoltisdrerpolapce-dowffithina nmeedatohema

understand increasingly abstract concepts [5]. Finally, it is also apparent that in the UK, this evidence suggests that students often find secondary school mat

is a period which ends with students very disinterested in mathematics, with a review of post-16 education revealing that when those in upper secondary school are given the choice

ficult because the informal approach taken at primary school is

whether to study this subject, only 13–14% engage [6]. Additionally, this analysis focuses understand increasingly abstract concepts [5]. Finally, it is also

on state schools (as opposed to those run privately or independently), because the majority of students attend this type of institution and the PISA mathematics scores obtained by

this is a period which ends with students very disinterested in m

this sector are significantly lower than those achieved in independent schools [7].
of post-16 education revealing that when those in upper secon

2.1. Re-Shaping the Curriculum

2. Curriculum and Assessment

choice whether to study this subject, only 13–14% engage [6]. A

focuses on state schools (as opposed to those run privately or ind

It has been suggested that a strong curriculum, which is essential for facilitating high-quality learning, should focus on only fundamental concepts and principles [8]. By

majority of students attend this type of institution and the PIS

employing a more focused curriculum, material can be taught in a way that supports

tained by this sector are significantly lower than those achieve

deeper learning allowing students to engage with material in a way that creates a deeper understanding [9]. This can facilitate longer term retention of key concepts [10], and the

[7].

development of critical and analytical skills, which are essential for mathematics and

employability [11]. Despite this ideal, over the past two decades, the UK has moved away

from a mathematics curriculum focused on key concepts and principles [8,12] to one that 2. Curriculum and Assessment

has been described by Schleicher as a “mile wide and an inch deep” [13]. The result of this shallow and broad curriculum is that no individual topic or concept can be explored

2.1. Re-Shaping the Curriculum

in depth. Thus, the focus of lessons becomes the memorisation of facts, associated with

surface Iletahrnainsg,braetehenr tshuangtgeaechsitnegdstuthdeantsatosatdropnt tghecthuorurgihctsuolfuama,thwemhaitcichianis, esse

an outcome that can be achieved by giving them the opportunity to work through and

quality learning, should focus on only fundamental concepts a

solve mathematical problems by themselves [8]. Furthermore, the UK curriculum typically

opvleorcyominpglicatems moartheemfoatcicus,sgeidvincgustrurdiecnutsluprmobl,emsawtheerrieatlhecamnathbeemattaicualgshkitll in a

requirements are low but the complex and confusing context in which the problems are

learning allowing students to engage with material in a way tha

embedded makes them difficult to solve.
In contrast to the UK approach, better performing countries in PISA typically take a

standing [9]. This can facilitate longer term retention of key con

narrower but deep approach, in line with research. For example, in Finland, the curriculum

opment of critical and analytical skills, which are essential for

is centred on inquiry-based learning, with an inherent focus on transforming students into active, independent learners, who can acquire knowledge for themselves [14,15]. The

ability [11]. Despite this ideal, over the past two decades, the UK

emphasis placed on achieving this has increased in recent years, such that since 2015, the

mathematics curriculum focused on key concepts and principl

Finnish education system has required students to take one module a year where they select a real-life issue that is of personal interest and use a multidisciplinary approach

been described by Schleicher as a “mile wide and an inch dee

to explore and solve the problem by themselves [15]. Similarly, in Singapore, there is a shallow and broad curriculum is that no individual topic or co

focused, coherent, and challenging curriculum grounded in inquiry-based learning [16,17] and an ethos of teach less, learn more [18]. Looking specifically at mathematics, the strong

depth. Thus, the focus of lessons becomes the memorisation of f

Japanese curriculum concentrates on a few key topics. This is supported by an analysis

face learning, rather than teaching students to adopt the though outcome that can be achieved by giving them the opportunity to mathematical problems by themselves [8]. Furthermore, the overcomplicates mathematics, giving students problems where t

y t h

a a

d d

e A

n n

w t c

e p

n a t

U quirements are low but the complex and confusing context in

Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 141

3 of 15

of English and Japanese mathematics textbooks, which found that whilst the English specification for geometry aims to cover various topics, the Japanese curriculum focuses solely on geometric proof using congruency. This allows for the proof to be concentrated on in depth when students learn geometry, whereas in England, the concept is dispersed throughout topics, such as number and algebra, as well as geometry, and therefore, it is never studied in detail [19].

Based on the success of these other countries, we would recommend that the UK consider reshaping its mathematics curriculum to focus only on key concepts and princi- ples, supporting in-depth study. This study should be grounded in inquiry-based learning, rather than memorisation of facts. Inquiry-based learning is associated with a number of positive outcomes, including increased student engagement [20], improved critical think- ing [21,22], a more positive attitude towards problem solving [21], and the development of flexible mathematics knowledge [23]. Furthermore, inquiry-based learning should im- prove students’ abilities to solve mathematical problems embedded in complex contexts, which can provide a more authentic experience. Within inquiry-based learning, there are a range of approaches that could be adopted, depending on the cohort. For example, problem-based learning, where students are encouraged to collaborate to solve complex, real-world problems [24] or project-based learning, where students master new material through the creation of an original product or presentation, for example, a play or video, which is typically presented to an outside audience [24]. The latter corresponds to Bloom’s taxonomy, where the creation of original work is positioned at the top of the hierarchy of learning and therefore can be argued to lead to the deepest and thus most effective learning [25].

Education Studies » Conference Proceedings 2024 » teste Proceedings

teste Proceedings