Jain, Pinky (2014) The structure of prior knowledge.

PhD thesis, University of Nottingham.

Access from the University of Nottingham repository:

http://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/14553/1/Pinky_Jain_PhD_-_2014_Education_-
_Structure_of_Prior_Knowledge.pdf

Copyright and reuse:

The Nottingham ePrints service makes this work by researchers of the University of
Nottingham available open access under the following conditions.

This article is made available under the University of Nottingham End User licence and may
be reused according to the conditions of the licence. For more details see:
http://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/end_user_agreement.pdf

For more information, please contact [email protected]

 THE STRUCTURE OF
PRIOR KNOWLEDGE

PINKY JAIN, BEd (Hons), MA

Thesis submitted to the University of Nottingham

for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

JULY 2014
ii
 ABSTRACT

The phenomenon of prior knowledge is deep rooted in the rhetoric of

education. There is much discourse within pedagogy about its value and

pivotal role in the formulation of new learning. However teachers are not

able to use prior knowledge effectively as they do not have a working

sense of it, but are using it intuitively and colloquially. While researchers

provide a multitude of definitions of prior knowledge, no one has

examined its elemental structure in a way that provides a model for

teachers to use and support learning. This deficit is surprising as prior

knowledge is a universally accepted pedagogical notion. The aim of this

thesis is to fill the deficit and establish a structure of prior knowledge.

The research was situated within Year 1 primary mathematics classrooms

following eight teachers across five schools over one academic year. Using

naturalistic research methodology, the data were gathered through audio

recordings of the interactions between teachers and children during

mathematics lessons. These recordings were analysed using grounded

theory and content analysis.

The research explored and produced a partial model of prior knowledge

emerging from the data which includes at least eight interconnected

elements – abstraction, acculturation, cognition, context, individual

motivation, metacognition, perception and social group. These can be

seen as elements which can shape children’s memory – the central

feature of the prior knowledge that they bring to each mathematical task.

Children may manifest different degrees of these elements, and possibly

iii
of others which did not appear in these data, in different proportions and

balances.

Such a prior knowledge model, even though it remains partial, gives a

deeper understanding to a common but widely misunderstood term. The

implications of knowing and understanding more and in more depth about

the structure of prior knowledge are potentially far-reaching for children,

schools, teachers and curriculum development.

Keywords: prior knowledge; prior learning; primary schools; primary

education; mathematics education; mathematics teachers; elementary

school mathematics; primary school teachers

iv
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to say many many thanks to all those who have supported me

in this journey. I hope that as time has passed, you all know how much

your support, truth and direction have helped me to meet my goal. There

are always people who pass through our lives and give us the nudge we

need to stay on track. Some for a fleeting moment and soon forgotten,

but their impact is felt forever. Thank you!

To all the schools, teachers and children who have let me be in their

classrooms to listen and learn how things should be done, your

commitment to helping improve how we support and enrich our children’s

lives is commendable.

I would like to thank Dr Peter Gates for his patience, warmth,

insightfulness, direction, faith and support for taking me on as his student

and sticking with me through what, at times for him, must have been a

never-ending journey. I have learnt a lot from you about how to support

students well and help them grow. Thank you does not really express how

much it means to me to have your support and faith, but thank you.

Many thanks to Jackie Stevenson for always being at the end of the phone

and email to point me in the right direction through the maze of the

academic paperwork process. You have been wonderful.

Thank you Mum for being my garden of calm. You have always been there

to support, love and say the right things to keep me going. If it were not

v
for you, I would have given up a long time ago. Without you to take all

the noise away from the house, I would not have been able to finish.

Lakshya, thank you for being my critical friend. I know how hard it is for

you to stop singing and letting Mummy do her work.

Maanvi, you have taught me so much about myself and how to be a better

parent. I want to thank you for being you and reminding me to keep

studying.

Karunika, you are my oasis of joy and have really taught me throughout

this process the power of asking questions and that we never stop

learning.

Nilesh, thank you for always being you and your amazing skill at being

able to help unknot my thoughts and read my handwriting, and for never

faltering in your belief in me.

vi
 Ithaca
When you set out on your journey to Ithaca,
pray that the road is long,
full of adventure, full of knowledge.
The Lestrygonians and the Cyclops,
the angry Poseidon -- do not fear them:
You will never find such as these on your path,
if your thoughts remain lofty, if a fine
emotion touches your spirit and your body.
The Lestrygonians and the Cyclops,
the fierce Poseidon you will never encounter,
if you do not carry them within your soul,
if your soul does not set them up before you.

Pray that the road is long.

That the summer mornings are many, when,
with such pleasure, with such joy
you will enter ports seen for the first time;
stop at Phoenician markets,
and purchase fine merchandise,
mother-of-pearl and coral, amber and ebony,
and sensual perfumes of all kinds,
as many sensual perfumes as you can;
visit many Egyptian cities,
to learn and learn from scholars.

Always keep Ithaca in your mind.

To arrive there is your ultimate goal.
But do not hurry the voyage at all.
It is better to let it last for many years;
and to anchor at the island when you are old,
rich with all you have gained on the way,
not expecting that Ithaca will offer you riches.

Ithaca has given you the beautiful voyage.

Without her you would have never set out on the road.
She has nothing more to give you.

And if you find her poor, Ithaca has not deceived you.
Wise as you have become, with so much experience,
you must already have understood what Ithacas mean.

Constantine P. Cavafy (1911)

vii
viii
 For Papa
I miss you reminding me
To never limit my challenges
But to challenge my limits

ix
x
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ...................................................................................... iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...................................................................... v
TABLE OF CONTENTS ....................................................................... xi
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................. xv
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................... xvii
1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................... 1
1.1 Motivation...................................................................... 1
1.2 Gaps in Understanding .................................................... 2
1.3 Data Gathering ............................................................... 4
1.4 Data Analysis ................................................................. 4
1.5 Research Findings ........................................................... 5
1.6 Chapter Outline .............................................................. 5
2 LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................... 7
2.1 Introduction ................................................................... 7
2.2 Methodology for Literature Identification .......................... 10
2.2.1 Introduction ........................................................ 10
2.2.2 Determination of Vocabulary ................................. 13
2.3 Primary Education ......................................................... 16
2.3.1 Historical Backdrop .............................................. 16
2.3.2 Political Social and Cultural Backdrop ..................... 18
2.4 Primary Mathematics Classroom ..................................... 23
2.4.1 Mathematics Curriculum and Content ..................... 23
2.4.2 Impact of Mathematical Content on Teaching .......... 28
2.5 Prior Knowledge ........................................................... 33
2.5.1 Knowledge .......................................................... 35
2.5.2 Prior .................................................................. 50
2.5.3 Prior Knowledge Research ..................................... 50
2.5.4 Summary ........................................................... 67
2.6 Why Look at Prior Knowledge?........................................ 68
2.6.1 Effects of Prior Knowledge on Learning ................... 69
2.6.2 Effects of Prior Knowledge on Learning of Mathematics .
......................................................................... 72
2.7 Teachers’ Understanding of Prior Knowledge .................... 78

xi
 2.8 Conclusion ................................................................... 86
3 IDENTIFYING RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ................................. 89
3.1 Introduction ................................................................. 89
3.2 Research Question ........................................................ 90
3.3 Nature of Research ....................................................... 91
3.3.1 What is Good Research? ....................................... 96
3.3.2 Objectivity and Subjectivity................................... 97
3.3.3 Positioning the Research ..................................... 102
3.4 Choosing a Research Methodology ................................ 103
3.4.1 Naturalistic Research .......................................... 103
3.4.2 Summary.......................................................... 107
3.5 Generalisation and Validity ........................................... 108
3.5.1 Internal Validity and Reliability ............................ 109
3.5.2 External Validity ................................................ 110
3.6 Conclusion ................................................................. 113
4 DATA COLLECTION METHOD ................................................. 115
4.1 Introduction ............................................................... 115
4.2 Design of the Data Collection ....................................... 116
4.2.1 The Schools ...................................................... 116
4.2.2 The Teachers .................................................... 119
4.2.3 Lesson Observation ............................................ 123
4.2.4 Recording and Transcribing ................................. 125
4.2.5 Other Data ........................................................ 127
4.3 The Data ................................................................... 128
4.4 Ethical Considerations ................................................. 129
5 ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY .................................................... 133
5.1 Introduction ............................................................... 133
5.2 Criteria for Selecting the Analysis Methodology ............... 136
5.3 Exploration and Evaluation of Possible Analysis Methodologies
................................................................................ 139
5.3.1 Hermeneutical Analysis....................................... 140
5.3.2 Domain Analysis ................................................ 142
5.3.3 Typological Analysis ........................................... 144
5.3.4 Analytic Induction .............................................. 146
5.3.5 Content Analysis ................................................ 148
5.3.6 Phenomenological Analysis.................................. 150

xii
 5.3.7 Metaphor Analysis ............................................. 153
5.3.8 Grounded Theory ............................................... 155
5.4 Selection of Analysis Methodology ................................. 160
5.5 Worked Examples of the Analysis Process ...................... 161
5.5.1 Theoretical Sampling .......................................... 163
5.5.2 Analysis ............................................................ 165
5.5.3 Identifying Events .............................................. 166
5.5.4 Creating Concepts ............................................. 174
5.5.5 Developing the Model ......................................... 210
5.6 Ethical Considerations ................................................. 218
5.7 Summary................................................................... 220
6 PRIOR KNOWLEDGE MODEL .................................................. 223
6.1 Introduction ............................................................... 223
6.2 Memory ..................................................................... 224
6.2.1 Theoretical Perspective ....................................... 224
6.2.2 Definition .......................................................... 225
6.2.3 Empirical Evidence ............................................. 226
6.3 Context ..................................................................... 229
6.3.1 Theoretical Perspective ....................................... 229
6.3.2 Definition .......................................................... 238
6.3.3 Further Empirical Evidence.................................. 239
6.4 Acculturation .............................................................. 244
6.4.1 Theoretical Perspective ....................................... 244
6.4.2 Definition .......................................................... 251
6.4.3 Further Empirical Evidence.................................. 252
6.5 Metacognition ............................................................. 257
6.5.1 Theoretical Perspective ....................................... 257
6.5.2 Definition .......................................................... 262
6.5.3 Further Empirical Evidence.................................. 264
6.6 Other Emerging Categories .......................................... 270
6.6.1 Individual Motivation .......................................... 270
6.6.2 Perception ........................................................ 276
6.6.3 Cognition .......................................................... 283
6.6.4 Social Group ..................................................... 288
6.6.5 Abstraction ....................................................... 295
6.7 Summary................................................................... 301

xiii
7 RESEARCH IMPLICATIONS .................................................... 311
7.1 Introduction ............................................................... 311
7.2 Key Findings .............................................................. 311
7.3 Schools ..................................................................... 312
7.4 Teachers .................................................................... 316
7.5 Children ..................................................................... 320
7.6 Curriculum ................................................................. 322
7.7 Moving Forward .......................................................... 324
7.8 Summing Up .............................................................. 325
REFERENCES ................................................................................ 327
APPENDICES ................................................................................ 343
Appendix A – Data Collection Schools’ Ofsted Reports .............. 343

xiv
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1 Literature review concepts ................................................. 12

Table 4.1 Schools used for data collection ........................................ 117
Table 4.2 Discussion on ethical issues in data collection ..................... 129
Table 5.1 Key differences in grounded theory approaches (Onions, 2006,
p. 8-9) ........................................................................................ 157
Table 5.2 List of endpoint concepts ................................................. 209
Table 5.3 Mapping from concepts to categories ................................. 217
Table 7.1 Possible methods for understanding children’s prior knowledge
.................................................................................................. 318
Table 7.2 Possible methods for understanding children’s prior knowledge
.................................................................................................. 319

xv
xvi
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1 Plato’s Divided Line Model (Lavine, 1984, p. 32) .................. 44
Figure 5.1 Breakdown of life is a journey metaphor ........................... 155
Figure 5.2 Data collection and analysis process ................................. 163
Figure 5.3 Identifying relevant events ............................................. 167
Figure 5.4 Initial sorting of mathematical events ............................... 176
Figure 5.5 Different subsets of lengthier responses ........................... 180
Figure 5.6 Granular concepts for have done the task before ............... 190
Figure 5.7 Granular concepts for worked with others and other ideas for
tackling task................................................................................. 195
Figure 5.8 Granular concepts of some form of model or image............ 196
Figure 5.9 Granular concepts of different interpretations .................... 201
Figure 5.10 Granular concepts of child got answer wrong ................... 207
Figure 6.1 Forces influencing memory ............................................. 226
Figure 6.2 Composition of three children’s prior knowledge ................ 305

xvii
xviii
 1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Motivation

Prior knowledge plays a key role in children’s learning (Alexander, Pate,

Kulikowich, Farrell & Wright, 1989; Dochy, 1992; Alexander, Kulikowich &

Jetton, 1994). Whether it is examined from the constructivist, cognitive,

behavioural or any other perspective, it is widely accepted that prior

knowledge is the starting point for new learning (e.g. Vygotsky’s Zone of

Proximal Development). There are many studies which have concluded

that the variance observed in children’s test scores can be explained by a

child’s prior or pre-existing knowledge (Bloom, 1976; Tobias, 1994).

Walker (1987) and Weinert (1989) showed that intelligence cannot

compensate for low prior knowledge, however prior knowledge can

compensate for low intelligence. The British education system is based

upon the knowledge and understanding that the teaching function will be

a process of building new blocks of subject knowledge placed on prior

subject knowledge, as can be seen in the hierarchical structure of the

National Curriculum. With such importance and value placed upon prior

knowledge, it is essential that concentrated effort is given to

understanding prior knowledge.

As a primary classroom teacher, I have been interested in the ideas and

methods that children use to develop their mathematical skills. I am

baffled by and curious about the widespread cultural perception that not

being good at mathematics is acceptable. I also want to understand what

children bring to bear upon each classroom experience in mathematics

1
that leads to a huge variation in their ability to carry out mathematical

tasks. Therefore I have chosen the primary mathematics classroom as my

research context.

1.2 Gaps in Understanding

One of the most interesting and perplexing observations that I have made

is the great variation in children, who seemingly have similar lives, in their

ability to carry out mathematical tasks. In order to understand this

variation in children’s abilities to inform my teaching, I started by

exploring the concepts and ideas that authors such as Vygotsky, Dewey,

Piaget, Hughes, Evans, Clemson and Ginsburg had to offer. These

readings concluded that teaching and effective learning can only take

place when teachers have developed an understanding of what children

know and have learnt before. All learning theories rely on some form of

prior understanding or experience to be built upon in order for future

learning to take place. Therefore it is essential to understand individual

prior knowledge so that future learning can be tailored to individual needs.

As a classroom teacher, I am aware that there is a missing link between

the theoretical requirement to use prior knowledge for effective teaching

for learning, and the practical understanding of prior knowledge to

facilitate effective teaching for learning. That is to say, we realise the

theories state start from where the child is and build on this, but no

understanding is offered as to what is meant by where the child is or how

to gain this understanding for children.

2
There is limited literature looking at prior knowledge in any depth. There

are many reasons for this shortcoming. The major reason is due to the

lack of a clear agreed definition for prior knowledge. Furthermore, there is

even a lack in agreed labelling of prior knowledge. There are many terms

defined in various ways which lend themselves to being classified as prior

knowledge (prior learning, prior education, experience, prior concept,

experiential knowledge, experiential learning, background knowledge,

prior understanding). With such a variety of possible labels and the

confusion that ensues, it is vital to explicitly explore and gain an in-depth

understanding of prior knowledge. Before I do this, I must clarify the type

of knowledge that I am interested in. If it is subject-specific knowledge

(i.e. mathematical content knowledge), then the focus becomes

mathematical content and categorisation of this content to formulate a

detailed understanding of prior mathematical knowledge. However my

research is not concerned with prior subject knowledge, but the broader

concept of prior knowledge in the primary mathematics classroom.

Therefore I am making an upfront distinction between prior knowledge

and what is commonly understood as prior knowledge i.e. prior subject

knowledge, with my focus being the former. If one considers prior

knowledge to be all that an individual has as knowledge, then it goes

beyond subject-specific knowledge. Prior knowledge is affected by

experiences within and beyond the classroom. It is influenced by all areas

of life. However this aspect of prior knowledge has not been examined by

researchers.

Therefore the aim of this thesis is to provide an understanding of the

structure of prior knowledge of children in the context of the primary

3
mathematics classroom developed through a combination of theoretical

and empirical investigation.

1.3 Data Gathering

The underlying methodology used for structuring the research was

naturalistic research. The data collection comprised a year-long

observation of eight experienced Year One teachers across five primary

schools. Each teacher was observed regularly and their conversations in

the mathematics classroom were recorded through the use of a personal

remote microphone during the course of one academic year. The recorded

observations were transcribed. All data have been gathered and reported

as per the ethical guidelines for educational research from the British

Educational Research Association (2004). The specific ethical issues

relevant to my research are discussed in Sections 4.4 and 5.6.

1.4 Data Analysis

The structure of prior knowledge was developed through analysis of the

transcripts. I used grounded theory as the framework for the analysis and

content analysis to understand the meaning of each transcript so that the

resulting interpretations may be organised using the framework of

grounded theory. This analysis formed the last stage of the method used

to gain an understanding of prior knowledge. Each transcript was looked

at in detail to identify events (incidents within lessons in which children

are engaged in mathematics), concepts (groups of events which have

similar properties) and categories (groups of concepts which function in a

4
similar manner or may be shaped by a similar force), and used memoing

to identify patterns within the data.

1.5 Research Findings

The key contribution made by this thesis is a partial model for the pre-

existing or prior knowledge of children in the context of the primary

mathematics classroom through empirical understanding gained from

analysing the transcripts. The prior knowledge model I propose comprises

eight interconnected elements – abstraction, acculturation, cognition,

context, individual motivation, metacognition, perception and social group

– shaping children’s memory which is the central feature of the prior

knowledge that they bring to each mathematical task. These elements or

building blocks that make up prior knowledge are the same in each child,

with the fundamental difference being the proportion and balance of these

elements present in each child at any given time.

1.6 Chapter Outline

The structure of the thesis is conventional with the hope that this uses the

reader’s own prior knowledge to focus upon my research process. Though

this thesis is sequential, and in some ways hierarchical in its structure, it

should not restrict the reader to a linear process for reading it. The aim is

to present a three-dimensional thesis which can be viewed from any

angle, none being the beginning or the end. The justification for this tacit

form is the very nature of the content. Not knowing the reader, your

needs and your prior knowledge, it is hoped that giving the ability to view

5
this as a sphere, one can approach it from any point which suits individual

needs and extract from it any ideas which are useful.

Chapter 2 provides a review of the relevant literature which has influenced

my thinking and research. Key focus areas are the research context, prior

knowledge and teachers’ understanding of it.

Chapter 3 explores various research paradigms and methodologies to

identify a suitable methodological framework to conduct the research.

Chapter 4 presents the method used for the data collection. It includes

information about the schools and teachers used for data collection,

recording and transcribing lessons, and the overall data set and also

discusses relevant ethical issues.

Chapter 5 focuses on the exploration, evaluation and explanation

underpinning the selection of a methodology for analysing the qualitative

data gathered for this thesis. It includes the criteria for selecting an

analysis methodology, brief description of a number of relevant analysis

methodologies, a description of the selected analysis methodology along

with a worked example, and also discusses relevant ethical issues.

Chapter 6 explains the overall outcome from the research and analysis

carried out for this thesis. It presents the structure of the partial prior

knowledge model.

Chapter 7 examines the key findings, implications and value of this

research on schools, teachers, children and curriculum, and possible next

steps.

6
 2 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction

This chapter provides a review of the relevant literature which has

influenced my thinking and research. Through this review, I aim to

establish a theoretical framework for prior knowledge which is firmly

based upon the foundation of previous work by other researchers. This

framework is relevant in aiding the understanding and placing of questions

being asked through this thesis into a well-established context. Another

by-product of analysing relevant literature will allow determining the

boundaries and contextual parameters within the areas in which this

research makes an original contribution. By the end of this chapter, I plan

to establish the current state of research in understanding of prior

knowledge, and identify any shortcomings within this understanding.

It is worth re-iterating my research objective, which is to provide an

understanding of the structure of prior knowledge of children in the

context of the primary mathematics classroom. The aim of the structure is

to assist teachers to develop their understanding of how to support

children’s learning.

In order to be transparent, it is vital to explicitly identify and explain the

research process which has evolved through the course of this study.

These are processes for the location, identification and analysis of

secondary sources of knowledge to give an anchor to my study. The

progression of this chapter shows the evolutionary path which I have gone

7
through to develop as a researcher, to establish the relevance of this

research for future application, and to further my existing knowledge in

the areas that I am considering. I have made extended efforts to knit

together not only the many different sources of information, but also the

vast plethora of ideas which have aided in understanding and clarifying

what it is exactly that I am trying to establish.

The biggest struggle for me in carrying out the literature review was not

the finding of relevant material, but the elimination of ideas which I

concluded as not having any value to my thinking or my research

objective. The process of thinking is crucial to the whole thesis as it gives

it a structure and sets out the limitations from the onset.

In Section 2.2, I describe the methodology that I used to identify, critique

and summarise the relevant literature reviewed in this chapter. I address

the problematic issues of varied terminology linked to the relevant

literature. Also stating the limits and parameters of the literature review

will establish a true picture of what is pre-existing knowledge in this area

and the limitations of this knowledge in informing this study.

In Sections 2.3 and 2.4, I consider the overall context for this research. In

order to understand any socio-educational research, I must establish a

picture of the reality within which this research is based, as it is not

possible or desirable to conduct this research in a vacuum. I look at the

historical, political, social and cultural backdrops of primary education and

the primary mathematics classroom as they were at the time of data

collection. I aim to provide research that will have future worth and is

based within a practical and real context.

8
Though I am not looking at the effectiveness of classroom practice as my

focus is on the prior knowledge of children, I acknowledge that this

practice has an influence on the nature and characteristics of the data that

I can gather. Due to the ever-changing nature of education and the

political climate, there have been evolutionary steps in the pedagogical

philosophy of the delivery of the curriculum which I have examined.

In Section 2.5, I examine prior knowledge by looking in turn at

knowledge, prior and prior knowledge. This section presents the many

difficulties which have come to light in relation to the different

terminologies and definitions found in the literature. The main themes

explored in the section are the complex issues linked to what I mean by

prior knowledge and how I define it. This section culminates in my own

working definition of prior knowledge. Academically I would like to

establish an unambiguous definition of prior knowledge which can be

applied to my empirical study. Through the thesis, I would like to develop

something that teachers can use in order to enhance children’s learning of

mathematics.

I specifically look into prior knowledge in relation to mathematics to

establish that I am contributing new knowledge. My main goal in this

research is to develop an initial model for understanding and identifying

the structure of prior knowledge in relation to primary school

mathematics, therefore without analysis of this area it is not possible to

establish an effective approach to the research.

Section 2.6 considers the value of looking at prior knowledge from the

perspectives of learning and learning mathematics.

9
In Section 2.7, I examine teachers’ understanding of prior knowledge in

general and in the children they are teaching. It is vital that in order to

build and establish any sense of value to the research, the role of the

teacher and their understanding of prior knowledge is established.

In the final section, through the synthesis of all the sections, I establish

the gaps which exist in understanding prior knowledge within the

literature. Crucially this section achieves the main outcome of defining and

establishing a shared understanding of the complexities of meeting my

research objective.

2.2 Methodology for Literature

Identification

2.2.1 Introduction

In order to cover all the possible lines of enquiry related to this research,

the process of locating the relevant literature went through many phases.

The initial temptation as a novice researcher was to look at the entire

plethora of available literature databases, to consider all the possible

related concepts, and to examine the multitudes of literature that was

located as a result. Through the process of initially searching all the major

databases, two things became apparent. Firstly, the vastness of the

possible literature which could be considered and the huge impracticality

of demands which came with wanting to look at all of it without any

omissions. Secondly, the interlinking of the literature and how this added

an extra layer of complexity, as it did not allow for straightforward

10
identification of the relevant literature. This mixing of concepts forced me

to consider ideas in ways in which I had not done before, and allowed me

to further consider and combine ideas which were not intuitive.

The starting point was my research objectives:

1. To gain an understanding of prior knowledge of children in the

context of the primary mathematics classroom.

2. To use the understanding to develop a structure of prior knowledge

within the primary mathematics classroom which can be used by

teachers to enhance children’s mathematical learning.

To address the above, I took each objective and fragmented it into

possible root notions (Table 2.1). Literature was located under the

following parameters:

1. Only materials written in English or translated into English were

considered.

2. The databases were searched only up to 1986. Through reading,

material prior to 1986 which was identified was also considered.

3. Five of the major research literature databases were used – ERIC,

BEI, IBSS, Zetoc and PsycINFO.

4. The searches were carried out with some keywords which were

identified as a product of the background reading. I have

considered the identification of pertinent vocabulary in detail in the

following section.

Some of the above parameters were as a result of my own shortcomings.

For example, I have only considered literature written in or translated into

11
English. Also I have made the choice to only go as far back as 1986. The

logic behind this choice was the idea that through looking at a substantial

body of past work, any other seminal work prior to that should be evident

in the literature identified up to 1986.

The overwhelming fear at this stage was having gaps in my literature

review. However I felt, as a result of my initial background reading, that

there was a ball of string effect in place. That is to say, through the

location of some of the initial relevant literature and following their

references, I was able to locate further literature of relevance.

Furthermore, previously identified relevant references would often keep

reappearing. Thus, like a ball of string, there were many points at which

the same literature appeared and crossed over. This ensured that key

themes and seminal articles were located.

This drive to review all the possible areas of literature which may have

even the vaguest influence on the concepts being investigated led to the

identification of an enormous quantity of literature. This stage of the

searching process seemed endless, and through a process of dual

classification – the information that the material had to offer and the type

of subject matter it was covering – I was able to hone in on the literature

which would form the cornerstone of my research.

Table 2.1 Literature review concepts

Knowledge

Prior knowledge – gaps in understanding

Primary school education – overview of political, historical, cultural and

social contexts

12
Nature of the primary classroom – what does teacher and pupil interaction
show in mathematics

Teachers’ understanding of prior knowledge in general and in mathematics

Mathematics education – overview of political, historical, cultural and

social contexts

Mathematics and prior knowledge

Children’s learning and the effects of prior knowledge on

performance/ability and understanding

Having detailed the practical process and the obstacles faced in the path

to identification and location of key literature, it is hoped that the

limitations and extent of the scope of the study have been made

transparent. Openness to the background from which the ideas presented

in this thesis have been obtained allows the reader to gain a firm

understanding about the possibilities that the results have to offer and

increases the applicability of the outcomes established.

2.2.2 Determination of Vocabulary

The most problematic issue that I faced in this thesis was one of definition

and identification of relevant vocabulary to explicitly explain the notions I

wished to explore. From the onset, there were many methods which I

used to try and verbalise what it was that I wished to consider and the

notion of defining that which was not understood has been a great

challenge. Here I feel it is of value to look at the different stages of

thinking which have passed and how these have fed into the process of

forming a personal lexicon which has formed the conceptual framework

for this research.

13
Firstly, I wanted to understand the processes which take place in the

classroom within each individual child which enable them to have an

understanding of the mathematics they are involved in. Secondly, I

wanted to reflect on the causes of the varying abilities of children which

facilitate reactions and interactions while involved in mathematics.

Therefore what are these processes or structures which determine the

level of engagement and the success that each child has with the

mathematics taking place in the classroom? Furthermore, the extended

nature of this interaction manifests itself in the ability or aptitude which

the individual shows towards mathematics. So how to define this abstract

and almost random process?

I also wanted to understand what children bring to bear upon each

classroom experience in mathematics. What is it about the processes

which take place in each child that result in such huge variation in the

outcome/understanding of the mathematics they are involved in? The

initial reading of the literature which looks at children’s understanding in

mathematics (because the understanding or outcome that they show in

carrying out mathematical tasks is a direct result of their processing and

thinking) puts heavy emphasis upon the notion that “understanding

seems to take two major forms: perceiving accurately and making

connections among various areas of knowledge, including our intuition”

(Ginsburg, 1989, p. 183).

Furthermore this concept of understanding focuses on the construction of

“schemata to link what we know already with our new learning” (Clemson

& Clemson, 1994, p. 18).

14
I wanted to explore this notion of what we already know being the

lynchpin to any new understanding, as this was the constant and recurring

theme in all the literature that I considered in order to understand why

children are so different in their ability, interaction and success in

mathematics. Literature alluded to knowledge, understanding, exposure,

and experience prior to the learning experience that the children are

engaged in as the factors that shape the children and create differences in

each individual. Furthermore, in contrast to many theorists e.g. Piaget,

this process of learning is not simply a biological progress (Blanck, 1996).

Hence these factors, among others, need to be considered in order to

understand and conceptualise the solutions for this thesis. Therefore the

various terms which came from these initial readings were prior

experiential learning, prior knowledge and prior learning.

To summarise, in order to understand the reasons for the differences in

individual ability within mathematics, the literature read as a background

to this thesis highlighted prior knowledge as a key factor which children

bring to the classroom, prior knowledge which has not been influenced by

their current situation but by their past experiences. Therefore the

proposed lexicon of terms stated above formed the search path for the

identification of the literature which will help to understand this small key

concept and how it functions and enables children to carry out

mathematical tasks in the classroom.

15
2.3 Primary Education

This section maps changes which have historically occurred in English

primary education. Reviewing the legislative path of education allows me

to consider the historical perspective as well as the political, social and

cultural views influencing changes in the culture of schools. It is through

understanding the engrained history that has evolved that we can

consider how change can be implemented and ideas that are likely to

succeed.

2.3.1 Historical Backdrop

The social and moral pressure to invest in children and their education has

constantly been the subject of debate within society. This has resulted in

numerous initiatives, reports and laws. A landmark publication to ignite

the reformation of the current system was the Plowden Report (Plowden,

1967). This was the first comprehensive review of primary education since

the Hadow Report of 1931 (Hadow, 1931). The Plowden Report

emphasised the need to see children as individuals and also relied heavily

on Piagetian theories which were the dominant influences of the time.

The report’s recurring themes are individual

learning, flexibility in the curriculum, the
centrality of play in children’s learning, the use
of the environment, learning by discovery and
the importance of the evaluation of children’s
progress – teachers should ‘not assume that
only what is measurable is valuable.’

(Gillard, 2004)

16
This is in grave contrast to the introduction of the National Curriculum

(NC) through the 1988 Education Reform Act (1988 c. 40). The focus on

individual and free learning was now changed to the fixed “syllabus and

content that every child should study until he or she leaves school” (Moon,

2001, p. 1).

In some senses, this has led to removal of the child (the individual) from

the way we teach to be replaced by children (the masses). The NC

removed any sense of children being different or having different ways of

learning. The Rumbold Report (Rumbold, 1990) completes the cycle of

primary education and the philosophical changes it has been through since

the 1960s. The report recommends a rethink of how a system can develop

and support the children in a new society. There is emphasis once again

on quality and provisions being made for children as young as three and

the ability for parents to have choice of many settings for the care of their

children.

Since then, there have been many other reports and reviews into the way

in which primary education is delivered or should be delivered in England,

with the latest being the Cambridge Primary Review (Alexander, 2010)

and the Rose Review (Rose, 2009). Educators continue to struggle with

the balance between education of the masses and the individual. This brief

overview illustrates the pendulum swinging between education for all and

education for the individual.

Principles within education are influenced by changes in societal attitudes

and demands of the individual through time. Knowing this allows us to see

the change in the nature of schools and the views we have of children and

17
their development within the system. Within the current educational

landscape, there is great ambiguity and debate on the nature and shape

of primary school education which has manifested itself in the position we

find ourselves in at present, with lack of agreement on a new curriculum

and suspension of all existing guidance.

2.3.2 Political Social and Cultural Backdrop

Having considered the path taken through history in primary education

which has led to a set of underlying philosophies, the main aim of this

section is to consider the influences which brought about these changes.

The introduction of the National Curriculum (NC) was very closely linked

to the political situation of the 1980s. Moon (2001) argues that the reason

for the creation of the NC was that it allowed for a reduction of differences

between schools, and a reduction in the inequality of provision.

The government believes that all people should

follow a broad, balanced and suitably
differentiated programme until age 16; that
such a programme should contain a strong
element which relates to the technological
aspects of working life.

(Department of Education and Science, 1985, para 46)

The NC aims to raise standards, improve communication, allows for

provision to be made for progress and continuity, and necessitates

measurement and tracking of individual attainment. At the time of

introducing the NC, the social structure was demanding all of these and

viewed these to be lacking in the education system. The 1980s growth of

incomes, the growth of two-parent working families, and to some extent,

18
a greater movement of individuals geographically, all led to the need for a

national measurable structure for schools. Also the economic and political

situation of the time focused on employment and the need for young

people to be employable.

By the 1980s the effects of the global economy

were being realised. The ‘Asian tiger’ economies
of Japan, South Korea and Taiwan were
producing better industrial goods more cheaply
and were sucking away customers from Britain.
Their education systems appeared to benefit
from teaching basic skills through traditional
methods. Controlling the curriculum to make it
more suited to industrial production was seen as
one of the means of enabling Britain to
compete.

(Ward, 2004, p. 83)

The overall cultural, economic and social environment put pressure on

educational change to be a major part of the political agenda. The

enterprising materialistic 1980s demanded the same from schools. It can

be argued that the Thatcher administration was responsible for some of

the most radical changes in education in the UK to date. There were many

political reasons behind such a radical change in the way the system was

structured and functioning.

On the one hand, the government had taken

central control of the curriculum and national
testing, but had de-centralised spending and
management. In fact, the so-called devolution of
funding was designed to reduce the power of
the LEAs (Local Education Authorities). It was
the Conservative government’s political
intention to limit the power of left-wing Labour-
controlled local authorities, particularly the
Inner London Education Authority (ILEA).

(Ward, 2004, p. 84)

19
The need to gain control on a local level to ensure political longevity was

another crucial reason behind this great change. There seemed to be little

pedagogical motivation for introducing the NC, but one that did have an

impact on the pedagogical dialogue of schools.

In the late 1990s, the Labour government did little to change the nature

and ethos of education as they enjoyed this centralised structure and

control over education. Therefore we were left in the UK to date with a

system which, in many senses, was rigid and set in an inflexible structure.

Furthermore, it was a structure which required great amount of

maintenance and also demanded a lot of tasks which were not related to

the job of teaching and learning.

The primary schools in England suffered from a severe case of split

allegiances. Firstly, there was the rigour of the NC and the state control

through the NC. With this came the whole mechanism of assessment

levelling, teaching only written content, administrative duties which must

be completed, and ranking and reporting to the consumer or stakeholder.

All of these were in line with the capitalist market methodology for the

functioning of schools. Secondly, there was the need of the individual child

and the teachers’ understanding of what their children needed. Thirdly,

teachers needed to push children to measure up to the required standard

for the results to be achieved for the school.

There was a pedagogical mismatch between the way in which the NC was

implemented and the needs of children. This mismatch has been

identified, and since September 2008 there have been some moves to

allow teachers greater freedom in the ways in which they implement the

20
curriculum, e.g. removal of the Qualifications and Curriculum Agency

subject guidance from schools. Furthermore, the move to an open-ended

curriculum structure has given greater opportunities for schools and

teachers to teach in the way their children learn best. However,

paradoxically there still looms over teachers this need to validate their

choices in terms of fixed and constant measurements. This is most

evident in the Foundation Stage. For example, though teachers have been

given free rein to choose methods for teaching which they feel best allow

their children to learn (through play and unstructured activities), there is

still the need for them to measure this learning and produce comparative

data. So in some senses, the changes in place have given freedom with

one hand, but still tie the teacher to the NC and all its trappings on the

other hand. Overall there continues to be a huge mismatch between

political intentions and pedagogical needs which has an impact on the

nature of the classroom and the relationship between knowledge and the

individual.

It needs to be noted that, as was the case historically, some of the

motivation for educating children has changed little. Furthermore, the

expectation of the system from outside observers is that it will aid in the

production of effective members of the working society. The question of

knowledge being possessed for its own sake has not been addressed by

the system.

Therefore to conclude, the system in place at present is

an anticipatory mirror, a perfect introduction to

industrial society. The most criticised features of
education today – the regimentation, lack of

21
 individualisation, the rigid systems of seating,
grouping, grading and marking, the
authoritarian role of the teacher – are precisely
those that made mass public education so
effective an instrument of adaptation for its
place and time.

(Toffler, 1970, p. 355)

Though this observation may seem a little out of date and an overly dark

view of what education is in England, it depicts the atmosphere in primary

schools which prevails, to some extent, even today. As we approach a

time of change, we are poignantly reminded to pay heed to our prior

experiences.

Wheels have been pointlessly reinvented.

Initiatives have been introduced at such a pace
that they have been superseded before being
properly evaluated. The lessons of past attempts
to reform have not been learnt. The lessons of
past research and development have been
treated as irrelevant not because they are
genuinely inapplicable but merely because they
are more than a few months old, or maybe
because they challenge the preferred political
agenda. Yet knowledge, understanding and
progress, in policy as in the classroom, grow by
cumulation – by understanding, respecting,
learning from and building upon past experience
– not by relentless quest for novelty.

(Alexander, 2010, p. 38)

However overall the dominant force of central control means that what

goes on in the classroom needs to be accountable, and therefore can be

quite mechanical, with very little scope for overall variation from school to

school and class to class. The school culture is one of rigid structure and

depends on the state to dictate the ways in which teachers behave. This is

slowly changing with new demands to personalise and individualise

22
learning. My data were collected at the ebb of that changing tide. This

thesis is perfectly placed to be part of this change and rethink about how

we teach and manage children’s knowledge.

2.4 Primary Mathematics Classroom

This section examines the nature of the primary mathematics classroom. I

will only focus on Key Stage 1 (pupils aged five to seven) and not look any

further as it is not within the parameters of my research.

To support this examination, I will consider the following areas:

 the mathematics curriculum and content, specifically the National

Curriculum, the National Numeracy Strategy and the Primary

Framework for Mathematics;

 the impact of the mathematical content i.e. the National Numeracy

Strategy and the Primary Framework for Mathematics on teachers’

pedagogical choices.

2.4.1 Mathematics Curriculum and Content

There are many external influences on the mathematics classroom today.

As considered in previous sections, the centralisation of education has had

the largest impact upon the way classrooms are shaped. Major influences

upon mathematics in the classroom were the issuing of the Cockcroft

Report in 1982 Mathematics Counts (Cockcroft, 1982), the primary report

issued by the Numeracy Task Force in 1998 Numeracy Matters (Reynolds,

1998b), and more recently the Williams Review in 2008 Independent

Review of Mathematics Teaching in Early Years Settings and Primary

23
Schools (Williams, 2008) and the House of Commons Public Accounts

Committee report in 2009 Mathematics Performance in Primary Schools:

Getting the Best Results (House of Commons Public Accounts Committee,

2009).

The Cockcroft Report considered not only the nature, content and level of

mathematics being taught, but also the changes that were taking place in

society and how these affected the mathematics needed. The main aim of

the report was to give recommendations to enable building of better

mathematics teaching. However a key point to note is that the report

looked at teaching and learning of mathematics with the lens of further

employability of individuals, and not the learning of mathematics for its

own sake. The report made a slight shift in its focus from what was in

place in the classroom at the time – mathematics that was more

theoretical (declarative knowledge) in principle to a more practically

applicable mathematics (procedural knowledge). The report made several

recommendations which resulted in major changes that are still prevalent

in classrooms today.

As noted in the previous section, one of the main goals of the government

of the 1980s was to restrict the power of urban LEAs which led to the

overall centralisation of the curriculum. This resulted in the establishment

of the National Curriculum (NC) in 1988. However, due to the lack of

clarity in the NC of what was required by teachers to teach, there was

demand for a further detailed curriculum document for mathematics and

English. As a result, the National Numeracy Strategy (NNS) started as a

24
project in 1996 culminating in implementation in all primary schools from

September 1999 (Department for Education and Employment, 1999).

The Numeracy Strategy provides a highly

structured model for the teaching of elementary
mathematics … The strategy offers schools a
very detailed year-by-year curriculum, and
incorporates a requirement that each primary
school class should devote 45-60 minutes each
morning to mathematics.

(Gardiner, 2000, p. 6/6)

These (the NC and the NNS) have been the most dominant documents to

influence the primary mathematics classroom to date.

National Curriculum for England and Wales in

1989 was undoubtedly the most significant
statutory intervention in primary mathematics
for over a hundred years. Nevertheless, the
arrival of the National Numeracy Strategy into
English primary schools in 1999 will almost
certainly have had a greater impact.

(Askew, Millett, Brown, Rhodes & Bibby, 2001, p. 5-6)

The nature of teaching, planning, use of mathematics and language, and

also the content covered and content omitted was determined through the

implementation of the NC and the NNS. These documents have shaped

the nature of primary mathematics teachers as well as the training of new

teachers. Gardiner offers an interesting logic for the enormity of the

impact upon the system of one reform that has been supported.

England has no tradition of pedagogy and

didactics. There is therefore no accepted formal
way of analysing the challenges which confront
the mathematics teacher, or of communicating
intended modifications to existing or intending
teachers. The only vehicles are therefore
pragmatic ones: from textbooks, syllabuses and

25
 examinations, to personal example and
encouragement to “reflect on one’s experience”
(though without a theoretical framework).

(Gardiner, 2000, p. 7/7)

Before the advent of the NC, it can be argued that there was no single

national pedagogical philosophy upon which teachers could base their

teaching decisions. It was this lack of pedagogical framework which led in

part to the rigidity with which the NC was adopted. Hence the NC, to some

extent, filled a gap in our pedagogical framework and further, in our social

views and discourse of education. The ripple effect of this fundamental

change was felt in every aspect of school and knowledge dissemination.

The NNS has and continues to shape, due to the absence of any other

guidance during the current process of rethinking, both the attitudes of

teachers and the expectations of parents. One of the key visible changes

in the primary classroom has been the introduction and emphasis on

mental maths and the view that mathematics is only valuable if there is

an application of it in real life.

The National Curriculum (and associated

assessment) encourages teachers: To see
school mathematics as being motivated and
justified by its uses (“We believe it should be a
fundamental principle that no topic should be
included unless it can be developed sufficiently
for it to be applied in a way which pupils can
understand” (Cockcroft, 1982, p. 133). “Pupils
should be given opportunities to use and apply
mathematics in practical tasks [and] in real-life
problems” (Department for Education, 1995, p.
11)).

(Gardiner, 2000, p. 7/7)

26
The balance of values between mathematics for practical applications and

mathematics for its own sake is currently under question with the current

coalition government considering reduction in the curriculum constraints,

and through changes in Ofsted’s (Office for Standards in Education,

Children’s Services and Skills) emphasis towards assessing learning. The

nature of the teacher-pupil interaction changed considerably as a result of

the philosophical change in approaches to mathematics brought upon by

the NNS. It is argued by many proponents of the NNS that there was

greater clarity in what teachers were to teach and, to a great extent, the

methods they were to apply. There was a balance to be achieved when we

consider the limitations which existed in the NNS when the learning of

such a diverse subject as mathematics was too prescriptive. Some of the

studies carried out to look at the impact of the NNS noted

the de-professionalisation of teachers. The

pressures which have been exerted on schools
in recent years to try to change the culture have
undermined the sense of professional autonomy
which is an essential ingredient in all good
teaching: teachers feel that their every move is
being monitored, often using inappropriate
criteria.

(Gardiner, 2000, p. 15/15)

As a result of such criticism, in 2006 the Primary Framework for

Mathematics (PFM) superseded the NNS (Department for Education and

Skills, 2006). Overall these are some of the factors influencing the culture

of the current primary classroom. Though there are wider issues, these

factors have a role to play in how teachers plan and implement the

teaching of mathematics. There is no unanimous agreement on the value

or validity of the changes in place through the NC. However, I must

27
accept that they inform the nature of the classroom and are a backdrop to

my study. It is not the scope of my research to question this backdrop,

merely to work with full knowledge of its strengths and flaws.

2.4.2 Impact of Mathematical Content on

Teaching

In this section, I want to look at the mathematical content from the

perspective of the impact it has had on the teachers and their pedagogical

choices. Looking at these factors is important as the backdrop of my

thesis is the National Numeracy Strategy (NNS) and the Primary

Framework for Mathematics (PFM) (collectively called strategies in this

section) as they play out in the classroom. All of my data are collected in

the culture of classrooms using both the NNS and the PFM. Teachers have

an assortment of complex and diverse approaches to the way in which

these two very similar documents are used. Despite the PFM being the

latest guidance, the teachers involved in my data collection preferred the

NNS as it offered detailed guidance for planning and delivery of

mathematics lessons while covering the same learning objectives as the

PFM. Therefore understanding the very nature and purpose of the NNS

remains vital as the classrooms in which I collected my data were still

depending upon the NNS as a major influence in supporting teacher

planning. Furthermore, taking time to examine how these documents

have shaped teacher behaviour is crucial, as it will allow me to look at the

data collected within context.

The structure of both the NNS and the PFM content is in school year

groups. The outline of what children should be able to do is organised in

28
strands. However the PFM makes no attempt to indicate how teachers

should teach each learning objective. Hence teachers tend to rely on the

NNS and the vast departmental online resources. Furthermore there is

little indication given as to the methods for measuring the level of

children’s ability once they can achieve the objectives. There are overall

assessment criteria, but they are not as clear as the content criteria. The

planning structure emphasises continuous assessment through the use of

Assessing Pupils’ Progress (APP).

Critics of both documents argue that the extent to which mathematics was

considered is limited and the emphasis is more on numeracy. There is

very limited application of terms such as mathematics or mathematical.

The language applied throughout the strategies is to aim, it would seem,

to move away from traditional notions of mathematics and promote a new

rebranded form of considering numbers. The strategies view numeracy as

an aspect of mathematics.

Numeracy relates to the broader area of

mathematics. Numeracy is described below as a
proficiency in various skills. The National
Curriculum for mathematics at each level is in
part focused directly upon such skills and in part
upon laying the foundation for higher levels of
mathematical study which, in turn, provide
further skills valuable in adult life.

(Reynolds, 1998a, p. 11)

The content for both strategies is developed under this definition of

numeracy:

Numeracy at Key Stages 1 and 2 is a proficiency

that involves a confidence and competence with
numbers and measures. It requires an

29
 understanding of the number system, a
repertoire of computational skills and an
inclination and ability to solve number problems
in a variety of contexts.

(Reynolds, 1998a, p. 11)

This definition of numeracy and overall philosophy of the strategies are,

and continue to be, the rooting of values, practices and culture of the

primary mathematics classroom.

One of the biggest weaknesses of the strategies is the inability of the

curriculum content to guide teachers in terms of assessment. This lack of

clarity in assessing children has, to some extent, reduced the ways in

which the strategies have been applied with teachers initially rigidly

applying the requirements and measuring children in terms of levels

based on the NC documentation. However through the use of APP and

Assessment for Learning (AfL) models, teachers are beginning to look at

other methods for assessing children, though this is an area which needs

further development.

Mathematical concepts are varied in their complexity and how children

understand the concepts can also be varied. This has created an

ambiguous precedent within the teaching of numeracy. For example,

when we look at a Year One teaching program and consider one of the

objectives from the Calculating strand, it states, “Relate addition to

counting on; recognise that addition can be done in any order; use

practical and formal written methods” (Department for Education and

Skills, 2006, p. 72).

30
This objective can be demonstrated by children in many different ways.

For example, a child could simply show that they are able to count on as a

way of achieving addition, or can also demonstrate that they know that

adding can be done in any order by using the larger number as a starting

point, or also that tens can be added first and then units next, and so on.

The difficulty is that the teacher is not given flexibility to make any

different assessments. That is to say, all that can be noted is whether the

child has met the objective or not. There is no scope to consider how the

child met the objective as only the achievement of the objective is

recorded. This target-led assessment means that knowledge is treated in

a very linear manner and learners move along this linear continuum, and

hence pedagogical choices are made to fit this mould. The result of this is

that the progress of each child’s knowledge can be placed on a limited

trajectory with one target after another to be met and children moved on

accordingly. Among others, this has been one of the key criticisms of the

strategies.

The results of the 2007 assessment of Trends in International

Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) showed that England did not fare

well taking seventh place after countries such as Hong Kong, Japan,

Singapore and Taiwan (Sturman et al., 2008). This, among other reasons,

has prompted a rethink within the current government to consider other

methodologies for further raising standards of mathematics. However as

this has not been made public knowledge, one can only guess what shape

these new strategies may take. This current rethinking and possible

investment is a result of the realisation that the strategies have not had

31
the long term effects it was hoped that they would in raising standards in

mathematics.

Since 2000, results at both Key Stages 1 (age

seven) and Key Stage 2 (age 11) have levelled
off. In 2008, 79% of pupils attained the
expected standard or above in mathematics at
Key Stage 2 in national tests. While this was the
highest ever recorded result, and 2% higher
than the previous year, it fell well short of the
target of 85% that the Department set to
achieve by 2006. 21% of pupils started
secondary school without a secure foundation in
mathematics. In 2008, 30,000 (5% of 11-year
olds) left primary school with mathematical
skills that were, at best, at the level of those
expected of a seven year old.

(House of Commons Public Accounts Committee, 2009, p. 7)

For teachers, the above findings imply that though the strategies were put

into place to raise standards in mathematics, there are still shortfalls

which they need to address (House of Commons Public Accounts

Committee, 2009). This could be due to the lack of pedagogical choice

offered through the constraints of these strategies and what needs to

occur is allowing teachers to make choices for addressing the needs of the

children they are teaching. Teachers feel under pressure to continuously

improve in all areas. The NC has entitlement as its core root. That is to

say:

Entitlement to equality of access to an

appropriate curriculum

Entitlement to equality of teaching experienced

Entitlement to equality of learning outcome

(Askew et al., 2001, p. 6)

32
Askew et al. (2001) argue that it is unreasonable to expect this notion of

entitlement to be the same for all children, and causes “tension between

teaching to meet the needs of the individual and teaching to meet the

needs of the collective” (p. 7).

It is this tension that is influencing the role of the teacher, the pedagogical

choices that they make and the atmosphere of the classroom with mixed

external messages, leaving teachers to make judgments and

interpretations as individuals and as schools (Askew et al., 2001).

To conclude this section, the nature of mathematical content and the

overall implementation of the strategies have caused some difficulties with

teachers and offer limited ideas for individualised teaching. But overall,

the fundamental issue in the classroom is the way in which teachers have

been encouraged to consider equity and entitlement. This has led to

teachers viewing children as groups rather than as individuals. The

demand for improvement of outcomes and need for equity has put

pressure upon teachers to provide the same educational provision for all

children. This interrelated conflict is between the knowledge that

individualised planning is the most supportive approach to extend

children’s learning and the dilemma of equity needs to be supported by

the understanding of prior knowledge.

2.5 Prior Knowledge

There are so many points from which I could start to consider the

following questions. How do I define prior knowledge? What do these

33
words mean? Are there different meanings linked to different contexts?

Are there different interpretations of these words in the literature?

In this section, I will address these and other questions in order to gain a

picture of the current views in the literature of prior knowledge. I will

establish a definition, according to the literature available, of prior

knowledge which can then be the springboard for development and the

basis of this thesis. At first I consider the literature available in all the

contexts, and not just primary school mathematics, as this will enable me

to derive a precise lexical definition of the term prior knowledge. The

ultimate goal at the end of this thesis is to propose a structure of prior

knowledge based on the outcome of this study which may be applied in

practice.

The section is organised in the following way:

 considering the complex ideas linked to terminology and semantics

of the words prior knowledge, i.e. prior and knowledge, and the

many different definitions found in the literature for prior

knowledge;

 looking at how prior knowledge can be defined using the literature

already available as a point of reference;

 concluding with an unambiguous working definition of prior

knowledge based on literature which will be developed throughout

this thesis. Also a definition that can be understood by others and

form a common vocabulary between the researcher and the reader.

34
2.5.1 Knowledge

Defining knowledge is pivotal to this thesis. In this section I will look at

knowledge from the following perspectives:

 philosophical and theoretical (epistemological);

 cultural and societal;

 educational (school knowledge) views on children;

 mathematical;

 individual.

It is of value to look at each perspective individually and distil the key

points which are applicable to my research objective. The definition

formulated here will be the first step in defining prior knowledge.

2.5.1.1 Philosophical and Theoretical Perspective

Knowledge is an ambiguous term which means different things depending

upon the context. Rand (1979) gives a sound starting point to the

philosophical debate when she writes “Knowledge is … a mental grasp of a

fact(s) of reality, reached either by perceptual observation or by a process

of reason based on perceptual observation” (p. 45).

Therefore knowledge, it can be argued, is an abstract concept which

allows us to contextualise and, to some extent, verbalise what we see, do,

observe, and interact with as humans. Furthermore, knowledge is

increased by what we gain from those interactions. Rand’s definition is in

no way an attempt to simplify the wider and more detailed definitions

offered by epistemological theoreticians, but more of a way to focus upon

35
the issues. Considering Rand’s statement in detail allows me to focus upon

what knowledge looks like, how it is acquired, and provides a starting

point for the development of a working definition. Knowledge is the by-

product of synthesising individuals’ observations and interactions. David

Hume (an empiricist) offers an overarching theory of knowledge which

forms one end of the spectrum by which Rand’s above statement is

supported. Sense perceptions which are broken into two notions of

impressions and ideas are the ways in which we expand our

understanding and knowledge (Hume 2010). Therefore to follow Hume’s

argument – we cannot know anything which we have not had prior

impression of in sensory experience. That is to say, our minds are void of

knowledge and only interactions with our sense allows for our knowledge

to grow.

However, Immanuel Kant’s theory of knowledge opposes this view of the

human mind being void of any knowledge prior to interaction with the

world and forms the other end of the knowledge spectrum (Kant 2010).

Kant proposes that the mind has twelve pure concepts (or categories)

which enable us to organise our vast numbers of sense observations.

These concepts are unity, plurality, totality, affirmation, negation,

limitation, substance-accidents, cause-effect, causal reciprocity,

possibility, actuality and necessity. One of the key arguments made by

Kant is that “the mind is not passive, as Hume and other empiricists also

claim” (Lavine, 1984, p. 194).

The mind is more active in the process of acquiring and sorting

knowledge. Knowledge gained is given some structure and meaning

36
through the twelve concepts and the process of sorting the incoming

knowledge. Furthermore Kant states that the concepts remain the same

and universally form the structure of any mind (Lavine, 1984, p. 194).

Thus the concepts make sensory observation a more interactive process

rather than passive as thought by the empiricist school of thought. Kant’s

twelve categories presuppose all experiences and remain unchanged

through any experience. Lastly Kant proposes that these twelve concepts

are a necessary tool for the mind as they enable the processing of

experiences to take place without which there would be no knowledge

which could be of further value.

There are further perspectives which believe that knowledge has its

source in rational truth and knowledge is derived from the use of senses

and critical analyses of those thoughts. Not just mere organisation into

categories or filtered through the categories as Kant stated, but going one

stage further, and using what has been before to assess and develop new

knowledge. This type of knowledge requires a deeper sense of

consciousness of all things and is built up over a series of interactions.

Therefore knowledge is always changing and fluid.

Whichever definition is prescribed, be it Hume’s which states knowledge is

limited to the moment and does not interact with the mind to a great

extent, or Kant’s views which consider the brain as a filter of knowledge

which is flexible, it is most striking that these perspectives of knowledge

are not simply facts and figures which must be learnt. Hume’s and Kant’s

definitions give scope to bring in all aspects of life as knowledge.

37
2.5.1.2 Cultural and Societal Perspective

The culture in which we exist and attain knowledge has a huge impact

upon the nature of that knowledge. It is this relationship between the

external (the culture) and internal (the knowledge that we are able to

acquire) factors which shape our thinking. In this section, I want to focus

not on what types of cultural knowledge there are, but more so on what

the culture we are operating in has to offer in the way of understanding

knowledge. Furthermore, I want to examine what knowledge is valued

within our culture. It is essential that I consider this with society and

culture being linked and influencing one another.

Culture should be regarded as the set of

distinctive spiritual, material, intellectual and
emotional features of society or a social group,
and that it encompasses, in addition to art and
literature, lifestyles, ways of living together,
value systems, traditions and beliefs.

(UNESCO, 2002, p. 9)

This is a concise but vital description of culture as it allows me to examine

the vastness of knowledge. In order to understand knowledge in this

culture, there needs to be a brief examination of English culture, the place

it gives to knowledge, and how it uses and expands knowledge. English

culture is wide and varied and has been and continues to be influenced by

many other cultures. Though a part of Europe, England is vastly different

in its nature and responses to the development and value it places on

knowledge. Schools are the pivotal way in which knowledge is

disseminated to the nation, and thus affect national identity. Merttens and

Head (2000), in Coulby’s book’s preface, ask the key question “To what

38
extent is what we know we ‘know’ bound in with what we believe we are,

in terms of our ethnic, national, religious and cultural identity?” (p. ix).

As teachers (one of the distributors of knowledge), if what we are and

who we are as individuals is linked strongly to what we know, then it must

be crucial to examine what is it that we define as key knowledge within

our culture. Within England, the structure of knowledge and the selection

of what is considered to be true knowledge is visible in the National

Curriculum (NC) and other institutional structures such as colleges (and

their courses) and universities (and their degree programmes).

All curricular systems are a selection from the

vastness of human knowledge. What humanity
knows and what it thinks it knows has been
amassed, revised and refined across many
centuries.

(Coulby, 2000, p. 12)

Therefore a reflection of accepted knowledge has been selected within our

system. The NC for all state primary schools focuses on the following

areas of knowledge – mathematics, science, English, art and design,

geography, history, physical education, information and communication

technology, religious education, music, design and technology, and

personal social health and citizenship education.

England has been influenced in the selection of this path towards

curriculum-based knowledge by societal attitudes towards the systems in

place for the acquisition of knowledge. According to Apple (1979),

institutions such as schools and colleges are there for cultural

reproduction. He goes on to further argue that “The dominant fact of our

39
current social order is the central role that capital, wealth, and economic

power play in it” (p. 69).

Furthermore, knowledge is “cultural capital” (Apple, 1979, p. 2). By

defining the knowledge that everyone is expected to have, schools confer

special status on that knowledge which is important to dominate interests.

This is the key point in defining cultural knowledge. Though there are vast

areas in human knowledge and understanding within this culture, there

are only some small aspects that are valued and therefore expanded.

However the wider question of knowledge dissemination through the Web

is one which needs to be considered as it has almost eliminated the

societal selection of knowledge for dissemination, as it allows the freedom

to any individual to share and gain any knowledge. Though this area is

fascinating, it requires more investigation than the scope of this thesis.

A good barometer for the areas of knowledge valued within the UK are the

statistics for applications into different university courses, as these

indicate what is popular within the culture and will go some way to

defining what we within the UK value as knowledge. In 2011, there were

122,787 applicants for a law course in contrast to the 13 applicants for

Classical Greek studies (UCAS, 2011). Also there were 97,055 applicants

for psychology and only 13 for Portuguese studies. From these figures and

the shape of the current curriculum, it seems that, as a society, we place

higher value on studying areas that have a practical application and lead

to a well-defined career path. Society is choosing to acquire knowledge in

areas in which the knowledge that it gains has practical and financial

value. The number of applicants to non-applied courses is far lower (e.g.

40
physics – 24,046, zoology – 9,991). We seem not to value knowledge for

knowledge’s sake, but more for the output that can be achieved. This is

supported by the UCAS (The Universities and Colleges Admissions

Service) figures for 2011.

This notion of knowledge is in contradiction to the previous section

(Section 2.5.1.1) which takes the theoretical view of knowledge being all

aspects of human life and all its variations. The cultural response is to

limit the knowledge which is explored and to place value on only a very

limited area of human subject knowledge and not the wider view of

knowledge.

In conclusion, English society and culture does put a high value on some

aspects of knowledge, and this importance is perpetuated through

institutions and other such structures. Therefore when considering

knowledge from this perspective, we need to bear in mind the value

placed on each area as these are what the culture regards as knowledge,

which in the case of England is reflected in the content of the various

curricula in place. So for this thesis, I will consider subject knowledge in

terms of the NC as this is what affects the age range of my research

group. This is in no way denying the vastness of knowledge and what I

have left out, it is simply narrowing the parameters for the search in

understanding prior knowledge.

2.5.1.3 Educational Perspective

The previous section (Section 2.5.1.2) illustrates that what has been

chosen for teaching within school is a reflection of societal and cultural

41
views of knowledge. Therefore I need to examine the curriculum and how

knowledge is structured within the formal educational setting of a school.

The National Curriculum (NC) influences what knowledge is important and

at what stage of a child’s development should this knowledge be taught

and assessed. Within our society, we deal with knowledge in a very

fragmented and hierarchical manner, and this is no different within the

structures of the NC. The NC views knowledge as being only subject-

specific knowledge and not the wider view of knowledge. Hence any

references to knowledge in the context of the NC refer only to subject

knowledge. Furthermore, there is guidance on the progress children

should be making and the levels they should have reached within the

process of knowledge acquisition.

The curriculum is developed further up the school hierarchy with deeper

content in the same areas. Irrespective of whether there is agreement

within the educational institution on these areas of knowledge or even the

structure with which it is implemented, it is a mandatory requirement of

the state.

In England and Wales, a centralised National

Curriculum has been rigorously enforced,
specifying in minute detail what is to be covered
in primary and secondary schools.

(Coulby, 2000, p. 17)

With the NC being key to the educational perspective, it would seem of

little benefit to move away from it when considering the knowledge which

is being assessed within children, irrespective of whether one agrees with

the NC. Also though the debate of what other knowledge would be better

42
covered in school is an interesting one, it serves no purpose for this

thesis. However in the next section (Section 2.5.1.4) I am going to

consider what is being covered within the current framework in

mathematics as this has an impact upon prior knowledge in the

classroom.

The final question remains – if the NC is a small aspect of all human

knowledge, what else is there that is not considered? Furthermore, what

implication does this have on our understanding of the individual and the

knowledge that is present in these settings? Plato offers a possible

method for looking at what knowledge is and how different types of

knowledge are linked to each other (Lavine, 1984). In his divided line

model (Figure 2.1), there is a distinction between the visible or sensory

knowledge (object) and the invisible or theoretical knowledge (thought).

Though there is no implication of linear progression between each area of

understanding, there are a number of similarities between Plato’s (Lavine,

1984) views about the structure of the world and Piaget’s (Piaget, 1954)

view of understanding and knowledge. For example, Plato believes that

awareness of images is the lowest form of knowledge (Lavine, 1984);

Piaget (1954), in his theory of cognitive development, indicates that the

sensory motor stage, which is the first stage of an individual’s

development, constitutes sensing images and the physical environment as

the start of knowledge development. Both Plato’s (Lavine, 1984) and

Piaget’s (Piaget, 1954) views support the ability to abstract and analyse

thought as being a higher level of knowledge.

43
 Thought Object

Reason Higher
Dialectic Forms
Knowledge Intelligible World
Understanding
Forms of Science
(Science,
and Mathematics
Mathematics)

Belief
Things, Objects
(Perceptions)
Opinion Visible World
Shadows,
Conjecture
Images,
(Imagining)
Reflections

Figure 2.1 Plato’s Divided Line Model (Lavine, 1984, p. 32)

This is paralleled in the way in which knowledge is ordered and structured

within the NC. Overall the dominant theory within culture and society

today is that knowledge in its nature has stages and is hierarchical. Also

through the systems in place for acquiring knowledge, there is the

overarching thought that the access to this knowledge can only take place

in a predetermined order which, according to Piaget (1954), is linked with

age and has no bearing on ability or experience. Therefore the change

from the basic knowledge e.g. that 1+1 is indeed 2, to understanding the

reasons why 1+1 is 2 has many stages which are influenced by many

factors and must be passed through and, it seems, cannot be omitted.

To conclude, the educational view of knowledge is that knowledge is

ordered in interconnected stages. Furthermore, as reflected in the NC,

each facet of knowledge is linked and dependent on a previous aspect of

knowledge, and this is built up over time in the structure which is set up

44
by the curriculum. Knowledge has a defined path which can be measured

and valued. There is a start and end to knowledge within education.

2.5.1.4 Mathematical Perspective

In this section, I have taken care not to use the title mathematical

curriculum as I do not want to constrain the debate to the mathematics

which exists within the current narrowly-defined curriculum. Furthermore,

the debate needs to be much broader in order to allow the development of

a structure for prior knowledge. There are many ways to approach the

analysis of mathematical knowledge. The parameters are quite broad.

However, in order to make the points relevant, I wish to consider

mathematical knowledge within young children and look at what this

means in terms of this thesis. The key question I want to address in this

section is: what is meant by mathematics? What are the key ideas within

mathematics which form the basis of mathematical knowledge? Clemson

and Clemson (1994) propose the following areas: counting and ordering,

reasoning and proof, the triangle, zero and place value, statistics,

standard measure, and calculators and computers as being the key areas

of mathematical knowledge that must be considered.

The Cockcroft Report looks at similar areas of knowledge which should be

taught in schools. It proposes that measurement, shape and space,

graphical work, logical thinking, number and computation (e.g. place

value) are all key areas of mathematical knowledge which should be

prominent in the primary classroom (Cockcroft, 1982). These are reflected

in the current curriculum.

45
However, there is more to mathematical knowledge in these areas than

what is being taught in schools. Asimov (1991), in the foreword to A

History of Mathematics, writes, “Mathematics is a unique aspect of human

thought” (p. vii). Therefore, what is mathematical knowledge?

Virtually every philosopher who has discussed

mathematics has claimed that our knowledge of
mathematical truths is different in kind from our
knowledge of the propositions of the natural
sciences. This almost unanimous judgment
reflects two obvious features of mathematics.
For the ordinary person, as for the philosopher,
mathematics is a shining example of human
knowledge, a subject which can be used as a
standard against which claims to knowledge in
other areas can be measured.

(Kitcher, 1984, p. 3)

The common understanding that mathematical knowledge is a priori –

“mathematical apriorism” (Kitcher, 1984, p. 3) – is linked to the theories

which are debated in Section 2.5.1.1. However, the epistemological view

is debated by many and the influence upon mathematics in the past two

decades has changed the nature of the current view of mathematical

knowledge.

A growing number of scholars question the

universality, absoluteness and perfectibility of
mathematics and mathematical knowledge.

(Ernest, 1999, p. 67-68)

Although mathematical apriorism has been –

and continues to be – an extremely popular
doctrine, it has not gone completely
unquestioned.

(Kitcher, 1984, p. 4)

46
The debate, it seems, lies between the historical philosophical concept of

mathematical knowledge and the more recent context-influenced

mathematical knowledge “mathematical apriorism — mathematical

empiricism” (Kitcher, 1984, p. 4). Is it possible to have mathematical

knowledge which exists without expression and evaluation of this

knowledge? Kitcher (1984) rejects the view that mathematical knowledge

is tacit, and questions the traditional view that time does not change the

nature of mathematical knowledge which is consistent through time. It

would seem therefore that there is only one perspective – that

mathematical knowledge is an evolving process which is influenced by

historical events and also by the current context. This is in contrast to

most philosophers of mathematics.

They have supposed that, independently of the

historical process through which mathematics
has been elaborated, the individual
mathematician of the present day can
reconstruct the body of knowledge bequeathed
to us by our predecessors, achieving systematic
knowledge which does not reflect the patterns of
inference instantiated in the painful historical
process.

(Kitcher, 1984, p. 5)

Mathematical knowledge is changing due to the influence of “social

context and professional communities of mathematicians” (Ernest, 1999,

p. 68).

Their social organisation and structure is central

to the mechanisms of mathematical knowledge
generation and justification, and they are the
repositories and sites of application and
transmission of tacit and implicit knowledge.

(Ernest, 1999, p. 68)

47
So it can be concluded that mathematical knowledge is not simply a set of

truths, but a combination of truths and the interaction that humans have

with these truths which create new understanding.

The argument for including tacit ‘know how’ as

well as propositional knowledge as part of
mathematical knowledge is that it takes human
understanding, activity and experience to make
or justify mathematics.

(Ernest, 1999, p. 69)

Therefore mathematical knowledge is, in terms of this, not only the

philosophical perspective of tacit knowledge, but also the ability to apply

techniques to give solutions.

2.5.1.5 Individual Perspective

This section serves two aims – one, of summarising or concluding all the

previous sections; and the other, of looking at what all these theories and

deliberations mean in terms of individual knowledge.

So far I have considered knowledge from various key perspectives, all of

which have reached the core conclusion that knowledge is not merely

present and stable, but evolving in its nature. Furthermore, the evolution

is influenced by many factors such as:

 individual experiences through one’s senses of the environment;

 individual ability to make connections and filter the experience

received through the senses;

 communal influences upon knowledge construction and

interpretation through the cultural and societal context;

48
  the expectations of cultural communities such as schools and the

demands and values that they place upon knowledge;

 the natural process of historical change. Time has an impact on the

way knowledge is interpreted, used and applied, therefore changing

philosophical views of knowledge.

What of the individual? Knowledge is not stable, and therefore an

individual’s perception of knowledge is also not stable. This section has

argued that knowledge and understanding of it has little to do with ability,

but more so to do with the nature of that knowledge and the relevance of

that knowledge in context. Furthermore, it has been argued that it is

through experience that we gain in knowledge and make sense of the

world. One could say that knowledge is a process of development for

individuals and society. It is a way by which we mark how far we have

come from our starting point. We must, however, not attempt to

categorise a path which needs to be taken and leave each individual to

create their own knowledge path to “mental grasp of the fact(s) of reality”

(Rand, 1979, p. 45). With this understanding, I am in a position to

conclude and move the discussion onto the main aspect of this thesis –

prior knowledge. The foundation has been set, and a clear and distinct

definition of knowledge established. Therefore in the next section, I will

look at the concept of prior and how this then leads to the establishment

of an understanding of prior knowledge.

49
2.5.2 Prior

Having considered in detail areas and issues concerning knowledge and its

definition in Section 2.5.1, I am now at the stage where I can focus on

defining prior and then how prior and knowledge meld together and

develop the ideas for prior knowledge. Common definitions of the word

prior allude to events in the past. Therefore any definition I consider must

allow for this passing of time and the effects it has on the knowledge

being gained. Furthermore something that is prior has already taken place

and is part of the individual’s reality as a consequence of their experience

of it. Though it is not yet clear if this is conscious or subconscious, it is an

act which is already completed or an experience which an individual has

already passed through.

2.5.3 Prior Knowledge Research

Having defined prior (Section 2.5.2) and knowledge (Section 2.5.1), the

ideas in those sections lead me to begin defining prior knowledge. Prior

knowledge is a vast term with many interpretations. The literature search

I carried out for this thesis revealed some interesting outcomes. When

searching through the various academic literature databases, I used the

terms prior knowledge or prior experiential learning or prior learning as a

way of getting a broad base (as established in Section 2.2.2). Looking at

the type of publications that they appear in, 4173 sources were located

which consider these terms as part of their research. Very few of these

sources give any definition or structure to what they mean by prior

50
knowledge in terms of their research. The literature fell into ten broad

categories of studies that use prior knowledge as their central tenet:

1. Accrediting applicants / students in higher education for their prior

learning / knowledge, be this formal or informal learning, and

various methods to be able to carry out this process formally

(around 5% of the literature located).

2. Subject-specific research and what causes variation in individuals’

ability to understand the subject matter with prior subject

knowledge being one of the many variables considered (around

10% of the literature located).

3. Expert versus novice debate, factors which influence the process of

becoming an expert, and differences between experts and novices

based on many factors including prior knowledge (around 5% of the

literature located).

4. Effects of prior knowledge on learning and performance, with some

of them linking what students know about one area to what is being

taught (around 33% of the literature located).

5. How prior knowledge is used in learning and the learning

experiences it forms (around 20% of the literature located).

6. Pre-service teachers and the effect prior knowledge has on their

choice of methods to teach (around 7% of the literature located).

7. Prior knowledge as a general factor in learning (around 1% of the

literature located).

8. Prior knowledge as a specific part of the learning process (around

14% of the literature located).

51
 9. Evaluation of prior knowledge as an entity on its own (around 4%

of the literature located).

10. Defining prior knowledge (around 1% of the literature located).

This very simple survey illustrates that though there is wide acceptance of

the key role that prior knowledge plays in learning and knowledge

acquisition, there is little understanding or agreed vocabulary which

defines prior knowledge in any given context. This raises many questions

about the understanding we have of prior knowledge.

Using some of these areas of research as a starting point, I am going to

tease out what they offer my understanding of prior knowledge. Though

these areas are not directly related to the area of my research in terms of

their context, they will aid in informing the understanding of my work, and

hopefully they will start to shed some light on many alternative views to

the understanding and the questions I am asking.

In the remainder of this section, I examine in detail only the first three

categories of studies from the list above as they had allowed me to

consider how prior knowledge is understood. The next five categories are

related to the effect of prior knowledge on learning and therefore do not

consider what is prior knowledge. The last two categories have ideas to

offer which run throughout my literature review, and therefore are

integrated into the examination of the first three categories.

2.5.3.1 Accreditation of Prior Learning

An area of research which has prior knowledge as a key concept for their

studies considers the complex issues which need resolving when trying to

52
accredit students for their prior knowledge or prior learning in higher

education. There are many researchers who have looked at the process of

accrediting students in higher education for the knowledge, skills and

understanding they bring to their studies. It is interesting to consider how

the assessments may take place as it will offer me a process by which I

can view what their criteria are and understand what may constitute prior

knowledge. Approximately 200 sources were identified, and many

common themes emerge from them. Having analysed many of the

sources, the similarities are striking. Therefore it is of little value to review

all of the literature. It is much more valuable to assess a small key sample

from the overall pool and pull out from them some fundamental principles

which can then guide our understanding and develop thought.

Researchers such as Dochy, Segers & Buehl (1999); Taber (2001); Ajello

& Belardi (2002); O'Donnell, Dansereau & Hall (2002); Starr-Glass (2002)

and Spencer (2005) are all concerned with developing tools to assess the

knowledge gained by individuals outside the formal contexts of an

educational setting in a variety of subject areas by asking key questions

such as “how to make learning, which takes place outside the context of

formal education and training institutions, more ‘visible’” (Ajello & Belardi,

2002).

Interestingly all the sources in this area talk about prior learning and not

prior knowledge, hence giving me my first semantic stumbling block. Prior

learning is the skill and knowledge acquired from previous experience –

formal or informal. There is much ambiguity in the research about what is

meant by prior learning. However learning implies change, and knowledge

as established in Section 2.5.1 is the process by which experiences and

53
understanding of the world are ordered. Therefore the relationship

between knowledge and learning is crucial to the understanding of prior

learning. Learning is the process by which we gain knowledge, with old

learning being prior knowledge. According to Harris (2000), Kolb defines

learning as “Experience + reflection = learning”.

Therefore the gaining of knowledge is based on experience and reflection.

This simple notion helps widen the definition of prior knowledge. Surely

for an individual to have any knowledge, there must be some prior

learning and if learning in relation to Kolb’s definition is situated in

experience which has taken place in context, then all learning will

eventually be prior knowledge. Therefore this, to some extent, gives me

an understanding about the nature of gaining prior knowledge. The

learning process is an active one, and it is this that aids in the use of prior

knowledge and also helps develop our prior knowledge. Sotto (1994)

explains this link between prior learning and prior knowledge; when he

discusses perception and learning, he asks “But how is it possible for a

drawing to be recognizable as two so very different things?” (p. 68).

It is this interplay between perception, reflection and inference that allows

the development of prior knowledge, that is to say, learning which

changes into knowledge (the structure upon which new learning will be

based). The above groups of researchers have established that prior

learning and factors which affect it are key to prior knowledge. Therefore

prior learning and prior knowledge can be considered to be synonymous.

Another theme which has occurred throughout this group of researchers is

the notion of what knowledge is worth. The ability to measure learning in

54
terms of use value of certain knowledge is complex and arbitrary (Briton,

Gereluk & Spencer, 1998). Briton et al. (1998) argue that it is the

exchange value of knowledge that is important. That is to say, when

considering prior knowledge as a factor in the ability to achieve success in

any given area, one of the key features of prior knowledge has to be the

ability to transfer understanding from one situation or context (in which

the gaining of knowledge/learning has taken place) and apply it to

another. Though I am not concerned with giving formal values for prior

knowledge in my study, it is vital to know that only transferable

knowledge is valuable in the context of impacting upon a child’s ability to

perform, and for any knowledge to grow and develop, it must be able to

evolve through transfer.

Evans (2002) argues that knowledge, and more so knowledge individuals

bring to new situations (prior knowledge), in its widest sense has both

tacit and explicit elements. Tacit knowledge, in terms of prior knowledge,

is knowledge which is classified as intuitive knowledge, but in its infancy,

it was knowledge which was explicit and susceptible to change with

variation in context.

It is this notion of tacit prior learning and the assessment of it that covers

complex issues for the purpose of our understanding. It is not so vital to

understand how to weigh or quantify prior knowledge, but how to

recognise its existence within children in the context of doing mathematics

and the shape it has taken.

The final theme that Spencer (2005); Evans (2002); Harris (2000) and

many others have identified is the key area for understanding prior

55
knowledge acquisition as reflected experiences in context. The

constructivist school of learning considers experience as a key feature of

prior knowledge.

Learning does not originate “in the head” nor is

it a product of individual meaning-making. The
learner acts within the environment rather than
on it.

(Harris, 2000)

Therefore I argue that prior knowledge is knowledge which has been

acquired through interaction with many different settings and is

contextually situated. To summarise, the following have been the key

concepts so far:

The relationship between learning and knowledge is intertwined in such a

way that it is difficult to differentiate what is learning and when this has

turned into knowledge. Furthermore debating the difference between prior

learning and prior knowledge is semantic as both have the same

characteristics. If an individual has learnt something, it is a fair

assumption that they have knowledge of the said something.

The value of any particular type of knowledge has also become

established. It has been established that all prior knowledge has equal

value. However usefulness in or transferability to any given context is key

to prior knowledge. Therefore when concerned with prior knowledge in

mathematics, it is crucial that all prior knowledge is considered as useful

as long as it is transferable and useful to children in carrying out

mathematical tasks.

56
The final outcome is the essential factor of context. All knowledge is

gained in a context and is shaped by the context in which it was first

acquired. Therefore when considering prior knowledge, what will be visible

is the whole knowledge base of an individual in a given context, and what

will determine its impact on individual’s learning is the ability for each

facet of knowledge, no matter where it was gained, to be transferred into

new situations and aid in further knowledge acquisition. That is to say, an

individual will bring to bear all their prior knowledge in any given situation

and only the facets that are useful will be used to understand and gain

new knowledge.

2.5.3.2 Subject-specific Research

Another area of research into prior knowledge is subject-specific research

i.e. research which considers what causes variations in student’s ability to

understand particular subject matter, with many studies focusing on prior

knowledge as one of the factors contributing to this variation. Hazel,

Prosser & Trigwell (2002) consider methods by which meaningful learning

can occur. Furthermore they consider work by Ausubel and Novak and

give me the starting point for considering this group of research.

57
 In addition to what students know and learn,
how they learn has proved crucial in
contributing to our understanding of the
pathway to high quality learning outcomes. ...
Prior knowledge had both a direct and an
indirect impact on post knowledge and at this
level there were differences across contexts.
The limitations of this research were that it
included learning strategies but not learning
intentions which are considered to be a part of a
learning approach, and that propositional but
not experiential knowledge was tapped.

(Hazel et al., 2002, p. 738-739)

The question which needs to be considered is – why does prior knowledge

have such a powerful influence upon students’ understanding of any

subject? What does prior knowledge provide to the process of developing

new knowledge? These are some of the questions addressed by this area

of research. I examine how this area of research approaches the concept

of prior knowledge. What do they mean by prior knowledge? Before

considering these key questions, I took a step back and looked at two

main researchers in this area – Ausubel and Novak – as they seemed to

offer the seeds from which much thinking in this area has developed. It

must be noted that much of the debate is subject-specific to science and

the learning of abstract concepts within science. Ausubel and Novak

express views which oppose the dominant Piagetian perspective on

learning.

The past decade has witnessed a controversy

between the Ausubelian and Piagetian science
educators regarding the relative importance of
prior knowledge and formal reasoning ability in
students' understanding of abstract concepts
and hence for their achievement of these
concepts. Joseph Novak, one of the strongest
advocates of Ausubel's postulates, claims that
children who lack formal thought may acquire

58
 some abstract concepts so long as they possess
the relevant background knowledge.

(Zeitoun, 1989, p. 227)

The central tenet of Ausubel's theory is that knowledge is organised

hierarchically. New knowledge is linked, anchored, attached to existing

knowledge and is meaningful. Ausubel’s views do not agree with rote or

repetitive learning, or even discovery learning (Ausubel, Novak &

Hanesian, 1978). The relationship between prior knowledge and learning

in Ausubel’s view is that “prior knowledge influences the process whereby

this learning occurs” (West & Fensham, 1974, p. 62).

And by this learning, it implies further learning. As with many other

researchers, Ausubel’s view of prior knowledge is that it plays an essential

role in any meaningful learning. The other factor to take from his research

is this view of meaningful learning. Ausubel defines different types of

learning.

Ausubel distinguishes between ‘rote’ and

‘meaningful’ learning and postulates that
meaningful learning occurs when the learner’s
appropriate existing knowledge interacts with
the new learning. Rote learning of the new
knowledge occurs when no such interaction
takes place. The distinction is not simply a
dichotomy. Rote learning is the lower end of the
meaningful learning continuum. Depending on
the nature of the learner’s existing knowledge
and how it interacts with the new knowledge so
there will be varying degrees of meaningful
learning. Ausubel calls those aspects of existing
knowledge that can provide these interactions of
meaningful learning, ‘subsumers’.

(West & Fensham, 1974, p. 63)

59
This notion of subsumers is key to the development of learning, and is an

element of an individual’s cognitive structure. The difference between a

competent student and a poor student in terms of Ausubel’s theory is the

degree and depth of prior knowledge.

Meaningfulness is best judged by the number of

associations possible in a given piece of
information – the richer the associations, the
quicker the learning and the slower the
forgetting.

(Brightman, 1982, p. 217)

Therefore it would seem that the thoughts offered by Ausubel are crucial

to the development of this idea of prior knowledge being a pre-requisite

for the development of new learning.

A subsumer is any concept, principle or

generalising idea that the learner already
knows.

(West & Fensham, 1974, p. 63)

Therefore Ausubel offers to the definition of prior knowledge that it is any

knowledge “that can provide association or anchorage for various

components of new knowledge” (West & Fensham, 1974, p. 63).

This in many ways links back to the Piagetian idea of construction of

knowledge. Both Ausubel and Piaget view prior knowledge and its use as

an active process in learning. For Ausubel, prior knowledge not only has a

role to play in learning but can be changed in its behaviour, and the view

that prior knowledge acts as subsumer is key to new learning.

Novak further explores this notion of the role of prior knowledge as

subsumers in the efficiency of learning. He takes ideas presented by

60
Ausubel and, still in the area of science education, investigates further this

idea of how prior knowledge is constructed and influences the process of

new learning. Novak developed the ideas of concept mapping which linked

directly to Ausubel’s ideas of all knowledge needing a hook upon which to

hang new concepts. When looking at Novak’s work, this idea of

meaningful learning occurs in his thinking as well and links to the need to

have prior knowledge which is relevant to what is being learnt.

Concept maps are graphical tools for organising

and representing relationships between concepts
indicated by a connecting line linking two
concepts.

(Novak & Canas, 2007, p. 29)

The notion of concept maps links with the Ausubel theory of cognitive

structures. It is this framework of complex links which enables individuals

to learn further. Both Ausubel and Novak have looked at how new

knowledge is developed and have added the value of prior knowledge in

this process, but only Novak has, to some extent, proposed a plan of prior

knowledge and how this is structured in any individual. However he still

falls short of a definition of prior knowledge. Though he touches on how

this prior knowledge is formed through the theories of child development,

he has not looked at the factors which influence the structure of this map

which in essence is a map of prior knowledge. In his paper with Canas

(2007), there is some inspection of the psychological basis of concept

maps which gives me some idea of how they are formulated and some

clue about the factors which cause the variations in individuals. These are:

the concepts acquired between birth and three; the discovery learning

61
process; and the use of language after three to create new concepts and

understanding.

The chain reaction between these factors is clear e.g. if a child has not

gained a breadth of experience in the discovery learning process stage,

then it will limit the child’s ability to use language to ask questions to aid

discovery of new more complex concepts. There again Ausubel’s notion of

meaningful learning is key as it is this present learning which will open the

paths for future learning, and this requires three conditions:

1. The material to be learned must be

conceptually clear and presented with language
and examples relatable to the learner’s prior
knowledge

2. The learner must possess relevant prior

knowledge

3. The learner must choose to learn

meaningfully

(Novak & Canas, 2007, p. 30)

So how does this inform my definition of prior knowledge? It presents me

with the start of a structure for prior knowledge based on these studies

and the key characteristics of prior knowledge. Ausubel and Novak,

through their studies in science education, have started to offer a

structure for prior knowledge and the causes for variation in this structure

within individuals. This helps me to understand that prior knowledge will

not be formulated or look the same across individuals. One thing I must

contend with in my research is for the vast variety in the structure of prior

knowledge. Also that present knowledge is future prior knowledge and this

can be influenced in the ways it is acquired. This leaves education with the

62
potential for great achievements and changes in future development of

understanding.

2.5.3.3 Novice vs. Expert

There are many researchers who have looked at the area of novices

versus experts (Chi, Glaser & Farr, 1988; Schmidt et al., 1989; Schneider,

Körkel & Weinert, 1989; Shrager & Mayer, 1989; Haenggi & Perfetti,

1992; Kaplan & Murphy, 2000). This links to my initial reason and

curiosity for considering this research – understanding individual

differences. They have all used various contexts to assess what makes an

expert and a novice, and examined why an expert is more competent than

a novice. This understanding and the ideas it explores has input to offer to

my research. What does the development process of an expert do to prior

knowledge and how is it influenced by prior knowledge? The deviation

from the norm that experts display raises the question of how and what

are the factors which have influenced their development into experts.

More importantly, what is the role of prior knowledge? Chi et al. (1988), in

their review of experts and their characteristics, give me a historical

perspective about the development in understanding of experts and

novices.

They point to research carried out in the area of artificial intelligence and

how this has enhanced understanding of what constitutes as an expert,

and the factors that contribute to the creation of an expert. The outcome

of all this research is a move away from power-based strategy which

performs vast searches in order to achieve tasks efficiently to knowledge-

63
based systems which are concentrated on the knowledge that underlies

human expertise (Chi et al., 1988).

Knowledge-based systems are developed in domain-specific areas based

on emulation of the knowledge which the expert possesses. The need to

fill the gaps in knowledge in order to build systems has led to a vast

amount of research into what develops expertise and the nature of

experts. Chi et al. (1988) give six characteristics of an expert:

 experts excel mainly in their own domains;

 experts perceive large meaningful patterns in their domain (have a

greater number of connections in their knowledge);

 experts are fast, they are faster than novices at performing the

skills of their domain, and they quickly solve problems with little

error;

 experts have superior short-term and long-term memory;

 experts see and represent a problem in their domain at deeper

(more principled) level than novices; novices tend to represent a

problem at a superficial level;

 experts spend a great deal of time analysing a problem

qualitatively.

It is the domain knowledge that allows the expert to be so. From the

perspective of prior knowledge, the process of developing expertise allows

for crossover of knowledge and interlinking of information. To summarise

therefore, an expert has not only spent a vast amount of time building

knowledge in a particular area, s/he also has the ability to apply that

knowledge in a wide variety of ways. Furthermore, an expert is able to

64
access the knowledge in many unrelated ways in order to solve different

problems in a given area. It is this crossover that Chi et al.’s (1988)

research emphasises in knowledge that creates an expert. That is to say,

the greater the interaction of experience in a given area, the greater the

chances of being an expert. Anderson (1995) offers three stages for the

acquisition of skills – cognitive, associative and autonomous stages.

Chi et al. (1988) and Anderson (1995) offer key elements in

understanding the role and effect of prior knowledge in experts and what

makes an expert. An expert has ordered knowledge in many different

ways to allow for not only quick retrieval, but also to make many links

between different relationships. Anderson (1995) goes on to consider the

effects of practice on experts’ movement from one stage to the next.

Practice allows the formulation of connections and aids the learner to

move from the cognitive to the associative stage. This is the stage where

prior knowledge has its main effect and change.

The connections among the various elements

required for successful performance are
strengthened.

(Anderson, 1995, p. 274)

This is the case in mathematics. The ability to connect with great speed

differs with areas of understanding. Bugelski (1962) states that time

spent studying content, sometimes referred to as total time on task by

classroom researchers, is a good predictor of learning.

The question is why – what is it about repetition and practice that

develops a novice into an expert? The key difference, it would seem,

65
between the novice and the expert is the wide variety of experiences that

an individual has been exposed to in a related area. It is this constant and

varied interaction that individuals have between what they have

experienced and what they have learnt. Effective practice is the key to

expertise development. Practice influences prior knowledge in many ways.

Hayes (1985) found that no one reaches genius levels of performance

without at least ten years of practice.

When looking at the transition from one area of skill to the next, the key

role that practice plays in shaping prior knowledge is highlighted. Practice

or rehearsal is the key to moving from one stage to the next.

To summarise therefore, the major differences between a novice’s and an

expert’s prior knowledge are:

 novice’s structure of knowledge is not ordered for quick retrieval;

 expert’s structure of knowledge is not only ordered for quick

retrieval, but also has many overlaps and interconnections;

 the practice carried out by an expert allows this structuring of

knowledge and fine tuning of how to approach a problem based on

experience and to find the shortest worked-out route to a solution;

 experts are more flexible in their use of knowledge and can find

usefulness in many contexts as they are using their knowledge in a

given area in many ways;

 the ability to abstract is greater in an expert due to practice.

Overall, an expert’s prior knowledge is shaped differently in relation to a

given domain.

66
2.5.4 Summary

This leaves me with the difficult task of conceptualising what I mean by

prior knowledge, especially as this has not been defined in its entirety in

any literature. From the literature that I have just reviewed, I can

establish a fragmented framework for prior knowledge. Knowledge, and to

some extent prior knowledge, is the whole of a person’s actual knowledge

that is:

 available before a certain learning task (Hume, 2010);

 transferable (Briton, Gereluk & Spencer, 1998);

 structured in schemata (Clemson & Clemson, 1994);

 declarative and procedural (Anderson, 1995);

 partly explicit and partly tacit i.e. internalised and intuitive (Ernest,

1999; Evans, 2002);

 dynamic in nature i.e. it is not a quantity but an ever-changing

pattern of connections made through different experiences (Kant,

2010);

 stored in their knowledge base (Ajello & Belardi, 2002);

 contextually situated (Harris, 2000);

 subject-knowledge forming a subset of prior knowledge (Zeitoun,

1989).

The above understanding is synthesised from the reviewed literature and

highlights the gap within this body of literature, that of a clear and

definitive definition of prior knowledge. If I take the key points discussed

67
so far in order to assist with developing my own definition, I come up with

the following:

Prior knowledge is the experiential framework

which has brought an individual to the level of
knowledge at which they are at present.

Exploring this definition, it is what has gone by and where the individual is

at in their knowledge and understanding as a consequence of their life

journey to date. It is, in effect, a roadmap for each individual which shows

the cause and effect relationship which an individual has with their

knowledge.

2.6 Why Look at Prior Knowledge?

At this juncture in the research, I feel that it is important to question the

value of prior knowledge. Why consider prior knowledge as an area that

requires any investigation? Does it have anything to offer to education? In

order to do this, an examination of the effects that prior knowledge has on

learning and learning mathematics will offer me a valuable insight into

why it is an area worth researching. Therefore this section will consider

the following questions:

 What is the effect of prior knowledge on children’s learning?

 What is the effect of prior knowledge on children’s learning of

mathematics?

The information gathered from reviewing literature to address the

questions above should allow me to give justification to the value of

considering prior knowledge in the process of educating children.

68
2.6.1 Effects of Prior Knowledge on Learning

Within education, prior knowledge is recognised as a key element in the

process of new learning.

The most important single factor influencing

learning is what the learner already knows.

(Ausubel et al., 1978, p. iv)

Bartlett’s (1932) proposal of schema theory recognised the contribution of

prior knowledge in the construction of new learning. Dochy et al.’s (1999,

p. 145) review highlights many researchers who have considered the

value of prior knowledge and its effects on learning (Alexander et al.,

1994; Bjorklund, 1985; Chi & Ceci, 1987; Chi et al., 1988; Dochy, 1992;

Glaser, 1984; Glaser, Lesgold & Lajoie, 1987; Pressley & McCormick,

1995; Schneider & Pressley, 1989). Indeed much of the research I found

concluded that prior knowledge has an effect on learning and

performance. This illustrates the importance that the education process

puts upon prior knowledge.

A well-organised and coherent knowledge base

initiates inference, conceptualization and the
acquisition of principled understanding.

(Glaser & De Corte, 1992, p. 1)

Many researchers look at the impact of prior knowledge on performance.

Dochy summarises Lodewijks’ work as:

69
 This involves a tripartite assumption i.e.

prior knowledge is a very important variable in

educational psychology;

the degree (content and degree of organization)

of prior knowledge of a student must be familiar
or measurable for the achievement of optimal
learning;

a learning situation is optimal to the degree to

which it is in accord to the level of prior
knowledge.

(Dochy, 1992, p. 23)

While researchers and teachers are unanimous in agreeing that prior

knowledge has an effect on learning, what type of effect does prior

knowledge have on this process? In the remainder of this section, I

examine whether the effects are positive or negative. Though there is

data available on the different effects of prior knowledge on the learning

process, for my thesis it is of greater value to consider whether these

effects are positive or negative. I am not going to consider how does prior

knowledge affect learning and performance as this adds little to

establishing my goal in this thesis of understanding the structure of prior

knowledge.

Several studies demonstrate that prior knowledge is potentially an

important variable contributing to the explanation of post-test variance

(Bloom, 1976; Dochy, 1992; Tobias, 1994). Bloom (1976) offers

quantitative data which claims correlation of 0.50 to 0.90 between pre-

test and post-test results. Dochy (1992) found that up to 42% of test

variance can be attributed to prior knowledge. There are several different

figures available on the variations of performance due to prior knowledge

70
as a variable in the testing process e.g. Tobias (1994) 30-60%. When

considering these results, Dochy (1992) points out that one must consider

other factors such as the environment within which the data are collected.

However even with a reduction in percentage of variation due to other

factors, he argues

The results of these investigations reveal that

prior knowledge generally explains a
considerable amount of the variance in
performance.

(Dochy et al., 1999, p. 155)

Resnick (1981) reviews various papers in her research in order to

understand how to instruct better, looking at areas of reading,

mathematics, science and problem solving. She notes that variation within

reading from many researchers such as Voss “have shown that individuals

with high prior knowledge of a topic remember more propositions from a

text on that topic” (p. 669).

The quantitative data concur with some of the anecdotal data that prior

knowledge explains the variability in learning and performance outcome.

Other studies consider variables such as motivation, quantity and quality

of instruction (Parkerson, Lomax, Schiller & Walberg, 1984). Along with

other factors such as peer groups which influence achievement, Parkerson

et al. (1984) found that prior knowledge still influences achievement by

0.72 which is the greatest impact on achievement from all the factors.

Therefore, based on the above review, it is a fair conclusion that prior

knowledge has an overall positive effect on learning and performance.

71
On the other hand, Dochy et al. (1999) have located eleven studies which

have found a negative effect or no effect of prior knowledge. However

they conclude that due to methodology, these are fundamentally flawed in

their results and therefore should have little value placed upon them. Also

the simple fact that there are so few studies even reporting negative

effects on learning due to prior knowledge limits the weight we put on

this. The key question which was also addressed in this paper, which does

need to be noted, is that if flawed methodology can produce negative

results, can the same be the case for positive results?

Overall, we conclude that only four studies used

weak assessment methods. ... There is a strong
relationship between prior knowledge and
performance.

(Dochy et al., 1999, p. 168)

2.6.2 Effects of Prior Knowledge on Learning of

Mathematics

In order to understand the effects of prior knowledge on learning of

mathematics, I am going to consider the body of research which focuses

on studying the impact of prior knowledge in the mathematics classroom

setting. This research is organised into different areas, many of which are

subject-specific. For example, Thompson (1995) looks at pre-number

activities and the early number curriculum, and Marshall (1993) considers

understanding of rational numbers through a schema-based approach.

However, though these are interesting, they give me little understanding

of the direct effect of prior knowledge on children’s mathematics and also

add little to the scope of my thesis. I am interested in looking at what

72
children bring to the learning experience and how this affects their ability

to perform mathematical tasks, not just prior subject knowledge, but the

wider idea of prior knowledge. Considering research that focuses on

children’s informal mathematics in the early years will allow me to explore

the prior knowledge which children have before they come to the

classroom that affects children’s learning of mathematics.

There is a great deal of research carried out on the informal mathematics

that children bring to the classroom (Atkinson, 1992; Ausubel et al.,

1978; Baldwin & Stecher, 1925; Baroody, 1987; Dickson, Brown &

Gibson, 1984; Donaldson, 1989; Gelman, 1980; Groen & Resnick, 1977;

Haylock & Cockburn, 1989; Hughes, 1986; Lave, Murtaugh & de la Rocha,

1984; Resnick & Ford, 1981; Skemp, 1987; Starkey & Gelman, 1982;

Tizard & Hughes, 1984). It is worth considering a few of the themes that

this area of research has considered. The research falls into the following

eight characteristics.

i. The developmental theories which consider what young children

know about mathematical concepts.

ii. Research which looks at the process/facts surrounding bridging the

gap between school formal and home informal.

iii. Research which explores the learning which takes place in the

informal setting and its effects on school learning.

iv. Research which considers using informal settings in the classroom

to encourage mathematics.

v. How children learn mathematics.

73
 vi. Looking at the mathematics curriculum and what it offers to the

learning process.

vii. Assessment of informal knowledge in mathematics.

viii. Looking at the informal understanding of written symbols in

mathematics.

The wide body of research considers small aspects of what children bring

in terms of subject knowledge to the formal learning experiences, but

does not look at the wider prior knowledge framework that children bring

to bear upon the learning of mathematics. Though it is agreed and

recognised that prior knowledge has an effect, there is no understanding

of how or what this effect is. I argue that this is due to lack of

comprehensive understanding of what is meant by prior knowledge and a

clear definition for it. It is also interesting that this lack of clarity is linked

to the plethora of ideas about how children learn.

There is no single comprehensive theory that

explains how children develop intellectually or
how they learn.

(Clemson & Clemson, 1994, p. 4)

Prior knowledge also forces a theoretical shift to

viewing learning as “conceptual change”. ... it is
impossible to learn without prior knowledge ...
there is widespread agreement that prior
knowledge influences learning, and that learners
construct concepts from prior knowledge.

(Roschelle, 1995)

I would contest that we cannot begin to use prior knowledge effectively if

we do not know what it is and therefore need to define it, and therein lies

74
the gap. However this still leaves unanswered the effects of prior

knowledge on mathematics.

Wakeley (2002) investigates the relationship between low birth weight

and mathematical development. She concludes that the achievement of

lower scores in mathematical tasks is related to support from home. This

is because support from home for early mathematics development

overrides factors such as birth weight and health.

This leads me back to considering the informal mathematics that children

learn and carry out as being the lynchpin to new understanding. There is

focus on informal mathematics that children engage in and how this leads

to learning formal mathematics.

Before entrance to school, children possess

important concepts and skills concerning
mathematics.

(Ginsburg, 1989, p. 20)

This understanding of numbers is based on experiences the children have

had. It is this idea of informal mathematics and its acquisition which forms

the prior knowledge for future mathematics learning. What do I mean by

informal mathematics and what impact does it have on learning

mathematics? Ginsburg (1989) explores many mathematical concepts and

how they are expanded initially before being formalised. He argues that

informal knowledge is gained from different experiences of different

aspects of life. Furthermore the initial informal experience with

mathematics forms the filter for new understanding.

75
From a very young age, children build on intuitive understanding of

mathematics which is based on their environment (Ginsburg, 1989).

Through self-directed practice and errors, children are able to develop

many ideas in mathematics. It is this constructivist school of thought that

dominates the theory of mathematical learning. As stated already, it is the

powerful filter that prior knowledge forms which influences the

development of mathematical understanding.

It is interesting and worth questioning what Roschelle (1995) labelled as

the “paradox of continuity”. So far, I have made the assumption that all

prior knowledge is valid and contributes positively to new learning.

However if I use the filter analogy, it is possible that individuals have

knowledge structures that are erroneous. How then can learning

progress?

Constructivism depends on continuity, because

new knowledge is constructed from old. But how
can students construct knowledge from their
existing concepts if their existing concepts are
flawed?

(Roschelle, 1995)

In order to understand how learning can still take place within the

possibility of incomplete or inaccurate prior knowledge, I need to consider

learning theory. However as there is a common understanding of Piaget,

Vygotsky and Dewey, rather than looking at the principles of each of

these, I want to consider how they aid in allowing this incongruence in

prior knowledge and new learning to be resolved. Within each of their

theories, there is the ability for the learner to develop or change through

time.

76
To summarise therefore, how do we go from informal to formal

understanding in mathematics? Also what is the role of prior knowledge?

In this section, I have noted that prior knowledge in the form of informal

knowledge has an impact on new learning, but need to resolve how

erroneous prior knowledge can still aid new learning and the answer lies in

the major theories linked to learning, those of varied experiences and

practising the skills that are acquired. It is the application of ideas in

many different contexts that will allow the development of new

knowledge.

Piaget suggests that learners overcome the

paradox of continuity with the help of slow,
maturational processes that operate when doing
a task provokes conflict between
accommodation and assimilation, and support
for equilibration between these ... Dewey
overcomes the paradox of continuity by focusing
on the nature of experience under the right
conditions, a learner engaged with a problematic
experience can effect a transformation of prior
knowledge ... Vygotsky can overcome the
paradox of continuity by suggesting that
learning coordinates spontaneous and
specialized concepts in a gradual transformative
process.

(Roschelle, 1995)

Therefore, based on this, prior knowledge affects mathematics learning,

and it does so through maturity, social interaction, experiences, resolving

problems, and addressing contradictions. Therefore I conclude that the

building blocks of prior knowledge based on this line of enquiry are:

 Experiences an individual has engaged in;

 Maturity – the time that has passed; and

 Social interaction an individual has engaged in.

77
These have an enormous effect upon the development of mathematical

knowledge and skills.

If prior knowledge is the informal mathematics that children bring to the

school study, then there is a labyrinth of knowledge that children have

acquired in an informal method. Ginsburg (1989) outlines what babies

already know and use to make crude judgements. He argues that this

knowledge is universal, is full of both weaknesses and strengths, and has

a complex effect on performances.

Prior knowledge has several effects on the understanding and progress of

early mathematics. Every mathematical development is dependent upon

what children bring into the learning situation. Many authors have

classified this as informal mathematics. Its effects on learning

mathematics are to:

 allow children to hook new learning to old knowledge;

 allow for experiential learning;

 allow children to choose many different strategies to be tried out

and learned.

2.7 Teachers’ Understanding of Prior

Knowledge

In this section, I am going to consider teachers’ understanding of prior

knowledge as fundamentally it is this notion that needs clarifying in order

for teachers to be able to use prior knowledge to support children’s

78
learning. Also I will consider what teachers’ understand of children’s prior

knowledge, as this is the motivation for this research.

Throughout history, Piaget has had a great impact on how we view

children and their learning, especially in mathematics.

For some time now, Jean Piaget has been

regarded as one of the leading authorities on
the question of how children learn mathematics.

(Hughes, 1986, p. 12)

The way in which English curriculum and schools are structured is greatly

influenced by Piaget. The notion of Piaget’s age-related developmental

stages has influenced teachers’ understanding of children and their

knowledge. Teachers, to some extent, do not expect the knowledge

structure to be any different in children of similar age. The difficulty which

has been created is the lack of assessment methodology to enable

teachers to establish accurately what children’s actual prior knowledge is

in mathematics. The firm belief that each child will pass through each

stage (as suggested by Piaget) means that there is no need to understand

what children’s prior knowledge state is. In terms of prior subject

knowledge, many methods have been implemented to assess where

children are such as Assessing Pupils’ Progress (APP) and Assessment for

Learning (AfL). However this only offers limited scope for teachers

evaluating prior knowledge. The heavy dependency on structuring

learning through ages and stages has not allowed teachers to build a

picture of what individual children know and to have the ability to assess

them with accuracy.

79
 Given prior knowledge’s central role in learning,
there is a surprising lack of research that
explores how teachers – pre-service and in-
service – understand the concept of prior
knowledge and make instructional decisions
based upon their understanding

(Meyer, 2004, p. 971)

The role of teachers is the facilitation of learning and, as established in the

previous sections, one of the most influential factors in the process of

learning is prior knowledge. Therefore understanding, evaluating and

effective planning for prior knowledge are essential in order to be an

effective teacher. The connection between teaching and learning is

intertwined.

Theories of teaching must be based on theories

of learning and also must have a more applied
focus.

(Ausubel et al., 1978, p. 16-17)

Furthermore, Ausubel et al. (1978) have emphasised the importance of

checking prior knowledge and using it in teaching. The inability to do this

or inaccuracy in doing this leads to lack of progress.

It is impossible for teaching to succeed if it does

not address the current forms of students’
understanding of a subject.

(Laurillard, 1993, p. 187)

Prior knowledge can have positive and/or

negative effects on learning.

(Jones, Todorova & Vargo, 2000, p. 206)

I must therefore question how much do teachers really understand prior

knowledge, and how do they use it in their teaching? Meyer (2004) looks

80
at this question in greater detail when he considers how novice and expert

teachers use prior knowledge.

In summary, for the novice teachers prior

knowledge tended to be the result of prior
teaching and could be defined by what students
formally knew about a concept. They saw it
having an important role in learning since a
teacher would want to be sure that the proper
information foundation was in place before new
learning could take place. If students had
misconceptions, then the teacher could replace
the faulty information brick with a new one
before going on in their teaching. On the other
hand, the expert teachers emphasized the role
of students’ ideas and explanations as central to
prior knowledge. Therefore, prior knowledge
was important in learning because it revealed
how students put their ideas together. If the
students had misconceptions then you have to
get them to think a new way about the concept.

(Meyer, 2004, p. 977)

So for each group of teachers, i.e. novices and experts, their

understanding of prior knowledge takes very different shapes. Meyer

(2004) goes on to look at how teachers make use of prior knowledge and

again finds a huge distinction between novice and expert teachers.

Furthermore an interesting point to be noted here is “the novice teachers’

lack of strategies for finding out their students’ prior knowledge” (Meyer,

2004, p. 977).

This could be extended to teachers who are novice not to teaching, but to

the subject matter they are being asked to teach as is often the case in

mathematics.

The understanding that teachers have of prior knowledge and their ability

to use it as a central element of teaching and planning is very much

81
dependent on their own prior knowledge of the subject, children, teaching,

school and other environmental factors. The novice teacher has a very

“superficial conception of knowledge and prior knowledge” (Meyer, 2004,

p. 980). Slightly more experienced teachers were similar to complete

novices in many ways, but “were limited in their focus and because their

own knowledge was poorly organized they interpreted the events in their

classrooms in a limited fashion” (Meyer, 2004, p. 981).

It was the expert teachers who were able to use their experience and

knowledge to focus on their students (Meyer, 2004). This notion of using

experience-based intuition allows expert teachers to be better at the

process of teaching and ensuring that their students engage in effective

learning. This review demonstrates that prior knowledge and teachers’

understanding of prior knowledge is very ad hoc and based on individual

level of experiences.

Studies have shown that the process of planning and how it is carried out

is a key indicator of teachers’ level of understanding of prior knowledge

and the constructivist learning process. Though these studies’ results are

not earth shattering, it does enable me to question the nature of this gap

between novice and expert teachers in their understanding and use of

prior knowledge. One of the key ways I can look more closely at this gap

is by looking at the teachers’ planning process. It is while planning that

teachers should and do introspect about what the teaching process for any

given lesson should constitute. The use of the planning cycle also

inculcates this process further. Yinger (1978) states that planning is part

of the preactive phase of teaching.

82
 Preactive teaching takes place before and after
school, during recess, and at other times when
the teacher is alone in the classroom.

(Yinger, 1978, p. 1)

He further argues that it is in this phase that teachers are most reflective.

I would also argue that it is here that teachers can take prior knowledge

into account. So in order to understand and answer my initial question of

what do teachers understand of prior knowledge, I must examine what

goes into their planning. What factors are considered in this process as

this will inform me of the extent to which prior knowledge is understood

and, more importantly, used.

Borko and Livingston (1989) look at how mathematics planning is carried

out by expert and novice teachers. For novice teachers, as also noted by

Yinger, the planning process constitutes the following facets (Borko &

Livingston, 1989):

 Strategies for the presentation of content;

 No strategy for unpredictable events;

 No addressing of students’ comments and questions that may occur

during teaching;

 Rigidity leading to less scope for improvisation.

Yinger summarises the results of a study by Peterson, Marx and Clark

(1978) which showed the following behaviour of teachers while planning:

83
 i. Teachers spent the largest portion of their
planning time on content (subject matter) to be
taught.

ii. After subject matter, teachers

concentrated their planning on instructional
processes (strategies and activities).

iii. The smallest portion of planning time was

spent on objectives.

(Yinger, 1980, p. 109-110)

Considering the three steps in planning above, it must be noted that

teachers spend most of their planning time in considering the content of

the lesson, irrespective of the children they are teaching.

Teachers engage in many levels of planning, some of which takes place

outside the ebb and flow of the classroom and some in situ. Yinger (1978)

identified five different types of plans – yearly, term, unit, weekly and

daily (p. 18). From the point of view of my research, these are five

different opportunities to account for prior knowledge in the teacher’s

teaching process. The key outcome of Yinger’s (1980) study, which is

pertinent to my discussion here, is that though teachers plan in a very

systematic way, their formal (written) plans did not contain pupils’

characteristics though they were reflected upon during the planning.

Attention to pupils' background characteristics

was evident in this teacher's planning-not in the
plans themselves, but in the planning process.

(Yinger, 1980, p. 124)

To conclude, teachers’ understanding of prior knowledge and its use in the

planning process is heavily dependent on their level of experience, and

their own prior knowledge of students, subject and possible outcomes.

84
Furthermore there are external pressures upon teachers which also

influence how they plan and use prior knowledge within the classroom.

However the overall outcome of this section is the random manner in

which prior knowledge is used by teachers at all levels in planning. The

major way in which teachers use prior knowledge and their understanding

of it is to overcome and implement as closely as possibly the complexity

and unpredictability and the immediacy of the classroom (Yinger, 1978).

That is, they use prior knowledge as a management technique and not as

a way to develop knowledge. Despite establishing that prior knowledge

plays a key role in learning, it is definitely not a key focus in planning for

learning with no formal written consideration for it in majority of teachers’

plans.

The most profound challenges for teachers are

not associated merely with acquiring new skills
but with making personal sense of
constructivism as a basis for instruction.

(Windschitl, 2002, p. 131)

Teaching then requires teachers who understand

students’ existing conceptions and can create
learning experiences that will allow students to
either accommodate or restructure their
knowledge frameworks for new learning.

(Meyer, 2004, p. 971-972)

This does not occur, and I must question why. The answer may lie in the

lack of a definition or structure of prior knowledge as identified in Section

2.5, or the lack of clarity in understanding of prior knowledge. Overall

prior knowledge is based on intuition by teachers as it is by researchers

due to the vagueness of its structure, and must be investigated.

85
2.8 Conclusion

This literature review has considered all aspects of knowledge linked with

the examination of prior knowledge. The structure of my enquiry was

determined by my research objective, which is to provide an

understanding of the structure of prior knowledge of children in the

context of the primary mathematics classroom. Firstly I have been able to

establish an explanation of how I gathered all my information. I feel that

this was essential to allow transparency. The second thing I have been

able to carry out is to give my research a context having looked at the

political, social, cultural and historical background within primary

mathematics education. This has enabled me to frame where my findings

can be placed. For other researchers, this allows an understanding of the

limitations of the findings and the context within which they have been

derived. I have also looked at the primary mathematics classroom in

order to allow a detailed picture to be framed for this key context.

I then went on in this chapter to examine knowledge in order to tease out

the many theoretical arguments and perspectives to establish what my

view was and the view that will inform the outcome of the data collection.

There are many complex possibilities as to what I mean by knowledge. I

conclude that knowledge is not stable, but it is ever changing, and

furthermore has little to do with ability, but more to do with the relevance

of knowledge to context. From this, I examined what is prior knowledge

and there the literature review falls short of providing an answer to my

research objective. By synthesising the literature, I was able to come up

with a fragmented framework for prior knowledge in Section 2.5.4, which

86
will need to be validated and extended through my empirical research. All

the literature unanimously agreed on the pivotal nature of prior

knowledge in the process of learning – there was little disagreement on

this point. Also there was overwhelmingly wide recognition of the notion

of prior knowledge and its positive effects on learning. This points to a

huge gap in literature. There is no clear definition as to what is meant by

prior knowledge in primary mathematics and teaching. This outcome is of

great surprise as prior knowledge is one of the universally accepted

pedagogical notions. Why is it that thus far there have been no attempts

to define it? I feel through the literature that this is due to the intuitive

nature of prior knowledge. It seems that this is a concept that has seeped

so deep into our intuition that though we all have our own understanding

of it, we are unable to define it. I have been able to glean some features

of it through the literature as stated in the conclusion of Section 2.5.4.

This is by no means a definitive outcome, and I will need to examine this

through field research.

I felt it was important to examine the reasons for looking at prior

knowledge and whether it really does have the value I have placed on it.

So I have done this through the point of view of learning mathematics and

teaching, and it seems that the outcome of this reflects the outcome I

established for the definition of prior knowledge. It was agreed that prior

knowledge overall has a huge effect on learning, but teachers were not

able to use it effectively as they did not have an understanding of it, but

were using it intuitively and randomly.

87
Therefore my next step is to investigate and define the real nature of prior

knowledge in the primary mathematics classroom. The following chapters

will look at the process for doing this.

88
 3 IDENTIFYING RESEARCH

METHODOLOGY

3.1 Introduction

In the previous chapter, I have provided background information on areas

touched by this research. In this chapter, I explore various research

paradigms and methodologies to identify a suitable methodological

framework for the collection of data. The methodologies for analysing the

data are explored in Chapter 5.

In addition to an introduction and conclusion, this chapter has four main

sections. In Section 3.2, I reiterate the research question – understanding

children’s prior knowledge within the classroom – to provide the context

for the sections which follow.

In Section 3.3, I explore the nature of research, and describe why I have

positioned my research within the qualitative research paradigm. This

positioning and exploration of the philosophical assumptions are crucial to

the identification of a suitable research methodology. The following key

issues are considered:

 an exploration of positivist and anti-positivist research paradigms;

 a debate on what constitutes good research;

 an examination of objectivity and subjectivity and their significance

to my research.

89
In Section 3.4, I describe the chosen methodological framework –

naturalistic research – for understanding children’s prior knowledge within

the classroom. The following key issues are considered:

 an exploration of a variety of available research methodologies;

 a description of naturalistic research methodology;

 the overall implication of the selection of the research methodology

on understanding the data gathering process and the subsequent

analysis.

In Section 3.5, I examine the generalisability and validity of the results.

These are required to ensure that naturalistic research can stand up to

scrutiny.

3.2 Research Question

Before proceeding any further, it is useful to reiterate (as stated in

Chapter 1) the initial motivation for this research – my own experience

within the classroom. I find teaching in a primary school to be not only

rewarding but also personally challenging. The most challenging factor,

and the one which affects all areas of teaching mathematics, is the

difference evident in children’s ability to perform any given mathematical

tasks. This observed difference in children started a process of self-

questioning. Initially, there were vague questions:

Why should there be a difference in children’s

ability? What makes us each different? What is it
about the difference that affects mathematical
ability?

90
Underlying all of them was a recurring question:

What is it about who children are at any given

moment in time that makes them so different in
their ability to perform mathematical tasks?

I felt that I did not have an understanding of the process involved in

creating the differences that manifested themselves in the children.

Furthermore, as my thinking and self-questioning progressed, there were

yet more questions. Through talking to other teachers, I concluded that

this was a question for which many of them felt that they did not have a

clear answer. Additionally (as considered in Chapter 2) wider research

evidence and investigation of the thoughts of other researchers revealed

that there are no definitions, descriptions, structures or processes which

address the specific question of what accounts for the individual

differences in children’s ability within mathematics. However, these

sources did point to prior knowledge as a possible cause for the

differences. This puzzle and my desire as a teacher to somehow bring into

the realms of understanding these abstract and complex everyday notions

of prior knowledge have been pivotal to my research, and to the

identification of a suitable research methodology.

3.3 Nature of Research

Throughout this chapter, my focus is on establishing the methodology for

performing the research. A secondary objective is to present

systematically the steps that I took in arriving at this methodological

framework. This was in two phases. The first phase, discussed in this

section, focuses on the nature of research and the positioning of my

91
research among various research paradigms. This results in the second

phase, discussed in Section 3.4, which focuses on formulating the

research methodology appropriate for the selected research paradigm.

Ontologists have classified research into various paradigms. Each research

paradigm is associated with its own appropriate methodologies which lead

to their own working methods and resulting outcomes.

Research is concerned with understanding the

world and that this is informed by how we view
our world(s), what we take understanding to be,
and what we see as the purposes of
understanding.

(Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2001, p. 3)

Focusing on this perspective, I must give consideration not only to

providing my definition of the nature of research but also to the position

that I (as the researcher) take in the process of understanding and

establishing a suitable methodology for this research. Cohen et al.’s

(2001) statement implies that it is unrealistic to be objective in research,

that is, it is not possible for researchers to provide an objective view of

the world being considered, to be detached from the research that they

are carrying out, and to report their findings without any interpretations.

This lack of detachment is further reinforced by Smith and Hodkinson

(2002):

We all make judgements and prefer some things

to other things and will continue to do so for as
far as anyone can foresee. It is, in fact,
impossible to imagine any serious concept of
personhood in the absence of judgement and
preference.

(Smith & Hodkinson, 2002, p. 293)

92
This statement implies that my views and opinions have an important role

to play in the process and nature of my research. Thus I need to state

them openly as these views and opinions not only are crucial to

understanding the methodological framework chosen, but also contribute

to its development, implementation and final outcome. Furthermore,

Edwards (2002) contends that the nature of who we are is rooted in our

cultural context, and “as learners, we try to act on a world that is not of

our own making and do so using the conceptual tools available in our

cultures” (p. 161).

Having established the importance of my views, opinions and cultural

context, I now explore various research paradigms with my voice as the

backdrop. Where essential, my views and opinions are stated clearly to

avoid any ambiguity.

Initially my exploration focuses on the positivist and the anti-positivist

paradigms, widely regarded as two dimensions for looking at human

nature. Where does my research fit?

Hitchcock and Hughes (1995, p. 21) propose that ontological assumptions

give rise to epistemological assumptions, which in turn give rise to

methodological considerations, and these in turn give rise to issues of

instrumentation and data collection. The ontological assumptions that I

make about the world around me are rooted within my personal opinions.

These opinions have been formed through various epistemological

experiences. Thus the questions asked by my research are fixed in the

nature of who I am. This, as argued in earlier chapters, is influenced by

93
the culture in which I am situated. Therefore the nature of research and

the researcher cannot be separated.

As described by Comte (Cohen et al., 2001; Turner, Beeghley & Powers,

2012), the positivist/scientific school of thought depends on, and is

structured around, the doctrine that all genuine knowledge is based on

sense experience and can only be advanced by means of observation and

experiment. This view has many implications. Firstly, it implies that

knowledge is in some way hermetically pre-packaged, just waiting to be

discovered through objective experimental research. I think that Comte

offers a limited view of the nature of knowledge as his view does not allow

for knowledge gained through the vicarious experiences of others.

Secondly, Comte’s view implies that knowledge can only be defined

through a process of observation and experimentation, leaving no

opportunity for gaining knowledge through introspection or analysis of the

experiences of others based outside their personal senses. Thirdly,

Comte’s view implies that all knowledge can be classified and has

predetermined properties. Lastly, his view implies that the reactions

towards others and towards situations that are based on an individual’s

knowledge will be the same for each individual placed in similar situations

with similar knowledge. The process of gaining knowledge in the positivist

paradigm assumes that knowledge is like the elements on the periodic

table, all having a fixed place with predictable characteristics to any

intervention to which they are subjected. It further assumes that

knowledge is structured in this preset order and is the same for all

individuals. Comte’s point of view does not allow for individual differences

and opinions based on their understanding and conceptualisation of

94
reality, nor does it consider past experiences or the level of understanding

of those experiences.

The positivist perspective views the real world to be “out there

independent of our interest in, or knowledge of, it. This is a reality that

can be known, at least in principle, as it really is.” (Smith & Hodkinson,

2002, p. 292). This implies that reality is fixed and predetermined and

external to the knower.

Though the above is an oversimplification of the beliefs and values of the

positivist paradigm, it gives some indication about the necessity for

considering and clarifying my position. However the belief that all actions,

reactions and interactions are a direct result of external influences and

would be the same for all individuals is an oversimplification of the

complex nature of humans. There is a wide variation in the interpretations

we all make from what we see and experience. Standing on the same

point, each individual will observe, feel and interpret the same view in

very different ways due to the context he/she is placed in and the

contexts available to him/her due to his/her past experiences and

knowledge. There is a sheer, though perhaps minute, distinction between

whether we view human behaviour as behaviour in response to external

influences and stimuli or whether we view it as actions in relation to what

we assess, think, and feel in conjunction with past experience and past

gained knowledge. This distinction will determine the approach and nature

of the methodology that can be implemented.

95
3.3.1 What is Good Research?

A significant hurdle in determining the methodology is to explore the

notion of what I believe is good research. The positivist research paradigm

considered so far relies on studies with a large number of subjects divided

into control and intervention groups. For most people, including myself,

the initial response when thinking about research is to focus on the

positivist paradigm. Though this is my initial belief, I am struggling to

overcome this initial positivist reaction as my sense of right and wrong in

performing any research stems not only from my internal values, but also

from the values placed upon me by my social and cultural background

(being Indian). My cultural identity places a higher value on quantitative

deductive research (positivist paradigm) as opposed to qualitative

interpretive research (anti-positivist paradigm). This cultural identity

shapes my values and makes me feel less qualified or less productive in

society if I have, in any sense, a leaning towards an interpretive outlook

on research. This strong cultural benchmark and the desire to fit this

mould as a means of self-validation helps in explaining my initial positivist

reaction. This tendency to fit in to reflect the cultural expectations of my

peers and society is also observed by Edwards (2002), who states that “as

researchers, we also interpret and respond in ways that are permitted in

our own research cultures” (p. 163).

The cultural expectation and my initial inclination to consider the positivist

research paradigm (and its accompanying research methodologies) to be

indicative of good research must be questioned in relation to the impact it

has on my research question. This amounts to a psychological tug of war

96
between what is expected culturally, and what my research question

needs. My internal values compel me to focus on the research question,

taking into account the skills and resources needed to address it rather

than dwelling on the culturally acceptable trends in methodological

approaches. In order to resolve this tug of war, I need to explore the

principles underlying the positivist and anti-positivist paradigms, namely

objectivity and subjectivity respectively.

Though the dissection of my values and the cultural influences on it seems

to be a huge indulgence for scant benefit, these experiences have shaped

and structured my prior knowledge and thoughts throughout the

progression of this research. Thus they form a key part of the exploration

of my research methodology and the derivation of its eventual structure.

This gives rise to the following questions. Is the best way to gain new

knowledge through the use of experimental methods and mathematical

deduction of the result using objective methods, or is there benefit to

observing and inductive reasoning using subjective methods? Furthermore

are the results being gained through detailed observations of interactions

within the classroom (naturalistic approach) of any less value than a

syllogistic approach?

3.3.2 Objectivity and Subjectivity

In order to evaluate and understand the values of the various research

paradigms and resolve the questions proposed at the end of the previous

section, I now consider the underlying principles of objectivity and

subjectivity, and their significance to my research. Clarifying my position

97
on these two notions will help to place my research within a suitable

methodological paradigm. The choice must be based on how the chosen

methodological framework will aid in understanding prior knowledge.

Objectivity is both a metaphysical and an

epistemological concept. It pertains to the
relationship of consciousness to existence.
Metaphysically, it is the recognition of the fact
that reality exists independent of any perceiver’s
consciousness. Epistemologically, it is the
recognition of the fact that a perceiver’s (man’s)
consciousness must acquire knowledge of reality
by certain means (reason) in accordance with
certain rules (logic).

(Rand, 1965, p. 7)

Rand’s definition of objectivity implies that reality is fixed and the same

for all within any given context. The tradition of quantitative research is

based on the principle of objectivity, and aims to discover the fixed reality

which answers the research question (Winter, 2000). Since the reality is

independent of any observer, it puts a limit on the role of individual

researchers engaged in quantitative research.

Using Rand’s definition of objectivity, a structure for prior knowledge

within the Year One classroom can be derived through observation and

deduction. If I assume that my research is located in the quantitative

research methodology, then the methodological approaches available to

achieve this are deductive and require a hypothesis to be proved, which is

not the case in my research. Also by definition, any quantitative research

is replicable and the observations performed should give the same

outcome even with a different researcher. Most quantitative scientific

98
research, notably randomised controlled trials, fall within this

methodology.

Having considered objectivity and its implication on my research question,

I now turn my attention to subjectivity.

Subjectivism is the belief that reality is not a

firm absolute, but a fluid, plastic, indeterminate
realm which can be altered, in whole or in parts,
by the consciousness of the perceiver.

(Rand, 1965, p. 7)

This definition of subjectivity allows for the fact that the world exists, but

different people construe it in very different ways. This definition

precludes certain properties inherent in objectivity such as the notion of a

single shared reality or common understanding of variations of reality and

the concepts that constitute this variation.

As soon as subjectivity is represented in any

way, linguistically or through mental imagery, it
becomes intersubjective. One gets an idea of
what another person intends or feels by
implicitly taking the position of that other
person; in other words, by implicitly sensing
what one would feel or intend oneself when
talking in a similar manner.

(Carspecken, 1996, p. 167)

This implies that there are a multitude of truths. This arises from the fact

that subjectivity is based on personal interpretations, and the truth

experienced by one person cannot be ever experienced by another person

in the same manner.

The above discussion demonstrates that objectivity and subjectivity are

opposite extremes. The objectivist outlook allows for only one truth (the

99
same truth for all). The subjectivist outlook allows for many truths and

personal interpretations and recognises the importance of an individual’s

experiences in life. However, as observed by Rand (1965), objective

knowledge, in its purest form, cannot exist.

Knowledge, man merely observes that which is.

When it comes to applying his knowledge, man
decides what he chooses to do, according to
what he has learned.

(Rand, 1965, p. 7)

The notion that man makes choices based on his observations means that

he interprets his knowledge. So if I am concerned with how individuals

respond or choose to respond to the existing reality, then the subjectivist

outlook provides some pathway forward.

As stated earlier, my research is focussed on exploring what is meant by

prior knowledge, and on investigating how prior knowledge is structured

within the classroom. The discussions in Section 3.2 helped me to identify

some of the key requirements to address my research question. These

key requirements include the ability to reflect and self monitor, and the

ability to consider meanings for complex interactions between teacher and

pupils in the context of the mathematics classroom. The methodological

approaches offered by taking a subjectivist outlook allow these

requirements to be taken into account.

The mechanisms required for understanding the structure of prior

knowledge require not only some sense of logic in their explanation, but

also a sense of setting. Jaworski (1994) proposes that, in order to provide

some validity to research using the naturalistic approach, “a researcher

100
needs to embed the research in its total situated context, and that this

includes his or her own experiences and thinking” (p. xiv).

From the perspective of my research, it is vital for me to observe how the

teacher and pupils interact with each other, and change, create and

control their reality and their understanding of reality based on the

cognitive tools that they have. The only way for me to gain this

understanding is by sharing the same frame of reference as the teacher

and pupils. This can only be achieved by embedding myself in their frame

of reference, i.e. the research context which in this case is the classroom.

Carspecken (1996) proposes the way forward for creating a common

understanding of thought.

One must believe that sense objects exist in

such a way as to be open to multiple observers
who will agree on their existence if they share
certain features of a language and a culture.

(Carspecken, 1996, p. 64)

Though Carspecken is referring to a physical reality, the argument

extends to understanding behaviour. Without a common language and a

shared frame of reference (with teachers and children), it is difficult to

assess the observations made in the classroom in relation to the research

question. The central common issue in creating complete detailed

understanding of prior knowledge is the issue of a shared cultural

reference point.

To point out that elucidation of the formal

categories of subjectivity and objectivity does
not depend upon taking a position on the
ultimate nature of objective and subjective
phenomena is not simply to skirt a difficult issue

101
 … all validity claims involving objectivity and
subjectivity can be doubted in some way.

(Carspecken, 1996, p. 72-73)

Thus far, I have analysed the root notions of objectivity and subjectivity,

and their implication for my research question. The key conclusion is that

the research methodology needs to provide the ability to gain

understanding within a context that is shared by the researcher and the

researched, and supports interpretation.

3.3.3 Positioning the Research

So the question remains – now that a theoretical backdrop has been

established, where does my research situate itself? Through the debate in

the previous sections, the positivist quantitative paradigm has limited

value in gaining understanding of the complexity of the myriad of

interpretations made in a classroom and defining prior knowledge in the

classroom. There is no methodological or analytical framework within the

positivist paradigm which allows for understanding to be based on

individual interpretations made about reality as it is experienced by the

researcher. Furthermore the positivist paradigm does not account for the

ontological assumptions made so far that a multitude of realities exist due

to varying human experiences, and that the knowledge and views created

as a result of these experiences need to be understood through different

mechanisms such as observation of human behaviour.

On the other hand, the anti-positivist interpretive paradigm provides

methodological and analytical frameworks which allow for understanding

to be based on embedding myself within the research context. This

102
paradigm supports the epistemological understanding that events can be

understood through many processes of analysis and interpretation which

are rooted in context, and lead to the development of new knowledge.

This paradigm also allows me to take into account the complex

interactions between the teacher and the pupils in the context of the

mathematics classroom. Taking all of these into account, I need to situate

my research within the anti-positivist interpretive paradigm.

3.4 Choosing a Research Methodology

The debate in Section 3.3 and its subsections concluded that my research

needs to be situated within the interpretive paradigm. The methodological

framework that I have chosen is based on the key interpretive

methodology known as naturalistic research. The subsections that follow

examine its appropriateness for my research question, and highlight its

key benefits.

3.4.1 Naturalistic Research

My research question requires an approach which allows for the

ontological assumptions that all individuals have various realities with a

shared common understanding of these realities. To facilitate this shared

common understanding, the research methodology needs to provide

modes of communication and descriptions which are familiar to the groups

under observation (i.e. teachers and pupils) and common to groups with

whom the observations are shared (i.e. other researchers). The shared

common understanding of various individual realities by different

observers is known as “multiple access” (Carspecken, 1996, p. 65).

103
The naturalistic research paradigm contains various tools and techniques

that provide a wide range of options for exploring my research question.

It allows for constant shifting of the reality of an individual caused by

gaining new knowledge. It allows for the notion that individuals are

constantly trying to gain understanding of their reality. The individual has,

as stated in previous sections, the ability to evaluate themselves in light

of new knowledge which is in a constant state of change. There are three

broad schools of thought within the naturalistic research paradigm –

phenomenology, ethnomethodology and symbolic interactionism. I now

consider each of these to offer some ideas for identifying the

methodological tools that will aid in the research process.

Phenomenology holds the belief that all understanding and interpretations

about others and their actions is in the subjective consciousness.

Carspecken (1996) believes that understanding is synthesised within

experience, with reflection forming a great part of this approach. By

reflecting we are able to reshape understanding in relation to what we

already know.

Ethnomethodology focuses on the world of everyday life, and how people

make sense of their everyday world. It also allows for focus on what

creates each interaction and what perpetuates these interactions from the

viewpoint of the individual. Erickson and Schultz (1981) extend this notion

of everyday life and make sense of the everyday by being explicit about

the meanings we attach to the occurrences under observation stating

that, “all events are mutually shared and ratified definitions, and the

actions are taken on the basis of those definitions” (p. 147).

104
This wide focus on all situations from the viewpoint of the individual allows

for many perspectives to be taken and to some extent, proved a vast

challenge for me.

Symbolic interactionism allows each individual to act towards things based

on the meanings they have for them (Woods, 1979). This implies that

meaning is being constructed continuously due to the constant change in

the experience and reality of individuals.

My research question demands tools that provide a vehicle to explain,

conceptualise and contextualise the notion of prior knowledge. The debate

so far has described some of the key facets offered by the naturalistic

research approach such as an understanding of the ever-changing nature

of each interaction, and a need for the researcher to be open and part of

the research process. Key features of the naturalistic research approach

include description rather than prediction, induction rather than deduction,

generation rather than verification of theory, construction rather than

enumeration, and subjective rather than objective knowledge (LeCompte

& Preissle, 1993, p. 39-44). The inductive nature of the naturalistic

research approach and these features have proved to be appropriate and

valuable to my research question.

The classroom is a dynamic environment, with interactions occurring

rapidly. Each of these interactions has the potential to change the course

of the pedagogic encounter. Thus, in order to explore the role played by

the prior knowledge of pupils in this complexity, I need to observe with an

open mind to the meaning inherent in each interaction and to the sets of

consequences of the sum of interactions. Actions are determined by the

105
individual’s interpretations of the meaning of others’ actions. This places

me in a potential paradox. To understand, I need to explore, to question

and to delve. However, in the process of exploration, I impact on the

interactions by altering the prior knowledge available. This is the dilemma

of whether I should be a participant or non-participant observer. As a

participant, I may have greater access to essential data, yet I cannot be

certain of how much I will have influenced the very thing being observed.

The challenge for me is to “examine situations through the eyes of the

participants … to grasp the viewpoint of the native, his view of the world

and relation to his life” (Cohen et al., 2001, p. 137).

I am assuming that all readers have been in a classroom before, and have

some notion and conceptual idea of what constitutes a classroom setting.

My particular interest is in the interaction between the knowledge bearer

(teacher) and receiver (pupil). As stated earlier, the nature of this

interaction depends significantly on each pupil’s prior knowledge. Since

my interest is to consider what this prior knowledge looks like and how

teachers elicit it in their interactions with pupils, I need to observe not

only the teacher but also the pupils.

The key features of naturalistic research (LeCompte & Preissle, 1993;

Thomas, 1923) are perfectly suited to the ever-changing face of prior

knowledge. The interpretive nature of naturalistic research allows me to

build a structure of prior knowledge. Unlike quantitative research, there is

no hypothesis to be tested and no intervention to be applied. The outcome

of my research is simply a detailed and full description of prior knowledge

and how it is structured.

106
The tools offered by the naturalistic research paradigm give me great

flexibility and provide me with the possibility to be present in situ and

make observations and experience the cultural interchange which occurs.

The researcher’s role should be to elicit sociocultural knowledge from

participants, rendering social behaviour comprehensible (Spindler &

Spindler, 1992). This dovetails perfectly with the outcome for which I am

striving – to comprehend what prior knowledge is and formulate its

structure.

3.4.2 Summary

To arrive at a satisfactory outcome for my research question, I need to

use the principles and procedures set out by naturalistic research. This

approach allows consideration of prior knowledge in the classroom with

clear boundaries and guidelines to allow for choices to be made at difficult

junctures during the research. The ability to observe others and use those

results in order to reflect and formulate a description of prior knowledge

allows for depth and richness in the resulting prior knowledge description

and framework.

Naturalistic research feeds the notion of reflexive internal thinking and

equips me with the ability to use its protocols to structure naturalistic

observations.

So far I have deliberated on the following aspects of the methodological

debate enveloping this study:

1. The different methodological options available and the needs of the

research question.

107
 2. The underlying principles of objectivity and subjectivity and how

they have informed the formulation of my research methodology.

3. The methodological framework of naturalistic research, to provide a

common understanding of the research process.

4. Reconciling theory and the practical needs of the research question.

The methodological choices made through this debate shape not only the

nature of the research process but also the outcome achieved. Having

debated and resolved the theoretical and structural issues involved in the

selection of the most appropriate methodology, it is essential for me to

consider the validity of the methodology. Also it is important to look at the

ability of the methodological framework to stand up to scrutiny. The

process selected for answering the research question must itself be

examined and questioned in terms of the validity of the results it provides.

Section 3.5 focuses on examining the methodology in order to address the

vital issues of generalisation and validity.

3.5 Generalisation and Validity

For my research, I use naturalistic research to discover a description of

prior knowledge and to derive a partial model for it through induction.

This raises the key question of the value or the generalisability of the

research. In the previous sections, I have clarified my views on this

research. These views impact my position on the issues of generalisation

and validity. In the process of selecting my research methodology, I gave

consideration to the issues of internal validity, reliability and external

validity. These are further considered in turn in the sections below.

108
3.5.1 Internal Validity and Reliability

My research has focused on using a traditional research methodology

which is practised and understood by other researchers. This has enabled

me to establish a high degree of openness to my research process.

The goal is not to produce a standardised set of

results that any other careful researcher in the
same situation or studying the same issues
would have produced. Rather it is to produce a
coherent and illuminating description of and
perspective on a situation that is based on and
consistent with detailed study of that situation.

(Schofield, 1993, p. 202)

This implies that one of the goals of this research must be to be

transparent in order to achieve the objective of deeper understanding and

shared common generalisation of meaning. Further, as stated by Merriam

(1995), “notions of validity and reliability must be addressed from the

perspective of the paradigm out of which the study has been conducted”

(p. 52).

Hammersley and Atkinson (2007) argue that validity refers not to the data

but to the inferences drawn. This is a process that Merriam terms:

Member checks – taking data collected from

study participants, and the tentative
interpretations of these data, back to the people
from whom they were derived and asking if the
interpretations are plausible, if they ‘ring true’.

(Merriam, 1995, p. 54)

The traditional quantitative process by which reliability is established

(replication of outcomes through repeated implementation of the study) is

109
not suitable for establishing the validity of this methodology. Lincoln and

Guba (1985b) propose that qualitative research should strive for

dependability or consistency. That is, question whether the results of the

study are consistent with the data collected. In order to achieve this

within my research, presentation of both the study and data must be

transparent and detailed. These then provide the reader with the full

breadth and depth of the contextual setting so that reliability can be

established.

3.5.2 External Validity

A key shortfall of naturalistic research is that the results are not easy to

generalise. Campbell and Stanley (1963) refer to generalisability as an

element of “external validity” (p. 175), combining generalisability and

validity as parts of external validation. Their definition applies to the

results of naturalistic research, as well as to the implications of those

results which cannot be replicated or applied to other settings. Therefore

the key question is whether it is crucial for good research to be

generalisable. I question whether there is any value in diluting the results

gained so that they can be generalised, for example, procedures for

effective teaching (Kincheloe, 2003). Or is there greater benefit in

providing results which are “sufficiently rich data for the readers and users

of research to determine whether transferability is possible” (Cohen et al.,

2001, p. 109).

110
 The idea of sampling from a population of sites
in order to generalise to the larger population is
simply and obviously unworkable in all but the
rarest situations.

(Schofield, 1993, p. 205)

I have no expectation that my research and the resulting data can be

applied across the entire population in the state in which they are

presented. The processes that I observed are context-specific and

individualised not only to the teachers, children, school and settings, but

also to the relationship that I built with the teachers. As a result, the

specific outcomes generated from my research are highly contextualised.

However, the overall outcome of interest is the set of elements that I

describe as the building blocks of the partial prior knowledge model (I

have used the terms categories and elements interchangeably throughout

this thesis to describe the components of my prior knowledge model).

These elements are present in varying degrees in the prior knowledge of

every individual. This aspect of the outcome can indeed by applied to

others and is generalisable.

People can learn much that is general from

single cases. They do that partly because they
are familiar with other cases and they add this
one in, thus making a slightly new group from
which to generalise, a new opportunity to
modify old generalisations.

(Stake, 1995, p. 85)

This implies that the generalisation of meaning is possible if the partial

model proposed has enabled me to gather a clearer picture of the complex

situations and individuals during the course of the research. LeCompte

and Preissle (1993) argue that studies based on naturalistic research gain

111
their potential for being applied to other situations by providing what they

call comparability and translatability.

Thus generalisability and validity are achieved through the knowledge and

findings of this study in understanding other similar situations, a process

Stake (1995) terms as “naturalistic generalisations” (p. 85). My research

aims that the partial model formed through this work becomes a flexible

template for understanding prior knowledge. Though there are many

variables, the research provides a vehicle for understanding the structure

of prior knowledge in a classroom through the generation of a partial

theoretical model established from a range of contributory elements.

Becker (1990) claims that generalisation in qualitative research is

achieved through building a theory which makes sense of individualised

contexts, situations and persons studied, and further describes how

similar processes could result in different outcomes in different situations.

The aim, therefore, is to achieve generalisability through a partial model

that is formed from a range of contributory elements, concepts and

conclusions of the study. With the presentation of an initial prior

knowledge model, it is possible for others to draw from this and apply or

add to their array of familiar cases and create a “new group from which to

generalise” (Stake, 1995, p. 85). This aids the process of naturalistic

generalisations. Also the naturalistic research methodology implemented

will aid in gaining results which will add to the knowledge base of the

classroom as a whole thus maximising opportunities for generalisations.

112
3.6 Conclusion

In this chapter, I have considered the theory behind the proposed

methodological framework – naturalistic research. I have considered the

value of using this construct to understand and create a fuller picture of

the structure of prior knowledge. As part of the process, I have considered

theoretical options available to aid in the research process, as well as the

issues of validity and generalisability. There has been some reference to

the methods and options available to implement analysis which are

explored in detail in Chapter 5. Overall this chapter has provided the

foundations and structure for more detailed and accurate collection of

data to allow for greater and clearer understanding of prior knowledge.

Now that the research methodology has been identified from a theoretical

perspective as being naturalistic research, the next chapter focuses on its

practical implementation.

113
114
 4 DATA COLLECTION METHOD

4.1 Introduction

In this chapter, I present the method I used for the data collection. I give

consideration to the motivation behind the choices I made with regards to

the research context, i.e. the schools used, and the whole design process

for the data collection. I also examine the logistical issues which are

resolved in order to dovetail theory and practice as part of the design

process.

There are three main sections in this chapter, following this introduction.

In Section 4.2, I take the theoretical framework from Chapter 3 and lay

out the following:

 the design process which I undertook for the data collection,

concentrating on establishing the choices made;

 how I implemented the data collection including the logistical

decisions made and how these appear in the data collection

process. I reflect on how the practical steps taken relate to the

theoretical framework of naturalistic research.

In Section 4.3, I look briefly at the data focusing on the nature of the data

collected. However, there is no analysis of the data in this chapter, as I

feel that it is vital to consider first the data collected in their entirety in

order to gain a high level understanding and a feel for the picture that is

developing. This will allow me to develop methods for detailed analysis in

subsequent chapters.

115
In Section 4.4, I consider the ethical implications arising out of my

proposed data collection method.

4.2 Design of the Data Collection

There are five main points examined in this section. The first is the

research environment – the schools. I present the schools I have used for

the data collection and the reasons for choosing these schools. The second

point is the teachers that I observed within the chosen schools. The third

point examined is the method of observing the lessons. The fourth point is

the means of recording the lessons and transcribing these recordings. The

fifth point is concerned with other sources of data which need to be

retained.

4.2.1 The Schools

It was important to identify a number of schools in order to be able to

meet the criteria of a multi-sited design (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). The use

of several schools, cases, and situations, especially with some variation,

will allow the results to be applied to a greater range of other similar

situations. In the process of selecting the schools, I looked for variations

in a number of factors – school location (the social context), school type,

class size, number of Year One classes, mixed year group, availability of

teaching assistant (TA) linked with the class, and the values, philosophy

and beliefs of the schools as stated by the schools themselves.

I identified the schools through two means:

116
  I reviewed the Ofsted reports for the schools in Worcestershire LEA,

and called the heads of the schools that I felt would fit the needs of

my research question;

 I placed a request in the weekly Worcestershire County Council

teaching vacancy newsletter asking for schools that might be

interested in the study.

After the schools had responded, I selected five schools based on the

criteria listed above. Table 4.1 contains the list of schools that I selected

and relevant information about them relating to the criteria above.

Table 4.1 Schools used for data collection

School School # Y1 Class Mixed Location Class-

Type classes size year linked
group TA

Hatton Church of 1 15 No Rural No

England small
First School village

St Paul Church of 3 30 No Small Yes

England town
First School
Voluntary
Aided

Argyle First School 1 30 Yes Small No

Common (Y1/Y2) town

Draycott Church of 1 30 Yes Rural Yes

England (R/Y1) small
First School village

Greenville Community 2 30 No Inner city No

Park Primary
School

In order to assess the values, philosophy and beliefs of the schools, I

looked at their Parents’ Prospectuses and Ofsted reports. I reproduce

below relevant portions from the Parents’ Prospectus for each of the five

117
schools. A summary of the Ofsted reports for these schools can be seen in

Appendix A.

Hatton First School

We are proud of our close links with Hatton Church and the local
village community. We have regular visits by the Rector and the
school celebrates with parents many of the religious festivals at the
church. We encourage your children to develop their talents to the
full within a caring, Christian environment. It is hoped that they will
acquire skills, knowledge, healthy attitudes, insights and
appreciation within the orderly structure of the school. Enjoyment
of the school is an important factor so that your child’s appetite for
learning and pace of work is stimulated.

St Paul First School

We endeavour at St Paul’s to give every child the opportunity to

achieve their maximum potential in all areas of school life by
learning through confidence within a Christian setting. Children will
be treated as individuals while being encouraged to be part of the
school family. Our school strives to be a stable, secure
environment, where all children are seen to be treated fairly and
equally and where high standards of behaviour are expected.

Argyle Common First School

The school aims to provide a caring, friendly environment where

children can develop their full potential, both social and academic.
Great emphasis is placed on each child’s individuality and the
contribution that the child can make to the whole life of the school.
Respect for others, both fellow pupils and adults, is strongly
encouraged along with a caring attitude towards the environment.
All are made welcome at the school, particularly parents who are
encouraged to become part of the school life.

Draycott First School

The aim of Draycott First School is to provide a broad balanced and

relevant curriculum, within the framework of the National
Curriculum, and an excellent all round education. We view each
child as an individual whose needs are met through continuous
assessment, careful planning, varied lessons and continuous
review. We view the parental involvement as an essential part of
our pupils’ schooling, and are always pleased to have new ideas of
ways that parents can become more actively involved.

Greenville Park Community School

The main aim of the school is to educate our children to the best of
their ability. In order to do this, we provide a place where children

118
 know how to behave and to think before they act. The classrooms
and corridors provide lively and stimulating surroundings that
encourage children to explore and think as they learn. Each child is
treated according to their individual need and we draw on their
experiences and skills in developing our teaching plans to make
sure that we are equipping all children with the skills necessary to
move onto high school.

These five schools formed the basis for my data collection. As can be seen

from the Parents’ Prospectuses above, the five schools are all very

different in their characteristics. However there are some common themes

such as the desire to provide breadth in the curriculum, their moral

values, and inclusion of parents in the learning process. There are also

differences between church schools and community schools, and the

range of demographics within the schools. The next step of the design

process was to consider the teachers from these schools who will take

part in the data collection, and what I was going to tell them about my

research.

4.2.2 The Teachers

In the five schools that I selected for my data collection, there were nine

Year One teachers with one of the Year One classes at St Paul First School

having a job share. Due to logistical reasons, I could only work with one

of the two teachers in the job share. I requested each of the eight

teachers for a short overview giving me information about themselves.

These overviews (reproduced below) were the only things I knew about

the teachers at the start of my data collection.

Mrs Sally Crane, Hatton First School

I have been teaching for about thirty years with just a few years off
to have my family. I taught Reception for most of those years –
first at an inner city school, and then at a large first school. I then

119
 did supply, worked for the special needs service, taught in a private
nursery, and taught art at O level.

I returned to work full time at a middle-sized first school with a

class of 7/8 year olds and finally to Hatton where I have been for
fourteen years (teaching Reception, Year 1 & 2, Reception and Year
1, Year 1, Year 3 & 4, and Year 1)!

I am the Science, Environmental Studies and Health Education co-

ordinator, and responsible for the school in absence of the Head.
My main subjects at college were Art and Science.

Miss Lora Hunter, St Paul First School

I trained and qualified in July 1995. My specialities were Early Years

(3 to 8 years old) and Religious Education. I taught Year 1 for six
years in a village school in Norfolk and two years in a market town
also in Norfolk. I have been at St Paul’s since 1998 teaching Year 3
for one year, supply across whole range, and then Year Two for two
years, and then Year One ever since.

Mrs Rebecca Rice, St Paul First School

I have been teaching for about nineteen years. I have been part
time for the past two years in Year 1. I have taught Reception, Year
1, Year 2 and Year 5. During my career, I had post of responsibility
for Computers, Art, Maths, and PSHE. At a previous school, I was
part of senior management team. My philosophy: children learn
from hands-on experience and the curriculum needs to be geared
more for practical experience rather than paper work!

Mrs Jill Thomas, St Paul First School

I trained at a college on a three-year course and was awarded a

Cert. Ed. in 1976. From 1976 to 1981, I taught at a first school in a
town. From 1982 to 1988, I did supply teaching (mainly in this
area). I have been at St Paul First School since 1988. I have done
the following additional courses: in 1996, English in the primary
school (Open University); in 1997, designated maths course on
primary maths active learning; in 1998, BA (Ed) Hons.

Mrs Jane Marshall, Argyle Common First School

I have been teaching for twelve years. Four years at a 3-11 year
old 600-pupil school in the next town where I taught Year 2. Eight
years at Argyle Common where I’ve mostly taught Year 1 & 2, but
taught Year 4 for two years. As a child I hated Maths – I couldn’t do
it. I had extra tuition to get me through GCSE – poor teaching at
high school. Therefore I always try to make Maths fun and not
seem hard – I feel the children learn more this way.

In 1994, I did a designated maths course. In 2000, I did a four-day

National Numeracy strategy course. This was brilliant and I was

120
 made Maths co-ordinator in September 2000. I am pleased as
Maths SAT results have improved dramatically since then.

The National Numeracy strategy has changed my way of teaching –

particularly mental maths – with more emphasis on finding
methods of working out, listening to children’s ideas. I do feel that
it does not give me time to dwell on concepts as I need to get
everything done. In some ways I prefer topic maths, where more
seemed to be done in more depth – link to Art, English, etc. I am
trying to develop more maths in real life where it is back to topic
linking maths skills to other areas to practice and consolidate skills.
We were awarded a grant of £300 to develop a maths trail around
our local area by the Chamber of Commerce. This is almost
finalised and will tie in with maths in real life. I do try to link what
they know with what they are going to do and will begin to use
again system of flow diagrams to see what they know and retry
after a topic to see if ideas have changed.

I think (hope) that most of my children enjoy Maths and that I use
a wide range of teaching styles to get over points of view
depending on the children, i.e. some may need more practice, some
enjoy challenge of mental work, some just plod on! I do worry that
the National Numeracy strategy leaves the slow children behind as
when they are working independently, and I am with a focused
group, nothing gets done – whereas before, I could wander around
and check more!

Mrs Jennie Brooks, Draycott First School

I started teaching many years ago in 1968. My first job was at an

infant school in Birmingham where I taught Year 1. Usually the
Easter intakes, therefore they had only had one term in school. In
1970, I got married and we moved to Warwick where I taught at
another infant school. This was very different to the school in
Birmingham and had a very high immigrant population.

In 1973, my first child was born and I gave up teaching. I spent

twelve very happy years at home looking after my four sons. As the
boys were growing up, I did not want a full-time job, so I taught
adults to read on a one-to-one basis in the evenings. When my
youngest son started school, I decided to do supply teaching, and
spent most of my time at local schools. I came to Draycott in about
1992 as a supply teacher, and have been here ever since. At
Draycott, I have always taught Reception/Year 1.

Mrs Helen Fellows, Greenville Park Community School

I did a PGCE and qualified in 1989. I taught Reception in a 240-

pupil school from 1989 to December 1990, and had responsibility
for English. I moved to Greenville Park Community School in
January 1991 and have taught Reception, Year 1 and Year 2. I am
responsible for Information and Computer Technology (ICT), Design

121
 Technology (DT), and am Key Stage 1 Co-ordinator. I have done
some team teaching in Year 3/4 and 5/6. Also I support the NQT.

Mrs Jo Fishily, Greenville Park Community School

In 1988, I completed my A levels. From 1988 to 1989, I was a full-

time nanny for a one-year-old and a six-year-old (both girls). From
1989 to 1990, I spent short periods of time as a mothers help,
dental nurse and catering assistant. From 1990 to 1992, I did an
HND in Public Administration. From 1992 to 1995, I did an English
and Drama degree. From 1995 to 1996, I did a PGCE in Early Years.

From 1996 to 1998, I spent one-and-a-half terms as a supply

teacher, one-and-a-half terms teaching Year 2 in an infant school,
and two terms teaching Year 4. Since 1998, I have been a full-time
teacher at Greenville Park including one term teaching reception,
and then as Year 1 teacher. I have subject responsibility for RE. I
am very happy in Key Stage 1 and love the younger children. I
would be happy to teach Reception again.

I am not a very ambitious teacher in terms of gaining more

responsibility, my only ambition is to become a better teacher,
continually improve and hopefully receive the recognition of being a
good teacher. I also aim to keep stress levels to a minimum and
have developed much better strategies of coping with the job and
having proper leisure time!

The teachers had a diverse set of experiences and values. They all had a

range of prior knowledge which impacts upon their pedagogical choices

and the experiences they provide in the classroom. I arranged to meet

with the teachers at their schools near the end of the summer term. We

discussed the details of my research and the process of observation. The

teachers had common concerns such as who would have access to the

information that I collected, what was I expecting the teachers to do, and

how often would I come in. After talking over their concerns, I established

with the teachers that they were happy to participate in my research and

agreed a timetable for the observations.

122
4.2.3 Lesson Observation

As established in the discussions in Chapter 3, this research is based

within the naturalistic paradigm which provokes the exploration of

understanding the reality as it occurs. One of the ways to achieve this

understanding is through observation of lessons. My experiences as a

classroom teacher has given me insights into the complex nature of

observations, such as how each observation revealed greater detail about

the increasing complexity in the nature of the classroom interactions and

the structure of the classroom.

A key issue to address was whether I would be a participant or non-

participant observer during the data collection process. Taking the role of

a non-participant observer would enable me to step back and observe the

classroom without interacting with the children or the teacher, thus

gaining understanding of prior knowledge in a natural state. However, my

experience as a classroom teacher has indicated to me that I could not

remain detached from the classroom as my presence would mean that I

was involved and no longer a non-participant. The problem of wanting to

be detached and observing without influence on the classroom is

summarised as “the theoretical notions of what constitutes a reality to be

observed, and the disturbance of that reality by activities of the observer”

(Edwards & Westgate, 1994, p. 74).

For me, the terms participant and non-participant did not offer any

guidance to structure my observations. I did not want to participate in the

classroom interactions because it could change the very thing that I

123
wanted to understand. Being a non-participant observer meant that I

would have to be completely detached and have no contact with the

context being observed. I needed to be in the classroom to observe the

interactions and understand the changing context within which I was

observing prior knowledge. Gold (1958) offered some guidance in

classifying the roles that a researcher can take in observation, stating

that, “These range from the complete participant at one extreme to the

complete observer at the other. Between these, but nearer the former, is

the participant-as-an-observer; nearer the latter is the observer-as-a-

participant.” (p. 217).

Defining my position as an observer related not only to the methods used

to carry out the observation, but also to the way in which the context is

framed for the observation. It allowed me to structure my role in the

classroom, i.e. I was part of the classroom but was not there to work

within the classroom. Before starting the data collection, both the

teachers and their classes would be made aware of my role and intention.

Further, as my presence in the classroom would be explained to the

children, it would make me a participant in the classroom but an outsider

to the process of teaching.

Despite discussions with the teachers and their classes, I was aware from

my experience as a classroom teacher that there was a possibility that the

teachers and the children were going to take time to get adjusted to the

process of being observed and this could affect some of the early

observations. I addressed this by performing observations over an entire

124
school year, which led to acclimatisation, observing each teacher at least

once a month where possible.

I recorded my observations as field notes in an unstructured and evolving

document, a running report of the events within the classroom while I was

in situ. I included the time of each major event in the classroom such as

moving from one setting to another (e.g. carpet work to group work on

the tables), length of each event, additional adults and their roles within

the lesson, brief notes on the mood of the children, any special events

which were going on in the school that day, and any deviations from the

daily routine. In the margin, I included annotations with notes of thoughts

prompted by the observation.

4.2.4 Recording and Transcribing

The aim of the observations, lesson recordings and informal interviews

was to be able to reconstruct each lesson for retrospective analysis. I

recorded each teacher by using a small remote microphone as they taught

the lesson I was observing. Recording meant that I could remain in one

place in the classroom and still have a record of all the interactions and

conversations of the teacher. The nature of the recording meant that I

could focus on the visual aspects of the classroom interactions, such as

movements of the teacher and children, and the equipment children chose

to aid them in their tasks.

As I transcribed the recordings, I did some mental analysis of the

recordings. However I did not make any omissions or do any coding as

Edwards & Westgate (1994) state that:

125
 Interaction is constructed both through the
participants’ interpretation of many factors not
easily accessible to an outsider, and in ways
which are influenced by the structure of the
discourse itself. Those participants draw on
background knowledge of which the observer
may be unaware, they respond to the
constraints of particular types of discourse at
various stages in the lesson, and they regularly
reinterpret the meaning of what was said in light
of what was then said after it, or make
provisional interpretations while waiting for
further ‘evidence’. All these subtleties are seen
as defying instant coding. Instead, they are
judged to require patient scanning of a
transcript, and also (because any transcript is
itself selective) a willingness to return to the
original recording to check or amplify details.

(Edwards & Westgate, 1994, p. 61)

The layout that I established for the transcripts is shown in the extract

below. There are many features associated with traditional transcription

methods which I did not include in my transcripts as the purpose of my

transcripts was to be able to read the words which were said and to

understand prior knowledge through the interactions. To enable ease of

reading, I did not use a specific code to depict any features such as

multiple children speaking. To balance the complex conversations and the

need for simplified representation, I transcribed in a linear fashion.

The most sympathetic transcribing – that is, the

most attentive to details of intonation, pitch and
so on – is unlikely to make informal spoken
language look coherent because speech and
writing are not different ways of doing the same
thing.

(Edwards & Westgate, 1994, p. 63)

They advise, therefore, to include in the transcript whatever features are

necessary for the research purpose. As my purpose was to be able to

126
consider the lesson and understand prior knowledge from it, complex

transcription methods looking at linguistic features were not needed. I

asked each teacher to verify the accuracy of some of their lessons by

reviewing the transcript to ensure that they had been informed, and that

my transcripts were as accurate as possible, and ‘rang true’ (as stated by

Merriam in Section 3.5.1). Given below is an extract from a transcript.

Extract from transcript of seventh lesson by Mrs Sally Crane at

Hatton First School
Teacher: Sixteen good boy well done … I was looking to see who I
could tell was counting in their heads and that was very good
indeed well done … and Olivia I noticed you suddenly stopped
and you realised that you‘ve got to carry on and you did
really well there good girl that was excellent … let’s have one
more go
Few children: Oh
Teacher: Right what number is this?
Few children: Twelve
Teacher: Twelve all right … now this is quite a hard one to stop at so
let’s see if you’re being really clever this morning … are we
ready then
(Children clap)
Teacher: No … no … no … it will be no good if we don’t all start
together ready … and
(Teacher and most children clap twelve times ... some
children clap thirteen)
Teacher: Ah I told you number twelve is a difficult one I don’t know
why we get going to ten
Child: I know it’s cause

4.2.5 Other Data

Spradley (1979) and Kirk and Miller (1986) recommend keeping four sets

of observation data:

1. Notes made in situ.

127
 2. Expanded notes that are made as soon as possible after the initial

observations. (This was in the form of tape recordings which were

transcribed in their entirety without omissions.)

3. Journal notes to record issues, ideas, and difficulties which arise

during the field work. (This was done in the margin of my field

notes in order to keep the context of the thoughts.)

4. A developing, tentative, running record of ongoing analysis and

interpretations. (In the case of this research, this was done

throughout the classroom observations and the transcribing process

by formulating a pictorial representation of the emerging model.)

In order to rebuild the classroom interaction at a later date with some

degree of accuracy, I also collected lesson plans and notes that the

teachers had made about children involved in the lesson being observed.

Where possible, I talked with the teachers after the lesson to understand

their view of the lesson (this too was recorded and transcribed). I carried

out unstructured interviews with the teachers to establish the accuracy of

my transcriptions, and to understand from them how they viewed their

teaching and their knowledge of the children.

4.3 The Data

The data set consists of sixty lesson observations, fifteen informal

interviews, notes on informal conversations with the teachers, lesson

plans for each lesson, and notes on various children that teachers had

made for the purpose of sharing with me during the academic year. The

observations were done over the course of a school year (from September

128
to the following July). Each lesson was approximately forty-five minutes

long. All the lessons and informal interviews were recorded and

transcribed. Additionally, I also had observation notes from the lessons.

During the process of transcription, I was beginning to analyse the data

and look for some indication of understanding prior knowledge. The

different forms of the data, namely the audio recording and the notes,

provided different angles of perspective for each observed interaction.

When the lesson transcripts are augmented with my written notes, lesson

plans and notes on the children, they enable me to reconstruct the

interactions in the classroom.

Therefore to analyse and understand the interactions involves the

reconstruction of the classroom using all the different viewpoints and

making sure that they all tessellate together. This multi-pronged approach

forms the basis of my analysis which is considered in greater detail in the

next chapter.

4.4 Ethical Considerations

A multitude of ethical considerations were taken into account in the

theoretical and practical design of the data collection, as per the ethical

guidelines for educational research from the British Educational Research

Association (2004). They are detailed in Table 4.2 below.

Table 4.2 Discussion on ethical issues in data collection

Ethical issue Discussion

Selection of As stated in Section 4.2.1, schools were identified from

schools among those who responded to a request for

129
Ethical issue Discussion
participation. Good research practice dictated that I
should get the widest variation in the schools that I chose
to ensure generalisability of the results. There was a risk
that all schools that may want to take part would be
similar e.g. over 40% of the primary schools in
Worcestershire were church schools.
To avoid this, I selected from the responding schools by
looking at their Ofsted reports to ensure there were a
range of schools which fit the factors stated in Section
4.2.1. I achieved this by selecting five of the eight schools
who responded to the request. The three schools which
were not selected were very similar to the schools that
were selected.
As the schools chose to reply to a call for participation,
this was a random self-selecting group and avoided any
sampling issues.
Though all the schools were local to me, I had no prior
involvement with any of the schools in either a
professional or a personal capacity.

Selection of In order to ensure that teachers were fully informed

teachers about what it meant to take part in the study before
taking agreeing to do so, the following were carried out:
 I met with each of them individually to talk over
the research project, the data collection process
and how the data would be used subsequently;
 all the teachers were able to ask questions about
the research throughout my involvement with
them, as this openness did not hinder my data
collection;
 the teachers were made aware that they could
withdraw at any point without any consequence to
themselves or their school;
 the teachers understood that they had open access
to all my data at any point in the research process
(and indeed, they helped out by reviewing the
transcripts for accuracy, privacy and anonymity);
 we talked about the nature of the study and
considered some of the concerns that teachers had
such as how many others were involved in the
study.
After considering all the concerns and issues, the teachers
were given time from the summer term till autumn to
consider taking part in the research. Throughout this
time, they were able to ask questions in order to support
their choices. As reported in Section 4.2.2, all nine

130
Ethical issue Discussion
teachers chose to participate in the study, though I had to
turn one of them down due to logistical considerations.
I am aware that there was no gender variation in the
teachers. Nationally 87% of the teachers in primary
schools are female (Department for Education, 2008) –
which means that I would have at most had one male
teacher in any case. However none of the schools that I
chose had male Year One teachers, making it impossible
for me to ensure that the teachers I chose reflected the
national gender distribution.
Though all the teachers were local to me, I had no prior
involvement with any of them in either a professional or a
personal capacity.

Consent / The head at each school provided voluntary informed

participation consent on behalf of the school. The teachers’ consent
was implied by the fact that they chose to be part of the
research after understanding all the information
mentioned above.
The parents of the children were informed of the process
and purpose of my research through the systems that
each school had in place. As part of this, they were given
the option to ask further questions of myself or to
withdraw their child at any point, though none of them
chose to do so.
Before starting the data collection, I ensured that I had
adhered to all the guidelines for voluntary informed
consent laid out by the British Educational Research
Association (2004).

Incentives There were no incentives offered to any of the

participants (schools, teachers, children or parents).

Privacy Privacy was upheld throughout the process by ensuring

the following:
 schools were not aware of which other schools
were taking part;
 teachers were not aware which other teachers
outside of their school were taking part;
 as part of the initial discussion with the teachers,
they were informed that any personal information
that they revealed would not form part of the study
without their consent;
 names of schools, teachers and children were
anonymised throughout to ensure that no data
could be linked back to an institution or an

131
Ethical issue Discussion
individual;
 teachers reviewed all the raw data to ensure that
the children’s and their privacy was maintained;
 the data in its raw form (i.e. the transcripts) were
only stored on my home computer which no one
else could access.

Impact of As the dominant tool for data collection was the recording
participation of lessons by the teacher wearing a small recording
device, it did not impede on their ability to teach or carry
out any other classroom activities.
Since I was interested in the entire class rather than any
particular group of children within the class, there was no
impact on the children in terms of any bias towards any
particular group.

Disclosure I established from the outset that information collected in

the classroom would not be shared with anyone else not
connected to that class (including other teachers from the
same school irrespective of whether they were
participating in my research or not), unless something
occurred that needed to be addressed in relation to issues
of child protection or any other criminal reasons. It was
agreed in discussion that I would only use the data for the
purposes of my research.

Observation My role as a participant or non-participant is addressed in

detail in Section 4.2.3.

Transcribing Transcriptions were made as accurately as possible. This

was enhanced by getting the teachers to review the
transcripts for accuracy.

Other data All of this data were similarly anonymised, and were
shared with the teachers in discussions.

132
 5 ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY

5.1 Introduction

The focus of this chapter is the exploration, evaluation and explanation

underpinning the selection of a methodology for analysing the qualitative

data gathered for this thesis. In the previous chapter, I have described

how these data were gathered and recorded. The debate now revolves

around how to make sense of the vast quantity of qualitative data

generated in order to address my research question. The initial prompt for

my research question was my own experience in the classroom and the

desire to understand why there were such variations in children’s ability to

perform a range of mathematical tasks. What accounts for the wide

variety of differences when, at first sight, children have so much in

common which should lead to a smaller degree of variation in their

mathematical abilities, especially in the current homogeneous nature of

schools and the curriculum that they deliver? The overall aim of this

chapter is to select a methodology by which my data can be analysed. The

steps taken to select the methodology must be described explicitly so that

they can be scrutinised and the outcome is transparent. Vitally, the

selected methodology must filter through pertinent information without

losing any context of the classroom where children are working in their

natural environment.

The methodology used for analysis should assist in developing a

comprehensive understanding of prior knowledge. It is crucial to the

133
shape, strength and value of this thesis that any methodology used for

analysing the data is rigorous enough to give an accurate picture and

understanding of all the nuances that may exist in prior knowledge. This is

analogous to doing a chemical analysis of DNA – I want to define not only

the key components of prior knowledge, but also the structures of these

components and how they work together in a learning situation.

As considered in Chapter 4, the data were gathered through recording

teachers while working with a class. The recordings formed naturalistic

transcripts of what was picked up by the teacher while in a mathematics

lesson. The transcripts are what the teachers would have also heard from

their interaction with the children. It is important to understand that this

data gathering method does not give a complete picture of any one child,

nor does it offer a before-and-after idea of the ability of the children. The

decision to not follow such a scientific process in a controlled environment

is an intentional omission. I want to be able to develop a model of prior

knowledge within a realistic environment and from the teacher’s

perspective. It is not the concern of this thesis to consider the effect that

prior knowledge has on mathematical ability – just to define it. It is the

situated nature of the data which will make it most relevant to defining

prior knowledge and being able to apply it within the classroom context.

Using what the teacher can hear in children’s conversations not only gives

the teacher’s perspective, but also allows us to notice what the children

choose to share and bring to their learning of mathematics. Thus using

the scientific research paradigm would not have allowed for any

understanding of how prior knowledge manifests itself in the classroom

environment. This firmly places my research within the qualitative

134
research paradigm. Qualitative research is “somewhat difficult to define,

as specific practice that covers a variety of studies” (Wiersma & Jurs,

2005, p. 13).

There is overall agreement within the education community that

qualitative data takes a whole range of shapes. Essentially it comprises

information that is not numerical information in its raw form. Therefore it

is any data generated as a result of interviews, observations or written

text. It is noteworthy that each of these data gathering methods can also

produce quantitative data. However they are predominantly used to

understand everyday phenomena as a result of human behaviour, and to

address not just what is happening, but more crucially how. These

approaches all offer a deeper understanding of a microcosm of human

behaviour. The key need that qualitative data address is the need to

understand human behaviour in minute detail and to formulate theories or

models to address the observations gathered. The complexity which the

data generated bring makes it essential to consider how best to analyse

and understand what the data are trying to express. It does not measure

but merely describes, and once analysed, attempts to define the nature of

human behaviour, in this case prior knowledge.

The ethnomethodology implemented for data gathering, while being well-

suited to understanding the everyday behaviour of children in the

contextual sense, leads to “massive volumes of data typical of qualitative

research” (Dey, 1993, p. 86).

It is essential to note that such complex, interlinked and varied data in

their raw state “won’t speak for themselves if left in the form in which you

135
collect them … these raw data do not constitute the findings of the

research” (Ryan, 2006, p. 92).

Therefore it is essential to analyse the data to deal with the enormity of

the information presented in its raw form. In order to understand how

best to do the analysis, this chapter will consider what methodologies are

available for analysing the data. The selected methodology will allow me

to see what emerges from the mass of information. There must be a

substantial process of scrutiny and assessment of the methodologies

available.

Therefore this chapter will contain:

1. Criteria for selecting the analysis methodology

2. Exploration and evaluation of possible analysis methodologies

3. Selection of analysis methodology

4. A worked example of the analysis process

5.2 Criteria for Selecting the Analysis

Methodology

The purpose of data analysis is to translate the

evidence into a form which allows the
researcher to make clear and concise
statements of description and/or association.

(Anderson & Burns, 1989, p. 200)

The selected analysis methodology must:

 be suitable for the type of data gathered;

136
 provide the framework for understanding the data in relation to the

questions asked;

 also establish a solid evidence base linking the understanding to the

source data;

 address what counts as evidence;

 supporting following for the raw data;.

organizing them, breaking them into

manageable units, coding them, synthesizing
them, and searching for patterns

(Bogdan & Biklen, 2007, p. 159)

 support all three generic stages of the data analysis and model

generation process;

data reduction, data display, and conclusion

drawing and verification

(Miles & Huberman, 1994, p. 10-11)

 allow for the exploration of ideas for categorising the data allowing

for the emergence of any relationships between categories;

 enable key themes to emerge from these categories in a

transparent manner without changing the true nature and meaning

of the data collected;

 be robust enough for reanalysis and refinement of categories and

themes;

 allow for understanding of the interpretations and assumptions

made of the raw data;

 allow for choices to be made about what data can be omitted and

why;

137
  allow a refined narrative of how and why the analysis was

performed and further allow understanding of the resultant model

or theory;

 allow consideration to be given to the ethics of the data analysis

process.

There is much demand on this process for finding an answer from the

information gathered. Therefore the methodology “requires that the data

be organised, scrutinised, selected, described, theorised, interpreted,

discussed and presented to a readership” (Ryan, 2006, p. 95) and

understanding that the information needs to provide coherence,

consensus and validity to the raw data collected. Thus the analysis

methodology must be selected with care, and the outcomes of the

analysis must be explained in detail with a transparent trail back to the

raw data which can then offer a simple narrative to support the outcomes.

The criteria above make the choice of methodology easier in many ways.

From the start of the research process, the nature of the question and the

subsequent data gathering methods involved place this study firmly in the

naturalistic / ethnomethodological realms of research. Therefore statistical

methods, which are valuable for quantitative data, offer little benefit and

will not be considered.

The special task of the social scientist in each

generation is to pin down the contemporary
facts. Beyond that, he shares with the
humanistic scholar and the artist in the effort to
gain insight into contemporary relationships

(Cronbach, 1975, p. 126)

138
 Where quantitative researchers seek causal
determination, prediction, and generalization of
findings, qualitative researchers seek instead
illumination, understanding, and extrapolation
to similar situations. Qualitative analysis results
in a different type of knowledge than does
quantitative inquiry.

(Hoepfl, 1997, p. 48)

The nature of the data gathered and the subsequent process of analysis

will result in this different type of knowledge being gained, filling the gaps

identified in the literature in Chapter 2 and leading to an understanding of

prior knowledge.

5.3 Exploration and Evaluation of

Possible Analysis Methodologies

There are many methodologies for the analysis of qualitative data such as

hermeneutical analysis, domain analysis, typological analysis, analytic

induction, content analysis, phenomenological / heuristic analysis,

metaphoric analysis, and grounded theory. These methodologies have a

lot to offer to the process of understanding the everyday behaviour of

individuals. I will be considering some of these methodologies with the

criteria presented in Section 5.2. There are no quantitative data to

consider.

Qualitative research: research that describes

phenomena in words instead of numbers or
measures.

(Krathwohl, 1993, p. 740)

139
In my case, it is based in a naturalistic paradigm. Therefore analysis

requires a lot of consistent interpretation of the evidence presented. It is

worth looking at how the various qualitative methodologies work, and

considering if they meet the criteria outlined earlier.

5.3.1 Hermeneutical Analysis

Hermeneutical analysis is the art of interpretation, more so interpretation

of text and language.

It seeks to understand situations through the

eye of participants … Hermeneutical analysis
involves recapturing the meanings of interacting
others, recovering and reconstructing the
intentions of the other actors in a situation.

(Cohen et al., 2001, p. 29)

That is to say, looking at language to explicitly express what the meaning

behind the text really is “rather than the phenomena” (Cohen et al., 2001,

p. 29).

Although hermeneutical analysis developed from the analysis of ancient

scriptures and other historical legal documentation, it has been developed

by Dilthey, Gadamer and others (Cohen et al., 2001) into a general theory

of human understanding through the use of literary text.

The process of analysing texts takes into account the context not only of

the author, but also of the text itself considering historical, cultural and

philosophical contexts to allow interpretation of meanings, meanings that

allow fundamental understanding to be developed about human nature.

This process of analysis does not aim to generalise but, in some sense,

140
merely report literally what is written and its intent as a way of

understanding human nature.

This method places restrictions upon how my data can be understood.

A social science that restricted itself to

hermeneutic interpretation would be radically
incomplete. It would exclude from the scope of
social science research the whole range of
causal relationships and structural influences on
action.

(Little, 2008)

Therefore this methodology would not allow for the identification of any

patterns, and hence the formulation of categories from analysing data.

Consequently there would be no understanding of the interrelationships

between categories, if any. As a result, this methodology does not meet

the selection criteria outlined earlier.

However this methodology has something to offer in the way of

understanding my data. The transcriptions I have, which are written text,

are not truly literary but are mere written representation of the spoken

word. They do allow the slowing down of speech and the ability to

consider and reconsider how what was said explains the variation in

mathematical ability. The methodology raises awareness of the continuous

attention that must be given to the layers that make up the analysis of

the text in order to extrapolate meaning and intent. The layers – social,

historical, cultural, time and place of writing – are important to consider

when analysing other data which are not in the form of text. Furthermore

consideration needs to be given to the context not only of the text, but

also of the author and the reader. Understanding the interplay between

141
these three elements is vital when using this form of analysis. While

considering my transcription data, similar issues and layers must be

understood. The elements – children, teacher, classroom and researcher –

each have their own context which will influence the outcome.

5.3.2 Domain Analysis

As stated earlier, essentially all methods for analysing qualitative data are

concerned with organising and sorting the vast volume of information

generated by observations and interviews into an understandable and

applicable format. Domain analysis is one such approach. Spradley

(1979), the prominent author of The Ethnographic Interview, looks at how

to understand the linguistic ideas expressed by individuals and put them

into manageable chunks which allow researchers to describe social

situations and cultural patterns that may be within these ideas. This

understanding, as Spradley (1979) sees it, can be gained through

categorising the data through the lens of predefined semantic

relationships which allow me to sort the ideas into categories, and then

further sort these categories into domains. Spradley (1979) states, “A

domain is any symbolic category that includes other categories” (p. 100).

In some ways, it is similar to the process that botanists may use to sort

the wide variety of plants. There is an overall predetermined domain e.g.

evergreens. Within this domain, there are several smaller groups of plants

which are grouped into categories for their common features and other

similar properties. This form of sorting allows several key things to

happen. Firstly, it makes the comprehension of the data gathered easier,

142
as it allows for critically understanding the nature of the data. Secondly, it

allows for consideration to be given to the relationship, if any, between

each individual category. Lastly, it allows descriptions to be developed in

relation to the domain. For this method to work, it relies on the

researcher’s ability to sort the data using the nine predetermined

semantic relationships defined by Spradley (1979).

The basic idea behind creating domains is to find

categories by reading the data with specific
semantic relationships in mind.

(Hatch, 2002, p. 166)

Spradley (1979) offers steps to help with the process of creating domains.

However domain analysis is limited in supporting understanding of my

data as they can only be sorted by the use of semantic relationships which

in themselves are linear. This in itself is not an issue in understanding any

data, however in the case of my research, it does not provide a way of

sorting the data without considering any relationship. It presupposes that

there will be some relationship between domains which follows a set

pattern, thus making no provision for simply sorting the data and allowing

relationships to emerge. Furthermore this approach assumes that once a

relationship has been established within the domains, these relationships

cannot be changed and are constant. E.g. a fir tree is a type of evergreen,

and through the use of domain analysis, it cannot be categorised as any

other. There is much to be learnt from the nine relationships that Spradley

(1979) defines as a starting point to considering the data gathered.

However it does not allow for the complex ever-changing nature of human

behaviour to be understood and presumes that reality exists in nature

143
waiting to be discovered (Hatch, 2002). Hence domain analysis alone will

not provide the answer to my question. There needs to be further support

from other processes which will allow the clarity needed from the complex

data set. It is not enough to use the process of sorting and categorising,

there needs to be greater understanding of the interplay between domains

and further steps may need to be taken to establish that.

5.3.3 Typological Analysis

This method requires the processing and classifying of data. LeCompte

and Preissle (1993) defined the process as “dividing everything observed

into groups or categories on the basis of some canon for disaggregating

the whole phenomenon under study” (p. 257).

The approach towards the data is quite different when carrying out

typological analysis. The data set is split into broad predetermined

exhaustive categories, in contrast to domain analysis which is more

inductive in nature. Typological analysis already presumes a theory /

research objective / an idea of what the data may show. In order to use

this method of analysis, the first step is the identification of a typology.

If typological analysis is the appropriate data

analysis strategy for a study, the selection of
typologies should be fairly obvious as well.

(Hatch, 2002, p. 152)

In relation to my data, on first consideration, there are no obvious

typologies which can be identified. Therefore it makes the use of this

method difficult. Also having looked at the data, it is of little help to set

out with preconceived ideas of what the patterns are, as that is the

144
essence of the questions being asked. There is little to be gained by using

this process as the thesis, in some ways, is asking for a typology of prior

knowledge to be developed. Therefore the use of this deductive approach

is not a natural fit to the demands of my data.

Typological analysis only has utility when initial

groupings of data and beginning categories for
analysis are easy to identify and justify.

(Hatch, 2002, p. 152)

This is not the case in my research. However it is important to consider if

this approach has anything to offer. The deductive nature of the

methodology expects there to be stronger understanding not only of the

data, but also of the behaviour being studied and the formulation of

generalised rules which will allow me to understand the data collected. It

is these overall predetermined exhaustive categories which allow the mass

of data to be processed and some sense to be made of what the

information gathered is trying to tell us.

For this research, the process is reversed and is, in part, inductive in that

it is hoped that through looking at the data, some categories should start

to emerge and then the rest of the data can be put through the filters of

the emergent categories to allow testing for validity. Mouly (1978)

suggests that there is a relationship between inductive and deductive

which is interdependent. It is this

back-and-forth movement in which the

investigator first operates inductively from
observations to hypotheses, and then
deductively from the hypotheses to their
implications in order to check their validity from

145
 the standpoint of compatibility with accepted
knowledge.

(Mouly, 1978, p. 5)

Though in its purest form typological analysis will draw a dead end in

understanding my data, it does prompt the need to categorise which will

allow all the data to be sorted into more manageable chunks and tested

for robustness against the whole of my data.

The primary strength of typological analysis is

its efficiency. Starting with predetermined
typologies takes much less time than
“discovering” categories inductively. The
potential weakness is that applying
predetermined categories will blind the
researcher to other important dimensions of the
data.

(Hatch, 2002, p. 161)

5.3.4 Analytic Induction

The key proponents of this methodology – Znaniceki, Howard, and Katz –

offer steps in understanding the data, and also using the data analysis

process systematically to formulate a theoretical basis for the phenomena

being examined.

In order to carry out analytic induction, it is necessary to consider some of

the other approaches available to organise and review the vast quantity of

qualitative data. The process of analytic induction allows me to test the

strength of the partial model developed. LeCompte and Preissle (1993)

suggest that data must be filtered to create manageable categories, and

the categories must be examined to see how they relate to each other.

Many of the methods discussed in this chapter e.g. domain analysis, can

146
be used to get to this point. Essentially it is this sorting, categorising and

grouping which holds the key to understanding the data and what they

have to tell us. Denzin (1989) goes further to recommend that it is not

merely enough to categorise and filter the data to get to a model, but the

researcher also needs to examine what does not quite fit with the overall

model. Any data that do not follow a particular pattern must force the

reformulation of the categories. The process of analytic induction

encourages deliberate seeking of disconfirming cases (Bogdan & Biklen,

2007). It is this search for disconfirming cases and consequent re-

examination of the data that will ensure robust applicability and accuracy

of the model which is generated.

Therefore analytic induction is not a mechanism for categorising or

organising data, but is the next step in ensuring that the data are

presented and evaluated thoroughly. The process focuses on using

disconfirming data to enhance the robustness of the model which makes

this a good second step in the process of analysing my data. However, as

an overall method for analysis, it does not support one of my criteria for

selecting the analysis methodology.

 supporting following for the raw data;.

organizing them, breaking them into

manageable units, coding them, synthesizing
them, and searching for patterns

(Bogdan & Biklen, 2007, p. 159)

The question still remains – what is the best tool for organising the

complex data collected? So far only domain analysis and typological

147
analysis have offered some methodological support to categorise the data.

However they have not fulfilled the criteria set out for choosing an

analysis methodology.

5.3.5 Content Analysis

The process of content analysis is predominantly concerned with looking

at the content of written text or people’s speech in various media.

Research using qualitative content analysis

focuses on the characteristics of language as
communication with attention to the content or
contextual meaning of the text.

(Hsieh & Shannon, 2005, p. 1278)

The main idea in this type of analysis is to define and measure carefully

the content in order to allow categories to be determined. In the case of

my research, the text is in the form of transcripts and observation notes

which allow slowing of speech down in order to examine it in more detail.

Content analysis itself has been defined as a

multipurpose research method developed
specifically for investigating a broad spectrum of
problems in which the content of communication
serves as a basis of inference.

(Cohen et al., 2001, p. 164)

Rosengren (1981) gives a broader definition, “Content analysis describes

a family of analytic approaches ranging from impressionistic, intuitive,

interpretive analyses to systematic, strict textual analyses” (Hsieh &

Shannon, 2005, p. 1277).

148
It is this ability to explore a broad spectrum of problems which makes this

method suitable for dealing with qualitative data. There is much to be

gained by the flexibility this approach has to offer. Hsieh and Shannon

(2005) have identified “three distinct approaches: conventional, directed,

or summative” (p. 1277).

Conventional approach starts from observations; direct approach starts

with a pre-formulated theory; and summative approach starts with

predetermined keywords for categorising the data. Weber (1990) states

that, “Investigators must judge what methods are appropriate for their

substantive problems” (p. 69).

The conventional approach is most suitable for my research, as it starts

by considering the observations, and then coding and defining these

observations through the analysis process. However Hsieh and Shannon

(2005) have identified that “the conventional approach to content analysis

is limited in both theory development and description of the lived

experience, because both sampling and analysis procedures make the

theoretical relationship between concepts difficult to infer from findings”

(p. 1281).

Content analysis does have something to offer in terms of understanding

the phenomenon of prior knowledge. However its lack of ability to support

formulations of links between concepts is a major shortfall. When

considering the data through the lens of conventional content analysis, it

allows for understanding the data in a literal form, but provides no ability

for formulating a deeper understanding of how the data may be

149
connected. However, as an overall method for analysis, it does not

support one of my criteria for selecting the method of analysis.

 allow for the exploration of ideas for categorising the data allowing

for the emergence of any relationships between categories;

which is crucial to understanding any phenomena being observed.

5.3.6 Phenomenological Analysis

Phenomenology asks, “What is this kind of

experience like?”, “What does the experience
mean”, “How does the lived world present itself
to me (or to my participant)?”

(Finlay, 2008)

The study of how we experience our world, phenomenological analysis

stresses “the careful description of phenomena from the perspective of

those who experience the phenomena” (Wiersma & Jurs, 2005, p. 243).

There is an intense need to understand how/why everyday

actions/behaviour occur. Burrell and Morgan (1979) wanted to question

“the ‘taken for granted’ assumptions of everyday life” (p. 193).

Phenomenological analysis approach offers a methodology for

understanding the deep-rooted meanings which individuals place on the

world around them. The difficulties for the researcher in understanding

the real world is how to extract understanding from observations,

interviews and other methods used to gather information on the world

that surrounds us. There are multiple layers of complex actions and

reactions within different contexts, with the added variable of the

researcher’s own experiences and context make this simple need to

150
understand the everyday one of the most complex processes. It is not the

place of this section to consider the methods for the collection of data

using the phenomenological methodology as this has been covered in

Chapter 4. Here I need to consider how to understand from this data what

is going on in this everyday experience being examined. How to go from

capture of information through various methods to understanding the

phenomena? The process of analysis is dependent on the key premise that

“phenomena should be studied without preconceived notions” (Hatch,

2002, p. 29).

Husserl termed this practice as bracketing which “means holding a

phenomenon up for inspection while suspending presuppositions and

avoiding interpretations” (Hatch, 2002, p. 86).

Bracketing requires that we become aware of

our own assumptions, feelings, and
preconceptions, and then, that we strive to put
them aside – to bracket them – in order to be
open and receptive to what we attempting to
understand.

(Ely et al., 1991, p. 50)

The key idea being that the phenomena is able “to present itself to us

instead of us imposing preconceived ideas on it. This openness needs to

be maintained throughout the entire research process, not just at the

start.” (Finlay, 2008).

Therefore the process of analysis is based on an inductive school of

thought, looking at what the data relay about each individual and their

experience while being observed. The process of understanding this type

of data involves some level of interpretation on behalf of the researcher,

151
and also the need to understand how to organise the mass of data

collected. In order to gain understanding of the data, it is possible to use

both inductive/deductive methodology to establish understanding. The

methods for organising the data can also vary depending on the nature of

the question being asked. However it must be noted that any analysis,

organising and reporting of the data is carried out with the key principle of

detachment from the situation.

This form of analysis creates a difficult paradox for the researcher, one

where there is the need for interpretation, but in order to interpret there

is some degree of personal experience involved in the process. It is worth

considering the nature, method and process of interpretation which will be

made in order to carry out this analysis. Clearly interpretation is making

sense of the observation data collected. In order to carry out any

interpretation, there will need to be some explanation for what is going on

within the situation being observed (Hatch, 2002). The researcher is

central to this process of understanding and explaining what is being

observed. Therein lies the contradiction – the phenomenological analysis

process requires that the data are allowed to reveal themselves, but this

cannot take place without interpretation from the researcher. The way to

meet the complex need for complete detachment is to clarify, as part of

the process of analysis, what the individual researcher’s context is in

order to allow the data to then be understood with this in mind. The

researcher must play this balancing act between being objective and

acting as a mere lens for the data to be understood through and the need

to make sense of what is being seen. The approach for this analysis

therefore must again start with a clear question which is being asked of

152
the data and consider all possible outcomes using a systematic

methodology for going through the observations.

In relation to my research this approach goes some way to allow

understanding and analysis of data. There needs to be greater structure

and this is not provided by this approach.

5.3.7 Metaphor Analysis

Metaphor analysis offers a creative dimension to understanding and filling

the possible shortfall identified by some of the analysis methodologies,

that of understanding the complex relationships between categories. As a

researcher, a key outcome is to form some clarity in understanding of the

phenomenon being observed, and also formulate some conceptual

understanding that can be simplified and shared by others. The use of

metaphors within language offers the mechanism for this simplification

and conceptualisation to occur seamlessly.

Cameron (2003), in her research, identifies the value of searching for

metaphors as the core approach for understanding how people think – the

metaphors that people use can reveal something of their ideas. This key

notion drives metaphor analysis and offers a possible process for

understanding prior knowledge. The steps in metaphor analysis are similar

to that of many of the others considered so far – locating the data,

identifying key ideas (in this case, identification of metaphors as a unit of

data), organising metaphors into categories, and finding patterns. The

identification of these metaphors are directly from the qualitative data

generated.

153
On the face of it, this seems to be a valuable tool for gaining insight into

the thinking of individuals, and therefore perfect for in-depth

understanding of prior knowledge of individuals. The underlying

assumption of this approach is that all individuals use metaphors in their

dialogue and speech. This in itself is a problematic assumption as it is not

always the case. Furthermore if the process of analysis only looks for

metaphors as a way of understanding any of these phenomena, then

there is a significant possibility that some pivotal ideas may be missed.

The other more pertinent issue for my research is dependent on the pure

nature of a metaphor. Metaphors are complex linguistic tools which are

developed by individuals through experiences of the world linked to

sophisticated development of language and vocabulary. E.g. to use /

understand what is meant by the metaphor “life is a journey” (a metaphor

examined by Lakoff and Johnson (2003) in their work on metaphor

analysis), there are many layers of complexities which are only

understood through experiences which most children, due to their age, do

not have. Figure 5.1 depicts some of the conceptual notions which must

be grasped before one can understand this metaphor and gain its true

meaning and appropriate application. There needs to be a vast amount of

other knowledge and experience which will not be present in children.

Therefore to expect them to speak in such a complex manner is

misguided. Thus this approach has little to offer in terms of a tool for

analysis of my data.

154
 Life as a process
Life Life as an abstract concept
Unpredictability of life
Stages
Route
Direction
Getting lost
Journey Different ideas about a journey Destination
Mapping
Planning
New routes and plans
Change of direction

Figure 5.1 Breakdown of life is a journey metaphor

However I do feel that it is by the use of metaphors that we can explain

the ideas found in the data. Also it allows some strong images to be

formed by readers which tap into their experiences in order to allow true

individual understanding of my research to be formed. LeCompte and

Preissle (1993) argue strongly for the value of metaphor, simile and

analysis as a vehicle for exploring and explaining ideas presented in the

data.

Though the tool of metaphor analysis is not one which provides me any

value, the debate has allowed the emergence of a tool to aid the

description of the prior knowledge model.

5.3.8 Grounded Theory

Grounded theory is the most well known methodology for collection and

analysis of qualitative data. Its mass use in understanding qualitative data

provides me with many benefits, one of these being that there is much

support in literature for its implementation. On the other hand, this

popularity means that there are many interpretations of the same theory.

155
These interpretations and variations make it very difficult to ensure that

the process being used is essentially as intended by the core ideas

provided by the initial theory.

Glaser and Strauss’ (1967) seminal work defines grounded theory as “the

discovery of theory from data systematically obtained from social

research” (p. 2).

The aim of grounded theory is to consider the observations made and to

use them to explain or answer the questions posed by the researcher

which firmly places this methodology in the inductive paradigm for

understanding the world around us. The methodology aims to develop a

theory which meets four pivotal criteria – fit, understanding, generality

and control (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). The essence of grounded theory is

to try and make sense of the world in a systematic manner. In order to

gain a complete understanding of the meaning of grounded theory, I must

consider the meaning of theory.

Theory in sociology is a strategy for handling

data in research, providing modes of
conceptualization for describing and explaining.

(Glaser & Strauss, 1967, p. 3)

Theory is a comprehensive explanation of the phenomenon being

observed. This, in terms of grounded theory, is derived from the data

itself. In grounded theory, the role of the researcher is quite different

compared to the other analysis methodologies. The use of grounded

theory demands that the researcher is open minded with no preconceived

ideas, but has skills in the area being studied. Glaser and Strauss (1967)

156
define this characteristic as being “theoretically sensitive” (p. 46). It is

through this ability to be theoretically sensitive that discoveries or

understanding can not only emerge but also be recognised and developed.

Central to grounded theory is the maxim that the data shines a path to

the answer and understanding of the phenomena.

There are many stages to carrying out grounded theory. At this point the

methodology parts into different directions. The original process proposed

by Glaser and Strauss (1967) was modified further by Strauss and Corbin

(1990) resulting in two different approaches to grounded theory. There

are some key philosophical differences, summarised in Table 5.1.

Table 5.1 Key differences in grounded theory approaches (Onions,

2006, p. 8-9)

Glaserian Straussian

Beginning with general wonderment Having a general idea of where to

(an empty mind) begin

Emerging theory, with neutral Forcing the theory, with structured

questions questions

Development of a conceptual theory Conceptual description (description

of situations)

Theoretical sensitivity (the ability to Theoretical sensitivity comes from

perceive variables and methods and tools
relationships) comes from
immersion in the data

The theory is grounded in the data The theory is interpreted by an

observer

The credibility of the theory, or The credibility of the theory comes

verification, is derived from its from the rigour of the method
grounding in the data

A basic social process should be Basic social processes need not be

identified identified

The researcher is passive, The researcher is active

157
Glaserian Straussian
exhibiting disciplined restraint

Data reveal the theory Data are structured to reveal the

theory

Coding is less rigorous, a constant Coding is more rigorous and defined

comparison of incident to incident, by technique. The nature of making
with neutral questions and comparisons varies with the coding
categories and properties evolving. technique. Labels are carefully
Take care not to ‘over- crafted at the time. Codes are
conceptualise’, identify key points derived from ‘micro-analysis which
consists of analysis data word-by-
word’

Two coding phases or types, simple Three types of coding, open

(fracture the data then conceptually (identifying, naming, categorising
group it) and substantive (open or and describing phenomena), axial
selective, to produce categories and (the process of relating codes to
properties) each other) and selective (choosing
a core category and relating other
categories to that)

Regarded by some as the only ‘true’ Regarded by some as a form of

grounded theory method qualitative data analysis

Considering the synthesis presented in the table above, the Straussian

approach does not meet my criteria as it does not allow, due to the coding

paradigm it prescribes, the pure emergence of categories. There is

presupposition of what the data are going to show. The researcher is

already charged with some clear idea of what the coding structure will

entail. This does not allow for creativity in the discoveries made.

The best way to understand the minute but key difference between the

two approaches is to consider the role creativity plays in allowing the

emergence of theory. Looking at Karl Duncker’s (1945) candle problem

helps to distinguish the differences. You are presented with a candle, a

box of matches and a box of drawing pins, and are asked to place the

candle on the wall. At first, you may use the drawing pins to try and fix

158
the candle to the wall, or melt the candle via the matches, and eventually

you may come up with a better solution which is to empty the box of

drawing pins, fix the box to the wall and place the candle in the box. In

the Glaserian approach, there is no clear starting point and many

possibilities are explored until a solution is found. In the Straussian

approach, the problem is presented with the drawing pins already outside

the box, and with you already having some idea that the box may hold

the solution to the problem, thus reducing the need to try many

possibilities as an answer is obvious. This reduces creativity as it focuses

the researcher on one way of thinking which may prevent the true

discovery of theory. Also it depends on the researcher already having

formulated some ideas about the end outcome, maybe through reviewing

the literature.

In the Straussian approach, there is less freedom to be creative and to

really allow the data to say their own narrative. On the other hand, the

Glaserian approach is less structured and allows the researcher to be led

by the narrative from the data. It assumes that the researcher has some

knowledge or skills to consider and understand the content, but no idea of

how to formulate a theory which will explain the question being asked.

The researcher will discover the answer by using the constant comparison

method, unrestricted by what has been learnt before and being only led

by the data.

The main intellectual tool is comparison. The

method of comparing and contrasting is used for
practically all intellectual tasks during analysis:
forming categories, establishing the boundaries
of the categories, assigning the segments to
categories, summarizing the content of each

159
 category, finding negative evidence, etc. The
goal is to discern conceptual similarities, to
refine the discriminative power of categories,
and to discover patterns.

(Tesch, 1990, p. 96)

5.4 Selection of Analysis Methodology

So far, I have considered eight methodologies which fall into deductive or

inductive processes for understanding any phenomena. It is worth noting

that I have not considered all possible qualitative analysis methodologies

e.g. matrix analysis, event analysis, discourse analysis, semiotic analysis,

narrative analysis, and many others. It is of little value to consider these

methodologies as they are not extending the tools already on offer, but

are merely providing a different starting point for analysis, a different way

to consider the same data or are not applicable to my data.

The eight methodologies reveal the complexity of understanding

qualitative data. The common theme throughout all these analysis

methodologies is a set of generic stages for analysis. All the

methodologies advocate some form of collection, sorting, categorising,

making links between categories, leading to the outcome. However not all

methodologies provide adequate tools for all these stages.

The collection of qualitative data in evaluation is

common. However, knowledge about strategies
for efficient and defendable procedures for
analyzing qualitative data is less common.

(Thomas, 2006, p. 237)

Hence no single methodology will enable me to answer my research

question. This leads me to conclude that I need to use a blended approach

160
in the selection of analysis methodologies. If I accept the generic stages

for analysis together with the criteria for selecting the analysis

methodology (Section 5.2), then the eight methodologies are sufficient for

selecting and defining the blended approach.

Therefore I have selected Glaserian Grounded Theory together with

content analysis as the way to sort and categorise my data, identify links

between categories and answer my research question. These two

methodologies together meet the criteria set for selecting the analysis

methodology. Grounded theory supports the generic stages for analysis,

and content analysis supports the coding process by enabling the constant

comparison of data in order to fulfil the grounded theory approach.

5.5 Worked Examples of the Analysis

Process

In this section I am going to illustrate, through extracts from my

transcripts, how I have used the blended approach of content analysis and

grounded theory to analyse my data to answer my research question. I

have used grounded theory as the framework for the analysis and content

analysis to understand the meaning of each transcript so that the

resulting interpretations may be organised using the framework of

grounded theory. I have made no attempt to give the final outcome as it

is the focus of the next chapter.

This section is very procedural and descriptive. Alongside the process, I

have explained some of the choices I have made in interpreting my data.

161
In line with Glaserian grounded theory, choices have been led by the data

and the direction that these choices have taken. The detailed description

of the analysis process ensures that it is completely transparent and clear

in how the outcome is established, as being transparent will set the

context for the model being proposed. Furthermore this enables

reproducibility and applicability in a wider variety of contexts, or in

grounded theory terms – generality. Most importantly, going through the

steps taken and using actual data helps to tell the all-important narrative

of the research process.

The central premise of Glaserian grounded theory is that there is no

theory to verify, but for the researcher to be “generating grounded theory

is a way of arriving at a theory suited to its supposed uses” (Glaser &

Strauss, 1967, p. 3).

The starting point is not from any a priori assumptions. The blended

approach forces me to take a step back and look at prior knowledge de

novo and not be influenced by any meaning of prior knowledge pre-

established due to the common use of this term.

Figure 5.2 is a diagrammatic representation of my analysis process and

how it fits in with the data collection.

162
 Figure 5.2 Data collection and analysis process

5.5.1 Theoretical Sampling

As discussed, grounded theory is an open-ended analysis process and can

be implemented in many different ways. Grounded theory states that

analysis starts from data collection, as the data being gathered are

continuously interpreted by the researcher and shape the choices made

for further data collection and analysis. Glaser and Strauss (1967) term

this process as theoretical sampling.

Theoretical sampling is the process of data

collection for generating theory whereby the
analyst jointly collects, codes, and analyzes his
data and decides what data to collect next and

163
 where to find them, in order to develop his
theory as it emerges.

(Glaser & Strauss, 1967, p. 45)

Theoretical sampling allows the researcher to be creative and question the

data as they are gathered to arrive at a comprehensive understanding.

Therefore theoretical sampling can be seen as a method for formulating

live instructions for data collection; a guide for the direction to be taken to

ensure that the most suitable data is collected. This method of constant

analysis is in tune with how I develop my thinking. As a researcher, it is

impossible to gather data and not to start letting them influence my views

and understanding which in turn affects my data collection. The analysis

revealed the need for immediacy in shaping the data collection. Without

the responsive nature of theoretical sampling, I would be left with a static

understanding of a constantly changing phenomenon.

Theoretical sampling is a very organic and evolutionary process which

enhances and allows for magnification and analysis of data. The actual

data collection mechanism has been described elsewhere (Chapter 4) and

will not be described here again. Instead, I will focus on the key stages of

identifying events, concept development and categorising before the

ultimate stage of theory production, and how these stages influence and

nurture the overall data collection and theory development. When using

theoretical sampling, the overall data collection is determined as the

process is carried out. Therefore there is no indication from the outset as

to what the data set will look like and how much data will be needed. Only

the analysis will determine what is gained from the data and whether

more data are needed.

164
5.5.2 Analysis

Before seeing worked examples of my analysis, it is essential to define the

key terms used during the analysis process.

Events These are all incidents within lessons in which children are

engaging in mathematics. They are not labelled or defined.

They are just the identification of possible areas of interest in

terms of helping develop an understanding of prior

knowledge.

Concepts These are groups of events which have similar properties and

are similar in their function. Therefore any number of events

can be grouped to form concepts.

Categories This is further classification of ideas in order to start to

develop an understanding of how the ideas being considered

function. Number of concepts may function in a similar

manner or may be shaped by a similar force, and therefore

form a category. Developing categories may allow me to

understand not only how prior knowledge may be structured,

but also how it may function and formulate a model of prior

knowledge.

Memoing The annotations made throughout the data collection and

analysis to record my thoughts and ideas related to what I

was observing or analysing. These formed prompts when

later considering events, concepts and formulation of

categories.

165
5.5.3 Identifying Events

In order to analyse the data gathered, the constant comparison

methodology with the procedural mechanism of content analysis was

used. This allowed each recorded lesson observation to become part of a

larger trail of ideas. I started with each lesson observation and transcribed

it so that it would become easier to identify events, evaluate and

understand what is taking place when children are engaging in

mathematics. For me, the process of transcription was the first step in

analysis as I was listening to each part of the lesson in great detail. So I

tended to use this opportunity to consider the following general questions:

 What is going on in these lessons?

 What are the different situations that present themselves in these

lessons?

 What are the children engaged in?

 How are the children managing the mathematics they are being

asked to engage in?

 What are the children bringing to each mathematical task to

support their understanding?

These questions led to other questions, which in terms of analysis are

crucial:

 What are the key events that can help my understanding of prior

knowledge?

 Are there any groups or characteristics suggested by the talk taking

place within the lesson being considered?

166
 Figure 5.3 Identifying relevant events

The answers to these questions were dependent not only on what was on

the audio, but also on me being physically present in the classroom at the

time of recording and my notes (memos). The notes prompted and added

important context and depth to the analysis. When looking at the data at

this stage, I initially sorted the data and started to group them

conceptually. The transcripts of the lesson observations allowed me to

identify all events that may be relevant to my original question. Figure 5.3

shows the broad grouping at this very early stage of analysis.

I considered in the first instance all events that were related to

mathematics which occurred in a lesson. At this early stage there was a

mass of data all having some possible connections. The transcript extract

below shows the broad nature of the coding at this first stage. I simply

highlighted all conversations that had any mathematical content.

167
 Extract from transcript of fifth lesson by Mrs Helen Fellows at
Greenville Park Community School
Teacher: Estimate is a good guess … too many, too few, about, less
than, more than, roughly, those are the sort of words we
might use ok … two games to play today about estimation …
ok here is the first one … I have a number in my head it’s
between five and eleven … ok and to help me remember the
words we are going to use I am going to keep the key
vocabulary here
Child: I know what it is
Teacher: Put your hand up if you can estimate or have a good guess
which number I have got in my head … thinking caps on
Child: Between five and eleven?
Teacher: Correct … ok team Demi?
Child: Umm eight
Teacher: Ohhh less than eight … Wesley?
Child: Seven
Teacher: Spot on … thumbs up to Wesley … ok I am going to close my
eyes I’ve thought of another number … ok it is between five
and eleven … and I am going to use this vocabulary to help
you work out the number … would you put a teddy in the
teddy jar Wesley … that was spot on … ok Angel?
Child: Umm is it five
Teacher: More than … Richard?
Child: Is it six
Teacher: That’s too few
Child: I know I know four
Teacher: It’s between five and eleven so … too few … Amber ?
Child: Ten
Teacher: Ohhh thumbs to Amber she’s earned a teddy in the teddy jar
… well done … going to close my eyes ready to do it once
more cause you’ve got this one sussed very good … I am
thinking of a number umm right … I’ve got a number I am a
number I am between five
Child: Eleven
Teacher: Five and eleven … that was a very good estimate working it
out … ok can you give me a number please … Jenna?
Child: Sixteen
Teacher: Ohhh that’s too many cause the top number I’ve got in my
head at the moment is eleven
Child: You can’t get bigger

168
Teacher: Ok this is how we are going to play the game … I’ll say too
big too small sometimes yes
Child: Is it nine?
Teacher: Toooo many … Dominic?
Child: Eight
Teacher: Umm too many … Melissa good girl for having your hand up
Child: Is it one
Teacher: Too few remember we were stating the lowest number we
could have is five and the highest number we could have is
eleven … let’s choose someone else with their hand up Kya?
Child: Twelve
Teacher: Too many remember the highest number we are talking
about at the moment is eleven … Bethany?
Child: Six
Teacher: Spot on good girl put a teddy in the teddy jar … ok
Child: I was going to say that
Child: No you were not
Child: Can we count them
Teacher: We’ll count them in a minute … Bethany could you estimate
how many teddies we’ve got in that teddy jar?
Child: Umm twenty
Teacher: You think twenty we’ll see at the end of the session thank
you very much indeed … right the next game we’re going to
play is called pick a card
Child: Pick a card
Teacher: Pick a card and I am going to ask Mr Collins to choose
someone who is sat beautifully on their bottom and didn’t
shout out … to come and pick five cards from here
Teaching Assistant: Azaad
Teacher: Well done Azaad … I want five cards ok … come and pick five
cards
Child: You’re not allowed to look
Teacher: All right ok thank you … pick a card … thank you
Child: You are not allowed to look
Teacher: Shhh no peaking … I’ll huff and I’ll puff
Child: I can see em

169
Teacher: There we go ok shhh shhh … (long pause) … that one ok …
and we need one more … all right that’s lovely go and sit
down then … we’re going to play with only those cards and
I’ll just show you what is on the other cards … right just to
show you we’ve got spots on the other cards … I’ll show you
and you are going to guess … estimate how many spots there
are … ready … ok how many
Child: Five
Teacher: Oh that means that’s too slow I am showing you then …
that’s dead easy … right again
Child: Ten
Teacher: Ok right … now I am going to show you one of these cards
really quickly … and I mean just like (click)
Child: That
Teacher: And I want I would like you to estimate how many spots
Charlie
Child: It has got
Teacher: It has got … and I am going to write your estimations down
on the whiteboard … (whispers) … if you have a go at
estimating what you do need to do Kya? … (child puts hand
up) … thumbs up to Kya please … (stops whispering) … right
… are you ready
Child: I know what it is
Teacher: Haven’t shown you yet … right on your bottoms time to
Few children: Look listen and concentrate
Teacher: I think Jenna and Leanne need a bit more help come over
here Leanne come and sit by Wesley and Jenna come and sit
by Kya cause they are looking and listening brilliantly … quick
… right ok you have to look really quickly … and it goes like …
that
Child: Four
Teacher: Put your hands up don’t shout out … estimate Wesley
Child: Four
Teacher: Ok … ok … Dominic
Child: Four
Teacher: You think four Angel?
Child: Four
Teacher: Four ok
Child: It is four
Child: It is four I saw it

170
Teacher: Let’s have a look then … oh well done ready … let’s do
another one … I was going to try and catch you out here be a
bit mean
Child: He sawer it
Child: It is four I told you … I knew it
Teacher: Now it was quite easy to do that one … because it was in an
easy pattern
Child: Do a tricky pattern
Teacher: I might at the end do a tricky pattern … who is sitting
beautifully Angel … thank you let’s have a look … put your
hands up please Richard
Child: Seven
Teacher: Ok let’s put that there our estimation Angel
Child: Nine
Teacher: Nine
Child: I know
Teacher: Another estimation Gemma … (long pause) … not sure
Thomas?
Child: Eleven
Teacher: Eleven
Child: She thought that
Teacher: Another estimation Bethany?
Child: Umm six
Teacher: Six
Child: I know one
Teacher: Another estimation Umar?
Child: Ten

The next step was to consider what was important to leave out of the

analysis and why. Using the constant comparison loop revealed that there

were incidents appearing in the transcripts which did not support any

understanding of the way in which children were engaging in

mathematics, and hence the development of a theory. These incidents

comprised conversations linked to classroom routine or logistical

procedures such as instructions in relation to how children should move

171
about the classroom between areas of learning. Also any conversations in

relation to behaviour management were not included for analysis. The

transcript extract below shows what was omitted from the data set, with

the omissions highlighted.

Extract from transcript of sixth lesson by Mrs Jill Thomas at St

Paul First School
Teacher: Right can you move just a little way please … (long pause) …
there we are … come on Kaitlin and Jonathan B!!! … I want
someone to hold … have you nearly finished Evie? ok can you
hurry up and put your milk carton in the bin … come and join
us … thank you Evie umm I’ll have Jordan
Some children: He’s done it before
Teacher: You’ve done it before!!
Child: Yes
Teacher: All right we’ll get someone else then … come on Jessie
Child: She’s done it too
Child: No I haven’t
Teacher: Let me see … no she hasn’t … right now remember I am
going to say one number you have got to give me the
number that together with it makes … ten … (more children
come in) come in quickly
Child: Where
Teacher: There we haven’t started yet … right not yet not yet … we’ve
got to beat seventeen … in one minute … ok … right quickly
sit down Evie
Child: I think we can do a hundred
Teacher: I don’t think you’ll be able to do that many not with this …
because it’s only one minute … right … shh shh … ready
steady … shh … go seven
(Children shout the answer when asked)
Child: Two
Teacher: No … seven
Child: Three
Teacher: Yes nine
Child: Five
Teacher: No … nine
Child: One

172
Teacher: Yes five
Child: Five
Teacher: Yes ten
Child: None
Child: Oh I was going to say that
Teacher: Yes three
Child: Six … no eight … no seven
Teacher: Yes two … Jack?
Child: Eight
Teacher: Yes four … (long pause)
Child: Oh six
Teacher: Yes three Chris
Child: Seven
Teacher: Four … four
Child: Six
Teacher: Six yes six six
Child: Four
Teacher: Yes two
Child: Eight
Teacher: Yes four … (long pause)
Child: Oh six
Teacher: Good girl yes … three … Reece?
Child: Seven
Teacher: Yes seven … seven … Jack
Child: Three
Teacher: Yes five … five
Child: Five
Teacher: Yes ten … ten
Child: Zero
Teacher: Yes zero
Child: Ten
Teacher: Yes four
Child: Six
Teacher: Yes five
Child: Five
Teacher: Yes two … two … (long pause)

173
Child: We’ve run out
Teacher: Oh right stop … how many … five ten fifteen sixteen
seventeen
Teacher and some children: Eighteen nineteen
Teacher: Wow give yourselves a clap … very good and I think … I think
that we could improve on that score because at the
beginning … there were one or two children who were a bit
unsure so I think we can try and beat nineteen next time …
thank you Jessie
Child: I think we could get loads
Teacher: Thank you Kaitlin
Child: If every single one of us played then we
Child: Then we could get loads
Teacher: Yes but remember we’ve only got one minute … (long pause)
… you’ve only got one minute
Child: We could go faster … and quicker
Child: Can we practice now
Teacher: We’ll try it again later
Child: How much is a minute … this one’s got three we could use
that
Teacher: Well that one is three minutes but a minute is long enough
for what we want to do … all right then … (long pause) … now
we’re going to see … Brian what are you doing?
Child: Going there … he is shoving me

At this stage, I amassed a large set of events which were increasing

through the continuing data collection. There was no structure or pattern

to the events that I could discern at this stage. It was through the

collection and repetition of the analysis process of many more lessons that

a pattern began to emerge which allowed grouping of different parts of

the transcripts which were similar.

5.5.4 Creating Concepts

The complexity at this stage was figuring out how to be completely true to

the grounded theory approach which calls for the removal of oneself in an

174
attempt to be led purely by the data. However, as Charmaz (2007)

suggests, suspending one’s knowledge and experience is impossible and

often undesirable, especially as the researcher is investigating something

she is drawn to out of interest or experience. Therefore I have used my

experience of being in the classroom to support the analysis.

No effort should be made to put aside ideas or

assumptions about the situation being studied,
on the contrary, the researcher should draw on
previous knowledge and experience to
understand better the process under
investigation.

(Baker, Wuest, & Stern, 1992)

In addition, the analysis process was also given some direction and

orientation by the initial literature review supported by the recognition by

Glaser in relation to the use of literature where he stated that “all is data”

(2001, p. 145). Despite this availability of literature as an analytical aid, I

kept the key grounded theory principles of open-mindedness and

objectivity at the forefront. Hence the focus of my analysis was to

consider what the transcripts illuminated in terms of what children were

bringing to bear upon tasks. Furthermore I looked for the nuances and

tried to understand the subtlety of what was being expressed through the

transcripts, and was led by what the data were showing in terms of

understanding prior knowledge.

Alongside the event identification process described in Section 5.5.3, the

mass of events needed to be ordered into manageable groups which

would allow me to examine in detail what children really brought to bear

upon each mathematical task. In this section, I will consider stage by

175
stage how concepts emerged through the constant reviewing and

comparison of all events.

Figure 5.4 Initial sorting of mathematical events

Figure 5.4 shows the next stage in analysing the data. The dashed boxes

are from Figure 5.3, and support the identification of all possible relevant

events. Examining the transcripts closely revealed the different types of

responses and conversations that the children were having while engaging

in mathematics. These could be grouped into smaller manageable

concepts – group responses, short responses or lengthier responses. At

this stage, all the relevant events were put into these three concepts and

no event was left unsorted. It is important to note that as more data were

being generated, there was constant refinement through the constant

comparison process of which events were in each of these three concepts.

The data revealed events comprising responses given by children while

working as a whole class, mostly in the mental/oral starter section of the

lesson. I labelled these as group responses. The transcript extract below is

one such example from my data. Through closer examination and trying

176
to identify what children were saying individually, I made the decision at

that stage to omit all group responses from my data set as it was not

possible to clearly attribute responses to individual children. Furthermore

group responses tended to be responses which had been rehearsed (e.g.

the transcript extract below includes counting from different starting

numbers and counting odd numbers), and gave no hint in order to

understand the nature of prior knowledge of individual children.

Extract from transcript of sixth lesson by Mrs Rebecca Rice at St

Paul First School
Teacher: Can you shut this please … right … (long pause as the class
settles in) … shh shhh move up move there thanks … right …
let’s see if you can count for me from umm let me see ten to
eighteen please …
Most children: Ten eleven twelve thirteen fourteen fifteen sixteen
seventeen eighteen …
Few children: Nineteen …
Teacher: Oh you are not listening eighteen … can you count from umm
let me see … seventeen up to twenty-four
Most children: Seventeen eighteen nineteen twenty twenty-one
twenty-two twenty-three twenty-four … twenty-five …
Teacher: Uhh you’ve got to listen twenty-four … can you count from
nine toooo twenty-five
Most children and teacher: Nine ten eleven twelve thirteen fourteen
fifteen sixteen seventeen
Most children: Eighteen nineteen twenty twenty-one twenty-two
twenty-three twenty-four twenty-five … twenty-six twenty-
seven …
Teacher: (clicking all children) … right odd numbers from three up to
eleven …
Most children and teacher: Three five seven nine eleven …
Teacher: Jolly good odd numbers from one up to thirteen
Most children: One three five seven nine eleven thirteen

Another group of events were responses (correct or incorrect) where no

elaboration or explanation was offered by children as to how the child

derived the answer. I labelled these as short responses. The transcript

177
extract below is one such example from my data. All events labelled as

short responses could potentially offer some understanding of the child’s

thinking process, though at this early stage of the analysis it was not clear

what this understanding might be.

Extract from transcript of sixth lesson by Mrs Jo Fishily at

Greenville Park Community School
Teacher: Yes solid … yes … right now … what I want you to do first is
can you tell me what all these shapes are called? we’ll start
with the easier one what’s this one called?
Child: Rectangle
Teacher: What’s this one?
Child: Square
Teacher: Brilliant now it gets a little bit harder … so concentrate …
Child: Cube …
Teacher: Cube very good …
Child: Cone
Teacher: Excellent
Child: Cill
Teacher: Cylinder cuuub
Child and teacher: Cuboid
Teacher: And …
Child: Circle

The remaining set of events comprised responses where children gave

more detailed explanations and conversations to support their thinking. I

labelled these as lengthier responses. The transcript extract below is one

such example from my data (the highlighted sections are lengthy

responses of two different children – Damian and Rhian). This concept

formed the basis of majority of the focus for my analysis, and is

considered in more detail through the rest of this section.

178
 Extract from transcript of second lesson by Mrs Jane Marshall at
Argyle Common First School
Teacher: It costs two pence … If I wanted to buy three plants and they
cost two pence each how much would it cost? One flower
cost two pence how much would it cost to buy three
Child: Umm three … oh
Teacher: Jay?
Child: Three pence
Teacher: If they are two pence each I wanted to buy three …
Child: One pence
Teacher: Sharna can you help him out?
Child: Six pence
Teacher: Why would it be six?
Child: Umm umm well it’s … (long pause)
Teacher: Why six … Damian?
Child: Cause you know you’ve got three flowers if you’ve got two
lots … it is double three … you add another three pence on if
there was 1p it would be three pence on if there were 2p it
would be six pence because you are adding another three on
… cause if you had six plants all at one three would be at two
be same as three plants all at 1p
Teacher: Right so you have halved this number oh that is a bit of
tricky thinking … Rhian is there another was of working it
out?
Child: Well yes cause 2p is one more than 1p you can just figure it
out by counting in two up
Teacher: Right I could just count in two’s … ok I want three plants so it
would be two four six … so if one plant … is 2p all right …
that’s my one plant … there it is ok and I want to buy three I
am going to need another plant and another plant ok so I’ve
got
Child: 2p and 2p and 2p

The next step in the analysis process was to look at all the lengthier

responses. Through constant comparison of each of these responses and

looking at new relevant events being identified, I looked for patterns and

similarities which could be used to sort the large volume of lengthier

responses into meaningful similar groups to support further detailed

analysis and theory formulation. The data slowly revealed that among the

179
lengthier responses, there were different ways in which children were

responding to the tasks they were tackling. At this stage, I put these

responses into different concepts based on their similarities, as can be

seen in Figure 5.5.

Figure 5.5 Different subsets of lengthier responses

Figure 5.5 also shows how these concepts link with the previous step in

the analysis (represented using dashed boxes). Below are brief

descriptions and examples from transcripts to exemplify each of the

concepts within lengthier responses.

Responses with no explanations were related and similar to short

responses, in that children did give an answer, and when probed were not

able to give further explanation of how they were able to address the

question. Therefore these were considered and grouped together with the

short responses. The transcript extract below shows one such example

from my data.

Extract from transcript of fifth lesson by Mrs Jane Marshall at

Argyle Common First School
Teacher: Sorry three and what makes ten … three and what makes ten
… right let’s see … three there and four five six seven eight
nine ten … Elliott count both hands fingers on both hands …
show me … what am I going to add to three to get to ten …
Child: Seven

180
Teacher: Well done you’ve got it … right shhh shhh ready … ten
Child: Ten that’s no …
Teacher: Shhh … shhh … (long pause) … show me … (long pause) …
right you should have nothing cause you can’t add you’ve got
to ten already … right next one I am getting quicker … five
Child: Five and …
Teacher: Five and what makes ten? … (long pause) …
Child: That’s easy five …
Teacher: Yes five and five make ten … five and … show me how…
Child: Five and five make ten …

In the transcript above, the child did not give any further detail as to how

he arrived at the answer. When probed, he again only responded with the

answer. There is nothing in this interchange that would inform me further

about the child’s way of thinking. So I deemed this similar to a short

response, and grouped it as such.

Continuing the examination of the events revealed that there were a

group where children’s responses were negative to the task. In this case,

children either stated they could not do the task even with support, or

were not familiar with what was being asked. The transcript extract below

is an example from my data where the child stated that he could not do

the task.

Extract from transcript of fifth lesson by Mrs Jo Fishily at

Greenville Park Community School
Teacher: I’ll be there in a second … ok ready … right … now show them
Aiden … ok everyone write down their guess … under my
guess … let me see … you think seven and Martha says …
Child: I can’t do it …
Teacher: Have a go …
Child: I can’t do this …
Teacher: Have a guess …
Child: Six

181
Teacher: OK … right shall we count them now
Few children in group: One two three four five six seven …
Teacher: Seven … so in that box you write … seven … well done spot
on … Martha was
Child: Too less …
Teacher: One too few … and Aiden you were a bit too high … and you
did it …

In the transcript extract above, there is some understanding on the child’s

part that they are not able to do the task. But in this example, no reason

is given as to why – just that they were not able to do the task. All such

events were grouped together.

The other type of negative response which was noted in a few of the

events were children who expressed no familiarity or understanding of

what the task was and thus could not do it. The transcript extract below is

an example from my data where the child was not at all familiar with the

task involving quarter, half and whole turns, and needed much support.

Even after this, she found the task difficult.

Extract from transcript of sixth lesson by Mrs Rebecca Rice at St

Paul First School
Child: I don’t know what this is
Teacher: What don’t you understand?
Child: This one here …
Teacher: Right let’s have a look a minute … umm right can we all stop
a minute … we need to think about what strategies … what
ideas we can use to help us to find out what we … what ball
is going to go in the gap … ok so what is Anna doing to find
out where her piece … what was she doing with her jigsaw …
can that help …
Child: She was turning them

182
Teacher: She was turning them around wasn’t she Megan … so can
that help us figure out what we need to do … so let’s have a
look at this first one here … we want to know which one will
go here … so what you can do is if you get one of them and
put it on top exactly the same as the ball as the pattern if
you then … can you just watch for a second then you can try
it … if you then look at the next one and then turn yours
round to look at the next one … you can see if you have done
a whole turn … that is much easier now isn’t it?
Child: Umm
Teacher: Right so have I done a whole turn … a quarter turn or a half
turn
Child: A half turn … a whole turn
Teacher: A whole turn!! a whole turn would be this … look it would go
weeee … like this … weee … weee that’s a whole turn … ok so
let’s see half a turn … a half turn would do that … is that
right? is that about right?
Child: Ummm
Teacher: Is that matching … is that right … is that matching that?
Child: No
Teacher: No it’s not no that’s right … so start again ready all watch
again Robbie … turn it round like that a quarter turn … is that
matching now?
Child: Yes
Teacher: Yes that’s right so this first line is a quarter turn … so you’ve
only got to turn it a quarter turn … so I’ll put that on there
Robbie you can do a quarter turn for me … do a quarter turn
for me … go ahead I am watching … (long pause)
Child: What do I do?
Teacher: Well you need to make a quarter turn … so that is going to
go there … all right? … if we do another quarter turn … what
will it look like?

Analysing further events showed more patterns, one such being that in

order to carry out the task, children were recalling something from the

past. I labelled these as have done the task before. This recollection

spanned various timescales from the immediate based on what had just

been carried out to ideas from further back. Upon further examination, it

emerged that the nature of what the children were recalling varied in its

forms. Though children were recalling ideas, concepts or procedures, the

183
nature of what they recalled was very different. At this stage, any events

which had any recollection were grouped together. In the transcript

extract below, we can see an example of ideas that children are using

from previous maths lessons.

Extract from transcript of fifth lesson by Mrs Rebecca Rice at St

Paul First School
Teacher: Right well done ok … (long pause) … now I am going to add
something … what am I going to do? ok I’ve come down in
my spaceship and I’ve landed from the planet Zorb … and I
don’t know what to do … someone’s told me I’ve got to do
that sum and I don’t know how to do it … someone’s said
that I’ve got to put these two numbers together
Child: Easy … you told us before
Teacher: (long pause for writing on the board) and I don’t know how
to do it … who can put up their hand and help me … I don’t
want the answer yet … I’ve got to find out how to do it first
before I can find the answer … Isaac what have I got to do?
Child: Umm add it up
Teacher: I don’t know what add it up means … what do I have to get
the numbers and do this?
Child: No
Teacher: How do I add it up … it is a very funny word add
Child: I know
Teacher: Joshua?
Child: Put it together
Teacher: Put it together … ok umm it won’t go … (trying to push the
number on the board) … Georgina?
Child: Count your fingers … like we always do
Teacher: Count my fingers … one two three four five six seven eight
nine ten … (long pause children laughing) … Maisie
Child: Put three on one hand and two on the other one

Within the lengthier responses, there were also responses which were

intertwined with work that children had done as a small group or in pairs,

and this had supported the child’s understanding of the task and the

consequent response. I labelled these as worked with others. The

184
transcript extract below gives an example where Daniel explains to

Harvey why he is wrong and how he should perform the task. These

conversations were very different in nature to group responses which I

have discussed earlier and argued for omission. The key difference is that

these events were not whole class and clearly gave a greater level of

detail in how the interaction between children supported their

understanding. On the other hand, group responses were short responses

by generally the whole class to rehearsed ideas and therefore shed no

light on individual thinking or understanding.

Extract from transcript of seventh lesson by Mrs Rebecca Rice at

St Paul First School
Teacher: You are right you have got the same … umm (shouts)
everybody do this … everybody do this (clicking) shh
everybody do this (tapping her head) oh Hannah, Isaac,
Edward, (long pause stops shouting) I know you’re all
working extremely hard and I can see that green group are
enjoying their game … and I see blue and red group working
hard but we are far too noisy … (long pause) … we are going
to carry on working for five more minutes and this time I
don’t want to have to stop for the noise … I can’t hear the
children I am working with on the floor and they are right
next to me … whisper … right … (long pause) … Joshua you
say you’ve got six pence Charlotte’s got six pence you’ve got
the same amount of money haven’t you … what about you
umm Alex what do you think? have you got the same amount
as everybody else or have you got more money than
everybody else?
Child: The same
Teacher: The same as Joshua … has Joshua got the same amount as
everybody else then or are you richer than everybody else?
Child: We’re both richer …
Teacher: You’re both richer … why do you think you’re both richer?
Child: We’ve got more coins … look one two three
Teacher: You’ve got more money? Harvey’s got six pence … Harvey’s
got six pence Daniel’s got six pence … how much have you
got?

185
Child: No I have 3 [Harvey counts the number of coins he has – 2p
2p 2p – making 3 coins] and Daniel has 2 [Harvey counts 1p
and 5p coins as 2 coins]
Child: No look 1 … 2 3 4 5 6 that’s 6p [Daniel adds value of 1p and
5p to make 6p]
Child: But I have 3 … 1 2 3 [Harvey again counting the coins]
Child: No the numbers on it are 2 2 2 so 6 [Daniel asking Harvey to
use the value of each coin]
Child: Oh six pence
Teacher: Six pence … is that more or less or the same as everybody
else?
Child: Same
Teacher: The same … does that make you richer?
Child: Same
Teacher: What have Alex and Josh got more than everybody on the
floor?
Child: Coins

The last concept identified within the lengthier responses related to other

ideas that children brought to bear upon the task to support their

understanding. I labelled these as other ideas for tackling task. There

were a large number of events which showed that children were not just

recalling or giving responses, but were using some other experiential

ideas to support the understanding and eventual solution to the question.

The transcript extracts below are three such examples from my data

where children used the idea of cakes at their fête, a number track in the

playground, and a hundred square to support how they addressed the

question being asked.

Extract from transcript of seventh lesson by Mrs Jill Thomas at St

Paul First School
Teacher: Umm now we’re going to see how good you are at listening
and how you can try and work out the answers to these
number stories … you could use adding … or taking away so
let’s try … ready ok? … Ok let’s think I had ten cakes and I
ate three of them … how many cakes did I have left … Lucy?

186
Child: From the cake sale yesterday … but you were helping at the
table miss.
Teacher: Yes at the cake sale … I had ten cakes and I ate three of
them … how many cakes did I have left …
Child: Seven
Teacher: Seven good girl … I have five pencils … if I put five more in
my tin … five pencils in my tin I put five more in my tin how
many altogether Molly
Child: That’s my job to sort the pencils..
Teacher: Ok can we just work out the answer to the number stories …
I have five pencils … if I put five more in my tin
Child: It is ten that is how many you have in there now …
Teacher: How did you work out that the answer was ten?
Child: I can see them from here … hehe … we had to tidy up
yesterday … remember?
Teacher: You had five and you counted five more good girl … right I
had nine bananas if I gave three of them to my brother how
many bananas were left? … (long pause)
Child: My brother does not like bananas…
Teacher: Ok
Child: Six

In the transcript extract below, Jo has used the understanding she has of

moving on a snake in the playground to understand the question and

work out the answer.

Extract from transcript of sixth lesson by Miss Lora Hunter at St

Paul First School
Teacher: Let’s ask Jo to see if we can work out how to do this … Jo
Child: I got seven on the number line then hopped on three more
like I do on the playground snake on ten

In the transcript below, Peter points to the poster of the hundred square

in the classroom to extend his understanding of counting.

187
 Extract from transcript of second lesson by Mrs Jane Marshall at
Argyle Common First School
Teacher: Then this afternoon we are going to some umm maths again
like we did last week … all right a bit of a maths day today …
right start off let’s do some counting … let’s start at three
and we are going to count in tens ok so we all need to be
looking and sitting where we can see the board … ok are we
ready off we go
Teacher and most children: Three
Most children: Thirteen twenty-three thirty-three forty-three fifty-
three sixty-three seventy- three eighty-three ninety-three a
hundred and three
Child: We’ve run out
Teacher: What would come next? After a hundred and three … Devon
Child: Two hundred and three
Teacher: No that’s counting in hundreds counting is tens … look at the
clues three thirteen twenty-three a hundred and three …
Emily
Child: Two hundred and three
Teacher: No that’s counting in hundred Liam?
Child: A hundred and thirteen
Teacher: A hundred and thirteen … what would come next after a
hundred and thirteen? Jay?
Child: A hundred and twenty-three
Teacher: Thank you a hundred and twenty-three … what would come
after a hundred and twenty-three?
Child: Hundred and
Teacher: James hundred and thirty-three
Child: A hundred and thirty-three
Teacher: Brilliant next … Peter
Child: Hundred and forty-three … you can see it is the same [child
points to the number square on the wall]
Teacher: Excellent … ok
Child: I know what’s next hundred and fifty-three
Teacher: Just cos it’s not there doesn’t mean you can’t do it you’ve got
to use the clues all right … it’s our know one thing and get
another thing for nothing … ok six in tens off you go

So far the events have been analysed in the following manner:

 firstly into all the relevant events (maths and not maths);

188
  then into three broad concepts (group responses, short responses

and lengthier responses);

 finally events labelled as lengthier responses above were analysed

again individually and further sorted into concepts depending on the

nature of the responses into – responses with no explanations

which were regrouped with short responses; negative responses to

a task (which revealed that they could be grouped as tasks that

children expressed no familiarity with or stated could not do at all);

responses in which children expressed that they had done the task

before; responses in which children worked with others; and lastly

responses which used other ideas to tackle the task. The last three

concepts were complex with no cohesive understanding emerging,

and hence needed further analysis.

One unavoidable feature of the process is the messy cumbersome moving

of events from one pot to another. This stage of analysis has a lot of

critical theorising and testing of ideas in terms of how these concepts are

formed. The ideas and structure offered by theoretical sampling allowed

me to continue to collect additional data and use content analysis to

exemplify and further understand what was going on in terms of children’s

engagement with mathematics.

Comparison between the explanatory adequacy

of the theoretical constructs and these
additional empirical indicators go on
continuously.

(Draucker, Martsolf, Ross & Rusk, 2007, p. 1137)

189
As a result of this constant reviewing of data already gathered in

conjunction with sorting new data, the concepts developed in even greater

detail and it this that I will consider in the next step of analysis.

Figure 5.6 Granular concepts for have done the task before

Within the lengthier responses (as seen in Figure 5.5), there were many

events in which children were referring to how they understood the tasks

in relation to what they had already experienced of similar tasks (which I

labelled as have done the task before). Within these events, deeper

analysis further revealed that there were different aspects of past

experience that children were using to understand and respond to the

tasks they were being set, as can be seen in Figure 5.6. Below are brief

descriptions of each of these granular concepts illustrated with relevant

extracts from transcripts.

The first granular concept in Figure 5.6 (done before at school) relates to

all of the events which reveal that children are attempting tasks using

their past experience within work that they have carried out in school. The

transcript extract below shows that the way in which Jack was able to

tackle the question being asked was by remembering an exercise that he

190
carried out before in the classroom which supported his understanding of

2D and 3D shapes.

Extract from transcript of third lesson by Mrs Jo Fishily at

Greenville Park Community School
Teacher: Brilliant well done is that what you were going to say Hannah
… Everybody together …
Most children and teacher: Learning about 2D and 3D shapes …
Teacher: Right do that …
Child: We got this before when we did on those things [child waves
hands in a circle] before here on the carpet.
Teacher: Yes yes it was … put your hand up if you can tell me a 2D
shape … put your hand up if you can tell me a 2D shape …
uhh Jack a 2D shape
Child: It’s got to be flat

The next granular concept in Figure 5.6 (done before but not at school)

relates to all of the events which reveal that children are able to attempt

tasks based on their past experience outside school. In the transcript

extract below, the way in which Martha is able to understand and explain

the concept of addition is linked to putting sweets in a cup. This is not an

experience in school, but has supported her understanding of addition.

Extract from transcript of fourth lesson by Mrs Jo Fishily at

Greenville Park Community School
Teacher: That’s ok really don’t fuss … right you are fine … right sitting
up straight right Kealee … Megan what do we mean by
adding what do we do if we are adding?
Child: Adding on
Teacher: Say that once more please …
Child: Adding on
Teacher: What happens if you were adding what are you doing?
Child: Taking away a number
Teacher: Shhh Megan this time …
Child: Taking away …

191
Teacher: Let’s ask someone else … umm Martha do we do if we are
adding … you had your hands up nicely well done …
Child: We put two numbers together to make them bigger
Teacher: You know what Martha said we put two numbers together to
make them bigger … that is true Martha but you can add
more than two numbers we can add two or three or four …
Child: You know on a Friday me and Tom got sweets and put them
all in a cup and there are lots but only on some Friday and
that is lots
Teacher: Ok Martha can add more than two number
Child: Or ten

The next granular concept in Figure 5.6 (done in past) relates to all of the

events in which children are able to attempt tasks based on their past

experience, but are unable to recollect where the experience took place.

In the transcript extract below, the child has not given any more detail in

their answer as to how they know and interpret ideas being explored

other than that they have done lots of these before.

Extract from transcript of sixth lesson by Mrs Sally Crane at Hatton

First School
Child: A hundred a hundred and ten a hundred and twenty a
hundred and thirty a hundred and forty a hundred and fifty a
hundred and sixty a hundred and seventy a hundred and
eighty a hundred and ninety two hundred …
Teacher: I think we better give him a clap for that don’t you (class
clap)
Child: That’s good
Teacher: I think so yes … how did you know how to do it? how did you
know because the number aren’t there … for you to read
Child: Umm well umm
Teacher: Shhh
Child: Umm because umm it is just well it is a hundred and the rest
are down there so you go just go like a hundred and nine and
ten I have done this lots already so it is easy
Teacher: So the numbers are exactly the same aren’t they over a
hundred … it doesn’t matter whether they are over hundred
two hundred or three hundred it’s still ten twenty thirty forty
fifty sixty seventy eighty ninety a hundred …

192
The next granular concept in Figure 5.6 (linked to other people’s

influence) emerging as a result of further analysis of the transcripts was

the influence of interaction with other people that children expressed as a

trigger for remembering ideas which supported understanding of tasks.

Upon closer inspection of the events, there were two key groups of people

who influenced children’s understanding leading to this concept being split

into two further concepts – people in school and people outside school. I

could have left the concept at the stage of remembering as a result of

other people’s influence. However this would not have accurately reflected

the distinct difference between the influences that the children referred to

and were revealed in the data.

In the first transcript extract below, the child has used their experience

with someone from school i.e. the teaching assistant Mrs MacDonald, to

support her ability to add. In the second transcript extract below, Victoria

recalls having skipped with her child minder Charlotte as a way of

remembering odd numbers.

Extract from transcript of fifth lesson by Mrs Jennie Brooks at

Draycott First School
Teacher: Or ten you can do that but we are just going to do two … Yes
so Martha said you put two numbers together to make them
bigger … that’s adding … adding up numbers … right listen
right … write down on your board … ready Harry three …
write a number three … come along … write it three add two
add four … who can work it out for me?
Child: Mrs MacDonald told me before that it is nine

193
 Extract from transcript of seventh lesson by Mrs Sally Crane at
Hatton First School
Teacher: Now I just want to spend two minutes seeing if we can work
out and remember what we did yesterday with the odd and
the even numbers … can anybody tell me what the odd
numbers were that we looked at when we first looked at
them between zero and up to ten … which are the odd
numbers? Victoria?
Child: One three five seven nine
Teacher: Good girl that’s very good well remembered … yes let’s say
them together …
Child: I know all of them I skip with Charlotte and we count
[Charlotte is her child minder]

The final granular concept in Figure 5.6 (wrong before and now

remembered) relates to events which show self-correction from what the

children recalled and the mistakes they had made. In the case of the

transcript extract below, Megan self-corrects in relation to the units she is

referring to and also clearly understands that she has difficulty recalling

and using correct units.

Extract from transcript of sixth lesson by Mrs Rebecca Rice at St

Paul First School
Teacher: Oh we’re doing doubles Megan … so you’ve got seven in one
hand you are going to have …
Child: Seven
Teacher: Because a double is exactly the same number isn’t it? yeah?
so if I’ve got … oh it’s really really heavy … five hundred in
this hand … what am I going to have in this hand?
Child: Five … no no I know I keep forgetting the other bit …
hundred

In summary, all the granular concepts in Figure 5.6 are recollections of

having done something similar before, but are very different in nature

leading to the granular concepts that I have just described and illustrated.

However this did not account for all the events within the lengthier

responses.

194
 Figure 5.7 Granular concepts for worked with others and other

ideas for tackling task

The last two concepts under lengthier responses labelled worked with

others and other ideas for tackling task have been introduced earlier in

this section with some sample transcript extracts. However as the process

of analysis continued and events were being reviewed, it emerged that

these needed further filtering and separating into greater detail as there

were aspects within each of these concepts which gave further insight into

what children brought to bear upon the tasks they were performing. I will

now consider each of the three resulting granular concepts – some form of

model or image, different interpretations and child got wrong answer –

separately (Figure 5.7).

There were a group of events which highlighted that when children carried

out a task, they were using some form of model or image to support their

understanding. These were often complex and linked to how children had

understood the ideas originally. As there were many different types of

models or images that children were using, I was able to sort them

initially into crude groups such as in school and out of school, then

consider further what each of these were telling me about how children

195
approached the task. This content analysis resulted in the concepts shown

in Figure 5.8 below.

Figure 5.8 Granular concepts of some form of model or image

There were events where children used words to support the meaning that

they derived about the task at hand. As can be seen in the transcript

extract below, the child has linked to the word lose, in this case by

motioning to put pens in the bin, to understand subtraction.

Extract from transcript of sixth lesson by Mrs Jill Thomas at St

Paul First School
Teacher: You added three more … all right I think if we knew we had
ten to begin with … no I’ll leave that bit … I’ll leave that …
let’s think … I have got six …
Child: Six what …
Teacher: Six felt pens … if I lose three of them Jonathan how many
will I have left?
Child: Umm … (long pause) … can you say it again …
Teacher: I’ll say it again I had six felt pens if I lose three of them how
many will I have left?
Child: Put them in the bin [child makes a motion of throwing
something away] ok lost them … so they have gone away …
three

There were instances in the events which highlighted the use of objects to

support children’s understanding of the questions being asked. They also

supported the explanations that children gave to rationalise the answer.

196
In the transcript extract below, the understanding of counting in 5’s is

linked to the child’s image of a clock.

Extract from transcript of seventh lesson by Mrs Jennie Brooks at

Draycott First School
Teacher: No right what did you notice about the numbers you counted
and the numbers they counted
Child: (shouts out) I know they had the clock number and we had
the tens …
Teacher: Well done you mean they had the fives …

Continuing to look at a range of events, there were a cluster of events

appearing where children had used the images of people in various ways

to support tackling the task. However this was very different to the

previously identified influence of people (Figure 5.6). In that case, people

were a direct reminder of what they had done before. In this concept, the

events highlighted that people formed an image or model to support

understanding. The model being used in this set of events relies on people

within school and is referenced to school. In contrast, there were events

where children had linked their understanding of the task and how they

would answer it to people outside of school. In the first transcript extract

below, Mitchell is using the class and the daily routine of working out how

many dinners to understand counting on. In the second transcript below,

Josh is using the image of his father (a person outside school) to

determine the bigger number.

Extract from transcript of fifth lesson by Mrs Jane Marshall at

Argyle Common First School
Teacher: … eighteen and what makes twenty? you need to put
eighteen into our heads and count on until we get to twenty
… … (long pause) … I can see some people really wanting to
join in Mitchell what do you think … ?
Child: Two

197
Teacher: Can you show me how you did it?
Child: Umm twenty dinners [child points around the room] and
sometimes Jade and Poppy have sandwiches so I counted
back
Teacher: Counted back from where?
Child: Twenty dinners
Teacher: Right so can you do it so it’s …
Child: Two …
Teacher: Hang on Mitchell cause twenty’s got to go in your head … so
…
Teacher and child: Twenty … nineteen eighteen [child points to two
children as he counts] …

Extract from transcript of seventh lesson by Mrs Jill Thomas at St

Paul First School
Teacher: Let’s look at which number is bigger can you hold up with
your number fans the number which is bigger … 31 or 27…
(long pause) good Josh why do you have 31
Child: My daddy is 31 and he is big

As the events were being filtered through the different stages of sorting,

there were a range of events which showed that children use physical

places to support their understanding. Furthermore, the data led me to

subdivide these events into school and outside school. In the first

transcript extract below, Emily uses the classroom routine to help with

counting. In the second transcript extract below, the child uses the racing

game in his room to describe a shape with no straight lines as the answer.

Extract from transcript of fifth lesson by Mrs Jane Marshall at

Argyle Common First School
Teacher and few children: Nineteen eighteen seventeen sixteen fifteen
…
Teacher: Emily
Child: Fifteen
Teacher: Well done … roll the dice … right Emily … two … what number
am I going to put in my head to start with?
Child: Eighteen

198
Teacher: Why?
Child: We do that when we register and count the class
Teacher: Umm what number am I going to put in my head to start
with? Jay

Extract from transcript of sixth lesson by Mrs Jo Fishily at

Greenville Park Community School
Teacher: Corner wasn’t it? you said some of them have got corners
and some of them have got one smooth side … so which ones
got the smooth side? you tell me
Child: Rectangles
Teacher: What’s got one smooth curved side … no points no corners …
no what are these called?
Teacher: No stttraight sides … straight lines has a circle got any
straight lines?
Child: No …
Teacher: Right if you’ve so that shape has got no straight sides
Child: It’s got curvy line like this [child makes a swerving pattern] I
have that in a racing game in my room …

The last concept – similarity – refers to what has been seen in the task as

a very similar image for the child to one they have already developed. In

the transcript extract below, the teacher starts by developing an image of

a grid with the children to support their understanding of division. The

child towards the end of the transcript extract has linked this grid to his

understanding and the similarity between arrays and multiplication to

arrive at the answer for the division sum.

Extract from transcript of ninth lesson by Mrs Jane Marshall at

Argyle Common First School
[The class were doing division using a grid]
Teacher: What am I going to do now that I have drawn the grid … to
find the first number in my sum?
Child: Count the squares
Teacher: Good come on then …
Child: One two three four five six seven eight nine ten eleven
twelve thirteen fourteen fifteen sixteen seventeen eighteen

199
Teacher: Brilliant eighteen put an eighteen here Shannon one number
per square …
Child: They are like Mr Marshall’s eight
Teacher: Much better than Mr Marshall’s eight (laughs) he does two
circles that’s naughty … so what am I going to do next …
Henry what do you think?
Child: You need to put the divided sign
Teacher: Brilliant so it’s eighteen shared by … divided by … shared
between ok so what’s the next thing I am going to do …?
Nathan?
Child: Count down … umm (laughs)
Teacher: Count down ok
Child: Six
Child: You know this it’s the one on to that’s three and then you go
down there and there’s three on the top and then on the
bottom it will be six
Teacher: Ok what am I going to put next …
Child: Six
Teacher: Ok well done and what am I going to do find the answer
Child: Count the number across
Teacher: Ok
Child: Three
Teacher: Now excellent so now I’ve got eighteen squares altogether …
I counted how many down?
Child: Six
Teacher: And how many across?
Child: Three
Teacher: And that’s my divide sign my share between sign … but look
do you remember when you did it with grids to make it times
I counted down
Child: Yep
Child: I knew that sum all along … it was because I did a times
making eighteen … six times three equals eighteen …

As I continued with the constant comparison approach, there was another

pattern appearing in the data which was quite different to the concepts

discussed so far – have done the task before and some form of model or

image. In this case, it was the way in which children had interpreted the

200
tasks in that they were not using something they recalled or an image or

model, but in some sense translating what they were being asked to do. I

was able to sort these into granular concepts, as seen in Figure 5.9. Using

examples from the transcripts, I will now illustrate the nature of each of

these concepts.

Figure 5.9 Granular concepts of different interpretations

Sensory experiences were events in which children used their physical

experiences such as things they had done or seen or heard or felt to make

sense of their mathematics. In the transcript extract below, the child has

interpreted addition in terms of a physical act which is linked to his

experience of playing football. Removing the zero and adding a five is not

used as a model or an image in this case, but as a physical sensory

process which has helped him to address the need of the task.

Extract from transcript of eighth lesson by Mrs Rebecca Rice at St

Paul First School
Teacher: You know we did this before you do ten add ten and then
take away three it’s …
Child: Seventeen
Teacher: Ok so what is ten add five
Child: Kick the zero off like a football and put the five there … [child
brushes his hand and draws a 1 then moves the 5 in the air
next to the 1 he has drawn in the air] … fifteen
Teacher: Interesting … what were you doing
Child: Adding

201
Words were events where children were making their interpretations

based on the way in which they understood the words in different tasks.

In the transcript extract below, there is a literal interpretation of the word

up as the child has moved up the hundred square, and thus not been able

to complete the task. The hundred square does present a particular

problem in its layout as is illustrated here. The numbers go up in value as

you move down the hundred square, leading to the confusion experienced

by the child in the words used by the teacher to set the task. There is a

clear misinterpretation of the word up based on the child’s understanding

in terms of physical movement and how it is different to the movement on

a hundred square.

Extract from transcript of seventh lesson by Mrs Sally Crane at

Hatton First School
Teacher: Yes I know … now then let’s just you two turn round Jake
and Owain and look at the hundred square for a minute …
Ellie … now on here we’ve got all the numbers that we’ve just
been umm counting and we’ve got a pattern … if you
remember when we did a pattern of tens … last term we
noticed it was just one line didn’t it … now what we are going
to do is we are going to work out our pattern of fives and see
whether we can see something happening on our hundred
square … Ellie am I going to have to have you sitting by me
Child: But there is a spider on there
Teacher: All right ok we’ll put him outside now then let’s count first of
all let’s count in fives using the number square …
Child: Five ten fifteen …
Teacher: Right we’ve got to number fifteen I am going to put a circle
round number fifteen let’s count up another five ok
Child: I am off the hundred square.
Teacher: What do you mean?
Child: Look [child starts counting going up the hundred square from
fifteen to five as one count] … see no more space
Teacher: What number do we get to?
Child: Ten
Teacher: To ten ok …

202
Child: There is a spider there
Teacher: Never mind … now let’s see if we can count on … Oliver
another five … for me one
Few children: … two three
Teacher: Excuse me I said Oliver … come on Oli
Child: One two three four five …
Teacher: And what number do I get to?

Similarities were ideas and interpretations that children had already made

about other notions of mathematics and were applying them to new tasks.

Similarities refer to the ability to use related and unrelated known facts

and interpret them to support the task. In the transcript extract below,

understanding the similarity between 4 + ? = 10 and 14 + ? = 20 has

been used by this child to address the task. He has interpreted the two

possible ways of looking at the task as being similar in supporting the

outcome.

Extract from transcript of fifth lesson by Mrs Jane Marshall at

Argyle Common First School
Teacher: You were right weren’t you … seven … (long pause) … let’s
try this one? … (long pause) … fourteen add what makes
twenty? so you put fourteen in your head shhh … put it down
you can’t have number fans in your hands cause you need
them for counting … fourteen in your heads and count on till
you get to twenty … (long pause) …
Child: Mrs Marshall it is easy it’s …
Teacher: I’ll come to you in a moment I know what you’re going to say
… Liam?
Child: Umm six
Teacher: You are well on the ball now … you’ve got it haven’t you
Emily? … it is six Devon what are you going say?
Child: It’s changing the fourteen over to a four and then it’s easy …

The set of further events to fall into the concept of perceived challenge

are events where children have made their own interpretations as to the

203
nature and level of difficulty of a given task. In the transcript extract

below, the level of difficulty perceived by Emma has been done by

observing that the number ten contains two digits. Emma does not want

to attempt to consider possible answers as she has interpreted the task to

be of a higher level and difficult. This has stopped her from engaging in

the task.

Extract from transcript of seventh lesson by Mrs Rebecca Rice at

St Paul First School
Teacher: Good boy that is called reversing it isn’t it? changing it
around … (long pause) … so is that it? one two three four five
six seven eight nine … well done shall we do number ten the
last one … ok very very quickly then … tens Emily oh sorry
Emma …
Child: Umm … (long pause) … ten … that has two numbers so … it is
not the same … that is harder …
Teacher: Someone else have a try number bonds for ten
Child: Ten add nothing … (long pause) … ok James … ?
Child: Five and five
Teacher: Good boy!! that’s the double isn’t it … five add five fantastic
… Robbie?
Child: Zero and ten
Teacher: Zero and ten right that’s that one reversed …
Child: Six and four
Teacher: Six and four brilliant … (long pause) … Ella?
Child: Umm … (long pause) … four and six …
Teacher: Four and six that’s that one reversed well done …
Child: Six and eight
Teacher: Six and eight make fourteen … it’s a bit too big … (long
pause) … Joe?
Child: Three and seven
Teacher: Three and seven … Philip can you reverse that one for me
change that round
Child: (long pause) … seven and three

204
Nature and presentation refers to events where the way in which the task

has been set has influenced directly the way in which the child has

interpreted the task. In the transcript extract below, the initial

presentation of the task has forced the child concerned to make very

interesting interpretations in relation to the question being asked about

the value of money. The child brings to bear upon the task the idea that

ten pence have ten pennies squeezed into them, and this has caused

complications for further questions asked as the nature with which the

idea was presented instigated a particular interpretation of what value

means in terms of coins.

Extract from transcript of seventh lesson by Mrs Rebecca Rice at

St Paul First School
Teacher: (working with a small group on the carpet) … shh shh shh
shh shh shh you’ve worked really fast … with your number
bonds and we do a quick introduction on money then we get
to our tables and do our work ok … all right I am going to
hold up some coins and I want you to tell me what coin I’m
holding up if you can whisper so we don’t bother everyone …
(whispers) … ok let’s start off with that one …
Child: (whispers) One ‘p’
Teacher: A one ‘p’ that’s right a one penny piece … (whispers) … what
about …
Child: (whispers) Ten
Teacher: A ten penny piece … Philip thought it might have been a two
… why isn’t it a two?
Child: (whispers) Cause it’s silver
Child: (whispers) Cause it’s round
Teacher: Cause it’s silver Ellis? what colour would a two ‘p’ piece be
Ellis
Child: Umm brown and that’s a ten ‘p’
Teacher: How do you know it’s a ten ‘p’
Child: Cause the number
Teacher: Oh what number can you see Ellis?
Child: Ten …
Teacher: Oh very good does that mean ten bananas?

205
Child: No
Teacher: What does that mean … ten what?
Child: Ten ‘p’
Teacher: Ten ‘p’ so inside this … well not really but we could pretend
inside this ten pence someone in the shh factory has got ten
little pennies and gone uhhhgggg and squeezed them right
into that ten pence piece …
Child: Do they really do that … so how come it is silver?
Teacher: Well it is just pretend … it just means that this is the same as
having ten little pennies ok … shh right … let’s find that two
pence piece then here we are … here’s a two pence piece …
so how many little pennies are squashed into a two pence
Isaac?
Child: (long pause) … ten …
Teacher: Ten pennies?...
Child: It is big and you can squash ten pennies
Teacher: Try again Ellis
Child: Two
Teacher: That’s right two pennies have been squashed … right here is
a very very tiny coin which always get caught in the corner of
my purse … so I can never find them … what is this …
Child: A five
Teacher: A five pence piece … that’s right … this is a five pence piece
… Isaac how many pennies is a five pence piece worth … ?
right if I said to you I’ll give you pennies we’ll do a swap how
many pennies would I give you to give this to me?
Child: Five
Teacher: Good boy … five … what about this funny shaped coin?
Child: Twenty
Teacher: Well done Charlotte … it’s a twenty pence piece … you’re
quite right … a twenty pence piece and how many pennies
are squashed into this Isaac?
Child: It is very small so I think … five pennies

Within the concept have done the task before (Figure 5.9), there are a

number of events which were attributed to having done a similar task

before and therefore needed further unravelling as there was already a

detailed mechanism for considering in depth what such events revealed.

206
They were considered through the have done the task before pathway

discussed earlier in conjunction with Figure 5.6.

Figure 5.10 Granular concepts of child got answer wrong

The last cluster of events were events where children got the answer

incorrect (Figure 5.10). In the process of analysis, I left all such responses

initially to one side as it was not clear what they would have to offer. But

as the analysis process continued and I examined these events closely, it

was evident that there were a number of events where children were

confident in what they were saying and did not know that they were

incorrect. These could be further explored depending on the nature of the

explanation through the different pathways already mentioned. There was

another group of emerging events in which children had a clear idea of the

error they had made and what this error may have been. These events

could also be filtered through the same pathway as any of the other

events had been for the lengthier responses. It was not important to the

understanding of prior knowledge whether children got the answer right or

wrong, but more important was to understand the journey that the child

had made to gain their own understanding. Using the transcripts to listen

207
to children and how they established their understanding was key to

making sense of the data.

As with any research, an important question was when to stop the

analysis process for my research. This is a very simple problem to solve. I

stopped analysing data when no more new concepts were being formed.

As I progressed through the analysis, each new transcript contained many

new events but these fell into the same established concepts. Therefore

the only purpose being served through greater analysis was an increasing

volume of events, but no new understanding. After analysing 46

transcripts, there was no new information being gained through the data

and therefore theoretical saturation had been reached.

Additional analysis no longer contributes to

anything new about a concept. In this way, the
resulting theory is considered conceptually
dense and grounded in the data

(Schwandt, 2001, p. 111)

In order to pull all of these threads of analysis together, it is important at

this stage to look at where we are. The constant comparison method,

which encourages reflective and analytical thinking, supported the sorting,

analysing and rationalisation of the data into concepts. Many different

events ended up at the same point, thus forming concepts and ideas of

how and what children were using to support their understanding and

tackling of mathematical tasks. The process was refined many times and

the paths presented here are a result of these stages of refinement. It

should be possible, using these paths, to take any new event from the

classroom and define the path it takes to reach the endpoint of a

208
particular concept. At this stage of the analysis, I was able to sort all of

the transcripts ensuring that each event has been placed into a concept

which could not be refined any further, and all the events in any endpoint

concept have the same features. Now we need to understand the role that

these endpoint concepts play in defining prior knowledge.

Table 5.2 List of endpoint concepts

Response with no Not familiar Cannot do it

explanation

Done it before in Done it before but not Done it in the past

school in school

People in school People outside school Was wrong before and

have now remembered

Words Objects School

Outside school Sensory experiences Similarity

Perceived challenge Nature and

presentation

Thus far, the process of analysing the transcripts has been done using

content analysis to dictate where they should be grouped. I have relied on

my experience in the classroom to interpret and to some extent identify

these concepts. This is consistent with the discussion at the start of this

section that within grounded theory, the researcher can use her

knowledge to guide the analysis process. I next considered each of the

events within a concept and across concepts to determine if these

concepts could be grouped and labelled to attain a best fit description of

what my data were suggesting in order to understand prior knowledge

and how it may function within an individual.

209
5.5.5 Developing the Model

This section will consider all the endpoint concepts (Table 5.2) and how

they support the emergence of categories for the structural and functional

understanding of prior knowledge. To understand what each of the

endpoint concepts was revealing about how children were dealing with the

tasks presented, it was essential to consider the commonalities,

differences and characteristics through constant comparison to allow the

nature of prior knowledge to emerge. This was achieved by looking at

each group of concepts and assessing them based on the following

criteria:

 What are the common properties, if any, in each of these concepts?

 Should these concepts be combined?

 Do the data show that there is interdependency between concepts?

 Do the data show any interaction between concepts?

Having many disparate concepts did not allow understanding to be gained

in a comprehensive manner as to what was taking place when children

were attempting tasks. So far, from careful listening to children, it has

emerged that children bring many factors in order to address how they

approach a task. Also different children did not bring the same methods to

support their understanding, but a variety of mechanisms as can be seen

by the concepts developed. At this stage, it was important to see if there

is any pattern in these concepts to try and establish a working framework

of what constitutes prior knowledge. There is a need to begin to describe

what is taking place in each of these concepts, since at present they are

210
just a collection of common events. Analysing the function of each

concept, and giving a label to concepts which have commonalities will

support description and allow further exploration of ideas in terms of

understanding prior knowledge.

When looking at all the data, the dominant commonality which ran

through each event, and thus all concepts, was the notion of recollection.

Children were recollecting from memory what they needed to address

each of the tasks. This can be seen in the transcripts in the previous

section. E.g. in the transcript on page 178, the child is able to respond to

the question without any support, thus recollecting from memory; in the

transcript on page 179, the child is working out using various stages and

is supported by what he is recalling to complete the task set. There is

dependency upon memory in each event identified in the analysis process.

Through the data, it has emerged that there is a difference in the nature

of what is being recalled with each task and therefore it is important to

describe each of these concepts through the use of a shared common

language. Being led by the data, the formation of the emerging prior

knowledge model has two key steps:

i. To look for common patterns between concepts through use of the

criteria posed earlier and to formulate categories (groups of related

concepts) to allow understanding of prior knowledge to emerge.

ii. After establishing the categories, to describe and explore them in a

way that supports understanding of prior knowledge.

Using the process of comparing the characteristics of each concept, I was

able to group concepts and to start describing what was taking place. The

211
evidence from listening to children as to how they were understanding

and developing methods to deal with tasks was being revealed. In order

to see how categories emerged through comparison of concepts, I am

going to consider in detail how one category was established.

First, I considered all the events within the concept cannot do it, two of

which can be seen in the transcript extracts below.

Extract from transcript of fifth lesson by Mrs Jo Fishily at

Greenville Park Community School
Teacher: I’ll be there in a second … ok ready … right … now show them
Aiden … ok everyone write down their guess … under my
guess … let me see … you think seven and Martha says …
Child: I can’t do it …
Teacher: Have a go …
Child: I can’t do this …
Teacher: Have a guess …
Child: Six
Teacher: OK … right shall we count them now
Few children in group: One two three four five six seven …
Teacher: Seven … so in that box you write … seven … well done spot
on … Martha was
Child: Too less …
Teacher: One too few … and Aiden you were a bit too high … and you
did it …

Extract from transcript of sixth lesson by Mrs Jo Fishily at

Greenville Park Community School
Teacher: Cylinder … right can you put your hand up if you notice
anything about what is left on my white board this morning …
Jack … what do you notice about what is left on my white
board [the question put on the board was 9+3 =11 children
were asked to consider the question] this morning cause
you’re talking … (long pause) … what do you notice Jack?
Child: Umm I don’t know…it’s too hard… I don’t know…
Teacher: Make a guess
Child: I don’t know
Teacher: Right anyone help … Jack right Hannah what do you notice

212
In these two transcript extracts (the first transcript extract was also seen

earlier on page 181), the children have decided that the task is too

difficult or beyond their ability, and as a result have made none or limited

effort to address the task. They are unable to recollect any approach that

may support them in addressing the task. The perceived level of difficulty

is based on their inability to recall ideas to help address the task or to

decipher the question. This on its own does not give any further

understanding of prior knowledge other than the obvious conclusion that

there are tasks which children find incomprehensible and therefore make

a limited attempt to solve.

Secondly, when carrying out comparison between the characteristics of

this concept and the remaining concepts, commonalities emerged

between cannot do it and perceived challenge. The two transcript extracts

below comprise some of the events analysed as the latter.

Extract from transcript of first lesson by Mrs Jo Fishily at

Greenville Park Community School
[Children are using a 100 square playing various games]
Teacher: Right who could roll the dice for me? … then we’re gonna
move the button … that many times ok … we’re going
forwards … counting … Josh would you like to roll? just stay
where you are, stay where you are and see if you can roll it
onto the floor … oh what’s it landed on?
Some children: (shout) Six
Teacher: Right, who can put their hand up and guess where I’m going
to have to move button to? … uh let me ask somebody with
their hand up … Louise
Child: Six
Teacher: Yeah, shall we see if you are right? Can you count with me?
Some children: One two three four five six

213
Teacher: Good girl Louise, right … (whispers) who can roll the dice this
time? … (normal) shh … let’s have Kealee can you roll it onto
the dice onto the snake, ready? … ok … oops pass it to
Kealee … ok don’t worry, you’re gonna have your own dice in
a minute if you don’t get a turn now … ooh … what’s that
landed on?
Some children: (shout) Four
Child: Easy … are we going to get to play this today?
Teacher: Yes four (child makes a fist and punches the air with a smile)
… right put your hand up if you can work out already where
my blue bead’s going to be? … let me ask somebody with
their hand up … let me ask Aiden
Child: Worked it out already its ten …

Extract from transcript of seventh lesson by Mrs Rebecca Rice at

St Paul First School
Teacher: Good boy that is called reversing it isn’t it? changing it
around … (long pause) … so is that it? one two three four five
six seven eight nine … well done shall we do number ten the
last one … ok very very quickly then … tens Emily oh sorry
Emma …
Child: Umm … (long pause) … ten … that has two numbers so … it is
not the same … that is harder …
Teacher: Someone else have a try number bonds for ten

In the first extract, we see that the way in which Aiden approaches the

task is dependent upon the level of ease that he perceives the question to

have, which in this case is positive and easy. In the second extract (part

of this extract was also seen earlier on page 204), Emma has approached

the task with a preconceived notion based on her experience that a two-

digit number will make the question too difficult for her to attempt.

Though these two concepts are very different – cannot do it is a clear

statement from children without any explanation or detailed

understanding of what they cannot do or why; perceived challenge is an

indication of the level of ease or difficulty with which the child perceives a

task which then calibrates the attempt that children make – they both

214
have a common dimension in the approaches that children are using to

determine the outcome in terms of the level of effort they put into a task.

In order to describe what is going on, there are two key factors – first the

individual, and second the level of motivation that is derived by the

individual when interpreting the task at hand. These two factors are

apparent in both concepts and common to both concepts. Therefore, I

have grouped them into the category individual motivation. This label best

describes the characteristics of the two concepts in that the dominant

factor in how and what is being recalled is linked to the level of motivation

that the individual feels as a result of looking at the task.

Within these two concepts, there were many other events which were

similar to the examples quoted above. All the events are related to how

the children were motivated by their view of the task. It could be argued

that these events are about how children are perceiving the task, and

these concepts should be grouped with other concepts which show

different interpretations of the tasks made by children based on

perception, e.g. words, objects, or similarity. However when comparing

the events within the concepts where children’s perception of the task is

also considered, as can be seen in the transcript extract below (which was

analysed as belonging to the concept objects), the clear difference

identified is that in this example the child’s thoughts are not structured by

their perception of individual ability, but by how they relate the task to the

object ribbons. Therefore events within the concepts of cannot do it and

perceived challenge are very different in nature to events within the

concepts words, objects and similarity, as they are reliant upon the

motivation derived from considering the task itself.

215
 Extract from transcript of first lesson by Mrs Helen Fellows at
Greenville Park Community School
Teacher: It is the shortest piece … but why don’t you think it is the
shortest? … why have you got a different idea Katie?
Child: Because it is longer than that piece
Teacher: It’s longer than which piece Katie?
Child: This
Teacher: Good girl … even though it’s a short piece it is longer than
others so this one must be the shortest … Mr Collins and Pam
could you be the stands for the washing line for a minute? …
John … does it matter that the washing line has moved?
Child: Yes
Teacher: Have ribbons gone any different sizes?
Child: Yes … look that one looks shorter now….
Teacher: Have we cut any off?
Child: No
Teacher: No have we put any in the bin?
Child: Its washing it got small in the wash… so now it is smaller.
Teacher: So let’s check a minute who’s sitting really beautifully … Kurt
can you tell me which is the shortest? … can you pick
someone to find which is the shortest? … we can measure it
in… in … what
Child: Ruler
Teacher: Not quite what do we call this measure?
Child: Meter

In order to allow for common understanding of all these concepts, I have

applied a best-fit label for groups of concepts which have similar

properties. The collection of concepts were analysed by using this

constant comparison method for all of my concepts. I identified similarities

and common properties across them and derived eight categories which

described what children were bringing at the point of tackling tasks. The

categories are abstraction, acculturation, cognition, context,

individual motivation, metacognition, perception and social group.

The mapping from concepts to categories can be seen in Table 5.3 below.

216
 Table 5.3 Mapping from concepts to categories

Concepts Categories

Nature and presentation Abstraction

Sensory experiences

Done before at school Acculturation

People in school
School

Response with no explanation Cognition

Not familiar
Done in the past

Done before but not at school Context

Cannot do it Individual motivation

Perceived challenge

Was wrong before and have now remembered Metacognition

Words Perception
Objects
Similarity

People outside school Social group

Outside school

Having considered all the concepts using the method described above,

and assessing them for commonalities and differences, I have organised

them into the eight categories listed earlier. The eight categories are

interlinked, and are all linked to the central category of memory. This

concludes the description of the analysis process, and the next section

examines the ethical considerations arising from the analysis process.

217
5.6 Ethical Considerations

A multitude of ethical considerations were taken into account in the

analysis of the data, as per the ethical guidelines for educational research

from the British Educational Research Association (2004). The process of

using grounded theory and content analysis to analyse my data raises

some key ethical issues, which have also been identified by Lincoln and

Guba (1985a) in relation to qualitative data analysis – credibility,

transferability, dependability, and confirmability of the data. Described

below is how I have addressed each of these in my analysis process.

Credibility of the data was established by spending prolonged time (i.e.

regular visits over one whole academic year) in each classroom. This

allowed me to become oriented to and appreciate the nature and culture

of each of the classrooms. A further benefit was that it allowed me to

blend into the classroom and ensure that teachers and the children felt

comfortable with my presence. This consistent presence meant that, as

debated in Section 4.2.3, I was an “observer-as-a-participant” (Gold,

1958, p. 217) and the frequency of my visits to the classroom ensured

that I blended into the culture of the setting and allowed me to gather

data in its truest form. Also by asking teachers to review the transcripts, it

allowed them to establish that I was interested in portraying the truth and

establishing accuracy.

Transferability is important in ensuring that the data gathered has scope

in wider understanding. I have achieved this by using what Lincoln and

Guba (1985a) call “thick description” (p. 125). Thick description entails

218
giving a detailed picture of the data and context that allows any reader to

be able to completely place themselves and understand the positioning of

the research. The ideal way in which this could be achieved is to report all

data as recorded with as many points of reference which allow us to build

an accurate picture of the context in which the data were gathered

without any alterations to the data presented. However this directly

contradicts the need for anonymity of the participants and settings. I

settled this dilemma in my research by choosing carefully how I

anonymised my data. E.g. the revised names for the teachers were

chosen to be culturally identical to their actual names in order not to

change the nature of the possible picture that may be established by the

reader. The school details presented in Section 4.2.1 and Appendix A were

altered to ensure that they could not be identified while keeping intact the

actual nature of the schools. Furthermore the data to be presented as

findings were done so with the focus on providing a clear and full picture

of the points being considered and in no way to identify the school,

individual teachers or children. I aimed to provide the data in as full a

form as possible so that readers could come to their own understanding of

what the data are showing and how, so that they may, if needed, use the

outcomes in their own practice.

Dependability during the process of analysis is achieved by revisiting ideas

and concepts constantly. As shown in Figure 5.2, there was a constant

process of checking and comparison to ensure that interpretations made

against new data were consistent and could be repeated. The process of

theory generation requires repetition of the sorting and concept forming

process. The data in my research were analysed, sorted and compared

219
many times in order to ensure that the interpretations made of the data

were in line with all the data collected. Grounded theory procedures force

me to ensure, through the constant comparison mechanism, that there is

dependability in the outcome.

Confirmability requires me to be as neutral as possible and ensure that

there is no bias in the process of analysis and complete traceability in the

use of data. Though clearly I am interested in looking to gain an

understanding of prior knowledge in the mathematics classroom, this in

itself leads to a bias in terms of which aspects of the data I will be

considering as not all data collected would be of use. However in the

process of collecting the data, I was clear to my participants that I was

looking at only the interactions relating to mathematics within the lesson

and also ensured that they were constantly aware of the developing

theory. Furthermore, through the initial meetings with the participants, I

shared my research perspective, beliefs, values and position in relation to

the research I was carrying out. Also I shared with them some of my

ontological and epistemological assumptions, and how these have led to

the methodology selected for the research. In terms of my analysis

process, I have maintained complete traceability from my raw data (i.e.

transcripts) to events to concepts to categories.

5.7 Summary

There were two great challenges in this chapter. The first was to select an

appropriate methodology from a range of qualitative data analysis

methodologies to support the understanding and development of prior

220
knowledge. The selected methodology had to meet a set of criteria which

were established from the outset. The second challenge was to explain

how the data were analysed through the methodology selected and any

ethical considerations arising out of the analysis. I explored different ideas

provided by dominant paradigms for analysing my data and found a

blended approach which suited the criteria – an approach which used

content analysis to understand what was being said and grounded theory

to order, structure and support formulation of a theory.

This chapter has been procedural in merely giving the instructions for

developing the partial model, and not the model itself. These instructions

are not prescriptive, but are descriptive to help understand the broad

range of data being considered, how sense is made of these data through

theoretical sampling, and use of constant comparison as it is consistent

with the principles of grounded theory. Through the use of examples from

transcripts, I have illustrated the process of how I carried out the actual

analysis which has resulted in the partial model established from a range

of contributory elements presented in the next chapter.

221
222
 6 PRIOR KNOWLEDGE MODEL

6.1 Introduction

This chapter explains the overall outcome from the research and analysis

carried out for this thesis. I am going to define this entity that I am calling

prior knowledge, and present the structure of my partial prior knowledge

model which has emerged from my data, looking at its form, function and

key features.

I will look at my model from its core to its periphery, looking first at the

individual categories (or elements) that have emerged through the

analysis of events and concepts, then considering how all of these

categories link together and function, finally exploring a possible structure

for prior knowledge. The individual categories are not considered in any

particular sequence as they do not have any order or hierarchy within the

partial model. I will define my model starting with the central category of

memory and then the three categories –acculturation, context and

metacognition – which emerged strongly in my data. For each of these

categories, I will first examine its theoretical underpinning by presenting a

thumbnail of the extensive work carried out by generations of researchers

in that area. For each category, I am fitting the understanding of the

category into existing theoretical frameworks in order to give an

overarching picture of the links between my category and theory. This

theoretical perspective is followed by my own definition of the category

illustrated empirically using numerous extracts from the transcripts.

223
Furthermore, I will look at five other categories which are also emerging

through the data – abstraction, cognition, individual motivation,

perception and social group. These will be discussed in a similar structure

as the first three categories, but in far less depth.

It is important to note that the proposed eight categories cannot be

claimed to be a definitive list of features of prior knowledge, but can only

be a partial model which has been established through the range of

contributory elements in the context of my data. Though the description

of my partial prior knowledge model is linear due to the limitations of the

presentation medium (this paper-based thesis), the actual prior

knowledge model itself is complex and multi-dimensional.

6.2 Memory

6.2.1 Theoretical Perspective

Research into memory and how it functions is extensive and broad. As far

back as Plato and Aristotle, thought has been given to how we were able

to learn, build our understanding and make links with what we

experience. There are a number of disciplines and views on what memory

is and how it functions – biological, psychological, social and cultural.

Though there is much complexity in the form and function of memory and

many subtle definitions, overall memory is about the retention,

reactivation and reconstruction of experiences. Memory contains two

components – the behavioural or conscious level, and the underpinning

physical neural changes – which impact on what is recalled, or in very

simplistic terms, encoding, storage and retrieval (Dudai, 2007).

224
 The word “memory” is misleading. Being a
single word, it creates the impression that it
refers to a single entity. ... Memory is not
unitary. There are many dimensions along which
different types of memory can be classified.

(Yuret, 1995, p. 1)

On a simplistic level, all types of memory are influenced and built upon

through experiences and the construction of ideas through these

experiences.

‘Memory’ labels a diverse set of cognitive

capacities by which we retain information and
reconstruct past experiences, usually for present
purposes.

(Sutton, 2010)

Of greater interest, how is the information organised and developed in the

brain or how is memory modified? My data suggest that there is no

consistent method or logical process to the organisation of ideas.

A picture of interlocked systems have started to

emerge that support human memory function.

(Yuret, 1995, p. 9)

6.2.2 Definition

For the purposes of my prior knowledge model, the function of memory in

its elemental form, defined earlier as a mechanism for retention,

reactivation and reconstruction of experiences, is adequate.

Emerging from my data, the first noticeable link between all events

identified through the analysis was that children were recalling

information from their memory to support them in their mathematical

225
tasks. Every event relied on some form of recollection from memory.

Therefore the central category for my prior knowledge model is memory.

The question to consider next is – what are the factors that are shaping

memory – as whatever is modifying memory shapes what children bring

to bear on each task, and I am calling this prior knowledge. The data

show that there are many different ways in which children solve similar

mathematical tasks. They do not consistently use one method to manage

the tasks they are being set. That is to say, data did not reveal a

consistent element or process which children are recalling to tackle similar

tasks. This leads to the conclusion that not only is memory modified and

constructed with each task, but also that there are some forces

influencing this reshaping as can be seen in Figure 6.1.

Elements of prior knowledge

influencing constantly change the
shape of memory

Memory
Different aspects of
memory are drawn
upon to achieve the
outcome of the task

Figure 6.1 Forces influencing memory

6.2.3 Empirical Evidence

Below are some examples from my data which show a range of events

and how they all depend on what children are able to recall.

226
 Extract from transcript of fifth lesson by Mrs Jane Marshall at
Argyle Common First School
[Children working with number fans]
Teacher: Show me … good right let’s just have a think how did we
work it out six and what makes ten … how can I work it out
Henry?
Child: Umm I am not sure … if you know five and five makes ten
then one less one is six
Teacher: Right right … I see … um Emily ?
Child: I worked it out
Teacher: How?
Child: Umm get six and go like this … [child uses her fingers] … you
can put six in the air and count on four

Extract from transcript of fifth lesson by Mrs Jane Marshall at

Argyle Common First School
Teacher: Right close up your fans Mitchell come on … what can you tell
me about five and five Emily?
Child: It’s a double
Teacher: What about this one … (long pause) … eighteen add what
makes twenty?
Child: Oh I know
Teacher: I don’t want to know the answer but who can tell me a way
of working it out … can you put it on the floor please … a way
of working it out … Devon
Child: What you can do is take the one off the end and umm take
the two and put it in the box … and then you’ve got the
answer
Teacher: Where did you get the two from sweetheart?
Child: The twenty?
Child: Yes

227
 Extract from transcript of third lesson by Mrs Jill Thomas at St
Paul First School
Teacher and few children: Let’s start by counting in one’s … one two
three four five six seven eight nine ten eleven twelve thirteen
fourteen fifteen sixteen seventeen eighteen nineteen twenty
twenty-one twenty-two twenty-three twenty-four twenty-five
twenty-six twenty-seven twenty-eight twenty-nine thirty … I
think some of you are asleep this morning … there were
some children who were not joining in there were some
children not sitting properly so let’s sit up straight … right
just look at the person who is sitting next to you just and
just check they are awake you don’t need to say anything to
them … just look and check that they are awake and let’s
count up to thirty once more everyone joining in ready
Teacher and most children: One two three four five six seven
Teacher: Stop being silly
Teacher and most children: Eight nine ten eleven twelve thirteen
fourteen fifteen sixteen seventeen eighteen nineteen twenty
twenty-one twenty-two twenty-three twenty-four
Most children: Twenty-five twenty-six twenty-seven twenty-eight
twenty-nine thirty
Teacher: Well done right we are going to count in two’s from four to
sixteen … ready
Teacher and most children: Four six eight ten twelve fourteen sixteen

Extract from transcript of sixth lesson by Mrs Rebecca Rice at St

Paul First School
Teacher: Now get your fingers show me ten fingers and take away two
… (long pause child counts)
Child: (whispers) one two three four five six eight nine
Teacher: No count them again you’re nearly right … ten put your
fingers up for me like this … shh shh take two away … and
how many are standing up nice and tall? count your fingers
Child: One two three four five six seven eight
Teacher: Good boy well done … eight … double four makes?
Child: Eight
Teacher: Double three makes
Child: Six
Teacher: Double two makes
Child: Four
Teacher: One and one makes
Child: Eleven…..oh no… silly me it’s two

228
The small sample above is representative of the whole data set and shows

that children’s memory is a key feature of the prior knowledge that they

bring to each mathematical task. The transcripts also show that children

had very different recollections while engaged in mathematical tasks. Also

children changed what they were using to address each task, with such

changes, at times, occurring during the task.

The data showed no consistent pattern in what was being recalled or used

by children on similar tasks. This lack of consistency suggests that

children are drawing on different aspects of their own individual unique

memory to support each task.

The fourth transcript above reveals that children’s memory is changing

shape and is different to how it was at the start of the task. This discovery

in itself is not ground breaking, as constructivists would argue that we

build our understanding of the world and our knowledge by constructing,

changing and modifying the memory store we have. However it is ground

breaking that my data reveal eight elements that shape memory. The rest

of this chapter will focus on each of these elements in turn.

6.3 Context

6.3.1 Theoretical Perspective

As the data were analysed, a significant number of events emerged in

which children were relying on some models or images to understand the

task. Within these, there were events which relied upon experiences which

specifically took place outside of school and formed a framework to help

229
interpret the task. These all had some commonalities such as physical

spaces and objects that allowed children to comprehend the task.

In order to understand how these (physical spaces and objects) contexts

support children with their mathematical tasks, I must consider research

around the concept of context in mathematics and develop a definition

which helps to understand the data. As events were sorted, the

commonalities which were present were the use of physical spaces and

objects outside of the school. These spaces and objects, or contexts,

outside of school supported children to understand and unravel the

demands of their mathematical tasks. By using the context, children were

able to contextualise the problem which they were attempting. The

contexts which were expressed by children were part of their individual

reality and experiences, were present prior to the task being attempted,

and were drawn upon to understand the demands of the task, thus

forming part of their prior knowledge. The role of context as a conduit to

making meaning was a strong element of the data collected. It is

important that some reflection on context is carried out. There needs to

be a thorough examination of the role that context plays and why it forms

part of prior knowledge.

Examining the research during the process of analysis allowed me to

evaluate and focus on events which demonstrated a clear presence of

context. Research considers and defines the role of context within primary

mathematics in two ways – one view being the framing of mathematical

questions in a real-life context to aid understanding; the other view being

the environment in which learning takes place. Both these perspectives

230
need to be examined in order to evaluate the understanding they brought

to the events in my data.

It is only by considering our present understanding of existing research

that we can layer new understanding as revealed by the data. Evaluating

the data will allow for a definition to be determined and develop an

understanding of context as a facet of prior knowledge and its forms and

functions within prior knowledge. Therefore looking wider than my data

set initially allows me to consider what the concept of context means in

common understanding of the mathematics classroom within current

literature.

One understanding researchers have is to consider context within

mathematics as an enabler for the development of understanding.

We define “context” as the situation in which the

problem is embedded. The main role of the
context seems to be that of providing the
problem solver with the information that may
enable the solution of the problem.

(Borasi, 1986)

This perspective considers context as a way to pose mathematical

problems to children, where the development of the context is in the

control of the teacher. This is seen within the primary classroom as a way

to frame questions within a narrative.

The practice of embedding school mathematics

into some “real” context supports learning.

(Sullivan, Zevenbergen & Mousley, 2003, p. 109)

231
This embedding of a context within mathematics when asking questions is

often an attempt by the teacher to link with the children’s prior knowledge

to support rationalisation of the questions being posed. Teachers

sometimes lead the formulation of context and make assumptions about

children’s prior knowledge. If the context implied by the teacher is also

part of the child’s prior knowledge, then it supports easy understanding of

the task. On the other hand, if the child is not familiar with the context

being implied by the teacher, then the child will try and interpret the

context based on their own prior knowledge, thus hindering understanding

of the task. Therefore contexts used and reflected by the children are an

insight into the world of the child and where they are placed in their

understanding of mathematics.

In the transcript extract below, this is a mismatch between the teacher’s

expectation of what children’s prior knowledge is in relation to the word

pattern and their actual experience. For Chris, a pattern is a pictorial

representation of a repeated pattern on paper with some understanding of

numbers that appear while counting in 2’s. On the other hand, the teacher

expects the children to be able to relate the word pattern to numerical

sequences.

Extract from transcript of ninth lesson by Mrs Jill Thomas at St

Paul First School
Teacher: Well done when we are counting in two’s … who can tell me
something about the pattern for counting in two’s … what is
the pattern for counting in two’s … Chris?
Child: Pattern? … like a wavy line … I was doing that at home … you
know I had 4 colours and made four lines at the same time …
you get to 4 when you count in 2’s
Teacher: Not a wavy line … try again … what is the pattern when we
count in two’s?

232
Child: Ummm … it’s like this … [child puts dots in the air]
Teacher: No I would like you to think what is the number pattern when
we count in two’s
Child: Two four six eight ten …
Teacher: That is right … we do say two four six eight ten … what do we
call these numbers … Jo?
Child: They are all even … they’re all even numbers
Teacher: That’s it … the pattern when we count in two’s is that they
are all even numbers

Furthermore Cooper and Dunne (1998), through their research into how

social class affects children’s approach to mathematical tasks, also argue

that this contextualising of mathematics may create a layer of complexity

for students in that the experiences that children bring to school may not

be reflected in the contexts used by teachers to frame tasks. At this

juncture, it is vital to consider why this may be the case and question the

use and deployment of contextualisation which causes this difficulty. Also

what can be done to aid children when mathematical tasks are set in a

real-world context to support understanding. The paradox is that teachers

use a set of contexts in asking questions while they are not aware of the

individual’s prior knowledge and therefore cannot predict how the context

will be interpreted. Therefore the use of context to support children in the

mathematics they are engaging in often seems an arbitrary tool which

does little to develop understanding. Furthermore my data support this in

that they show children’s efforts to use the context in which the

mathematics is framed requires them to realign their understanding. They

first link the embedded context to their existing contextual experience.

They then process the questions by reframing them for themselves as

there is not always a perfect match between the external context used

and the internal contextual lexicon or the children’s individual prior

233
knowledge. This can be seen in the transcript extract earlier in this

section.

Children have their own internal contexts that have been developed

through their experiences which form a part of their prior knowledge.

They use these contexts to understand and make meaning of the

mathematics they are engaged in. Their individual contexts form a sort of

translator for what is being presented to them within the classroom, that

of context being an internal narrative which supports understanding of

external structures that are used to frame mathematics. Thus context

within my model as revealed by the data is this internal tool which allows

children to make sense of the external processes of mathematics.

I would further argue that this layer of complexity is there due to the

teachers’ lack of awareness of children’s own personal contexts and

experiences, thus requiring children to decode not only the mathematics,

but also the contextual information provided by the teacher. Therefore

children’s engagement with the mathematics is hindered through the use

of teacher-led contextualisation. Considering this area of research has

proved useful in two ways – one which clarifies the way in which the term

context is currently used; the other which offers a path to linking this

understanding to what the data are revealing, that of children using

teacher-led contextual framing in a variety of ways. This is due to a

mismatch as discussed earlier in understanding children’s experiential

base.

The other understanding of context has been developed by the work of

Lave (1988) and Walkerdine (1990) when they consider the effects of the

234
environmental context upon the ability of individuals to perform

mathematical tasks. By this they mean the physical spaces in which

mathematics is situated. This body of research suggests that there is a

connection between the procedures and skills used by individuals to

perform a mathematical task and the individual’s situated context while

carrying out these tasks. One of the ways in which individuals approach

mathematical tasks is influenced by where they are physically situated.

The studies further go on to show that there is a difference in the way in

which children approach mathematical tasks in different environmental

contexts and physical spaces. This implies that, in some form, the physical

space influences the way in which children interact with the mathematics.

The interesting question is why or what is it about the space that

influences the relationship between the mathematics they are given and

the way in which they approach it. The data from my study show that

children layer their interpretation of what is being asked upon the

narrative that they have formulated from past contexts.

In the transcript extract below, Nathan is using his experience of clearing

a table as a way to understand repeated subtraction to support the

calculation being asked. For Nathan, the concept of division is linked with

the idea of the table and counting in pairs while removing objects.

Extract from transcript of fifth lesson by Mrs Jane Marshall at

Argyle Common First School
Teacher: Brilliant so it’s eighteen shared by … divided by … shared
between two … ok so what’s the next thing I am going to do?
Nathan?
Child: Count down … umm (laughs)
Teacher: Count down ok?

235
Child: Eighteen, sixteen, fourteen … [child does the action of
removing things from the table]
Teacher: Why are you counting down?
Child: Clearing the table … you take two things away at a time …
Teacher: Can you explain?
Child: Take two away each time to know how many you can share

Each child has an evolving relationship between the different contexts in

which they have experienced mathematics and their interpretation of

these experiences which are shaped by different factors such as setting.

Lave’s “Adult Math Project” (1988) illustrated this interrelation between

individuals and settings, concluding that the physical context instigated

choice in the mathematical process used. Therefore it is reasonable to

conclude that in part it is the spaces that individuals have interacted with

that influence the way in which they attempt a given task. Also that

context is not just the physicality of the experience, but also the way in

which experiences have shaped understanding. Data revealed that

children approach tasks with their own sense of context, having engaged

with something they see as familiar, and therefore constructing their own

meaning of the mathematics they are given based on the nature of their

personal contextual lexicon. Also as it is present before the task and used

to rationalise the task presented, we see that different personal, social

and physical environments have a different effect upon the way in which

children carry out mathematical tasks.

In the transcript extract below, the child has seen the clock face in a

similar position and related it to her sleeping time (based on seeing the

moon on the clock) and thus can read it again with ease. However when

asked how she worked out that it was seven o’clock, she was not able to

236
explain in any detail where the hands of the clock should be to represent

on the hour. So her ability to solve this task was dependent upon and

fixed within her memory of the clock she has at home.

Extract from transcript of tenth lesson by Mrs Jennie Brooks at

Draycott First School
Teacher: What time does the clock say now?
Child: Ooh ooh I know that is easy … it’s the time I go to bed … 7
o’clock
Teacher: How do you know it says seven o’clock … can you tell the rest
of the class how you worked that out?
Child: I have a clock in my room and there is a moon on the
number 7 and it means bedtime … so I know it is seven
o’clock

My data not only support both perspectives described above, but also

allow us to understand the reasons why children demonstrate different

approaches to similar tasks. There is an interlinking of the contextual

experiences that children bring to a task and the way in which these direct

their thinking, making context a crucial element of how children are able

to carry out mathematical tasks. Children formulate their own unique

understanding of the task by using their own experiential contexts. It is

these contextual experiences which are an amalgamation of both the

physical contexts, thus in line with Lave’s findings, and the links between

number and the experiences children have which creates an individual set

of contexts for every situation that each child faces. Therefore within prior

knowledge the notion of context is neither the physical nor the

conceptual, but more the remoulding of the two to provide a unique lens

through which tasks are interpreted.

237
6.3.2 Definition

In my prior knowledge model, my data show the importance of the

meaning that children are bringing to their mathematical tasks using in

part their experiences of and in physical spaces (e.g. parks, roads, playing

in the garden, eating dinner in the kitchen, etc.) and how these have an

influence upon the conceptualisation and comprehension of mathematical

tasks. This element of prior knowledge is what I call context.

Children use their seemingly unconnected contextual links to help answer

questions. The way in which children use and manipulate the external

context is influenced by their internal contextual map. Within the data,

there is a complex weaving of how prior knowledge is made up and one of

the crossovers is that of contextual experience within school and outside

of school. Having teased out the relationship between children’s

experiences of context and how this may influence what they are able to

bring to bear upon mathematical tasks, data show that there is distinction

between the way in which context within school and context outside of

school influences children in their approach to mathematical tasks.

Emerging through the data are two aspects of children’s contextual

experiences – one of these being the formal experiences of school

(acculturation which will be considered in Section 6.4); the other being

informal experiences outside of school. Therefore context, in terms of

prior knowledge, is a distinctive feature which is not shaped by

experiences linked to formal educational settings. From this, context is a

key part of prior knowledge and is defined as the amalgam of all

contextualised experiences children have had outside of school which they

238
draw upon to support the understanding of mathematics by allowing them

to view tasks through the lens of previous contextual ideas which have

been rationalised.

Therefore my definition of context, as I define it here, does not include

school, playground or any other areas connected with formal educational

settings such as forest school areas or nurseries as these comprise the

prior knowledge element of acculturation (see Section 6.4). When

analysing the data, it emerged that children referred to and used context

in very different ways to understand the questions being asked, thus

leading to context forming a distinctive part of prior knowledge.

6.3.3 Further Empirical Evidence

When I consider the transcripts below, the data show that in order to

understand a task, children search for ways to make meaning. One

mechanism that they rely upon is to search for similar situations that they

have been in before physically.

In the first transcript, Rowena has used the idea of playing snakes and

ladders to achieve the mathematical task. It seems that for her, somehow

memory of how to take away five from eight is inextricably linked to her

past experience of playing a game. Part of the structure of her prior

knowledge is influenced by the sensory and emotional experiences that

she has had in the context of playing snakes and ladders.

The data show that it is not a simple connection between spaces and

mathematics, but a wide variety of ways in which the contextual

experiences children have shapes their memory and therefore forms an

239
element of prior knowledge that they bring to support their tasks. Looking

further into this extract, we notice that in order to be able to perform the

calculation, Rowena relies upon understanding gained from the playing of

snakes and ladders and has an image from the physicality of moving up

and down the board which has formed part of her prior knowledge.

Extract from transcript of first lesson by Mrs Sally Crane at Hatton

First School
Child: Eight take away five leaves us with
Teacher: Hang on … eight … I can only write that fast … so you think
it’s eight take away
Child: Five
Teacher: Eight take away five right
Child: Gives us
Teacher: Shh shh let Rowena finish the whole sum if she can eight
take away five equals
Child: Three
Teacher: Three that’s brilliant … why … did you how did you know
that? … how did you see that … why did you think that? …
you’re right
Child: Because you know I play this game snakes and ladders at
home and in that you go up and down

The images formed in Rowena’s mind of the snakes and ladders board has

been drawn upon while looking at a task in school. Thus for Rowena, the

context of snakes and ladders has supported her in addressing the

mathematical challenge. Therefore Rowena is drawing on the context

developed within her prior knowledge.

In the following transcript, the child’s experience of physically standing in

circles has allowed them to develop their understanding of the nature of

shapes. This understanding is further enhanced by the ideas of how a

point on a triangle may feel. Children’s understanding of shapes and their

240
properties depend on the many different contexts in which they have

already seen these shapes. This knowledge is not built up by simply

showing children pictures of the shapes, but the many different

experiences that children will have had up to this point which supports

their development of a set of personal definitions about shapes. In order

to fully form prior knowledge for this child, the physical context has been

merged to form a new context through which some understanding of

shape has been developed. This is one of the mechanisms used by some

children to develop personal definitions of each area of mathematics.

Extract from transcript of second lesson by Mrs Rebecca Rice at St

Paul First School
Teacher: Ah but there is one shape that has less corners than the
triangle … which one is that?
Child: You can’t stand in any corners in a round… it just goes round
and round like in the park … [child makes a circle in the air]
Teacher: Circle … because how many corners has that got?
Child: None
Teacher: None … so you are quite right the triangle has less corners
than the square and the rectangle but it’s got more corners
than the circle … another difference
Child: If the circle balloon falls on the pointy bit it will pop
Teacher: That’s quite right if the circle balloon fell on top of the
triangle it might pop … shh … shh the balloon would pop …
what other differences can you see? … what about this shape
here? I can see some differences between this shape and this
shape … Isaac
Child: The rectangle has got more … longer … it’s a bit squashed …
a bit longer that way a bit ummm … like the TV
Teacher: So the rectangle’s got longer sides top and bottom than what
… the square … yes if you look at the square top and bottom
they’ve got short sides top and bottom … whereas the
rectangles got long sides … what about the ends of the
rectangle … Megan?

The child needed to refer to the TV as a way to allow the explanation of a

rectangle to make sense. We can extrapolate from this that their prior

241
knowledge of shapes (rectangular) is of a TV and the child draws upon

this context to develop further understanding.

In the third transcript, Aiden has used the context of home to solve the

question asked. He is able to use the idea of having done this at home to

support his understanding of what is being asked.

Extract from transcript of first lesson by Mrs Jo Fishily at

Greenville Park Community School
[Children are playing a game of snakes and ladders as a
whole class the counter is on 6 and the dice is rolled again]
Teacher: Yes four (child makes a fist and punches the air with a smile)
… right put your hand up if you can work out already where
my blue bead’s going to be? … let me ask somebody with
their hand up … let me ask Aiden
Child: Worked it out already its ten …
Teacher: Ooh how did you work that out Aiden, how did you know?
Child: Cause um I always works out my number at home
Teacher: What did you think in your head though so that you knew
that answer?
Child: Um cause um I knew it was um cause I know the number

Though not able to explain in detail how the understanding is formed,

there is some rudimentary recognition of the fact that Aiden is drawing

upon experiences that have been informed by the context of home –

again the contextualisation is forming part of prior knowledge.

In the next transcript, Paul has used his experience of various road signs

to understand and answer his question. There is reliance on physical

contexts of how children are forming understanding, and this

understanding is then being referred to when engaged in mathematical

tasks.

242
Extract from transcript of second lesson by Mrs Rebecca Rice at St
Paul First School
Teacher: You are super stars aren’t you … right over the next three
days we’re going to be looking at shapes … now you’ve
already looked at fat shapes haven’t you? shapes that we call
3D … and this time we are going to be looking at flat shapes
… shapes that we call 2D … the sort of shapes that we draw
on pieces of paper like those ones ok … Paul … shh … shh …
James … Paul could you tell me what that shape is called?
Child: It’s the same as the sign outside on the road where the man
is digging
Teacher: Good what is the name of that shape?
Child: Umm … triangle

In the final transcript, where the children are asked to find a missing

number, Hannah relates it to her experience of playing hide-and-seek in

the garden to understand how to find missing numbers on a number line.

This prior exposure to other ideas has an impact upon the methods that

children can draw on to approach their tasks. These transcripts show that

children are drawing upon these past experiences in different contexts to

enhance their understanding of the present situation.

Extract from transcript of second lesson by Mrs Jennie Brooks at

Draycott First School
Teacher: Nooo … Holly now what’s the matter? … can you move she
can’t see? … Holly what’s the matter with my line now? …
shall we count it?
Child: One
Teacher: Nooo … zero
Child: Zero one two three four five six seven eight
Teacher: What
Child: Eight is hiding
Teacher: Is that eight? … Holly where’s eight? … can you see it?
Child: It’s gone
Teacher: Oh Hugh … has it gone? … Hannah where’s eight?
Child: I like playing hide and seek yesterday in the garden we
played that and then I found Jo … (child scans through to
look for number eight) there is eight. I am good at that.

243
I argue through the data that context and its influence in modifying

children’s memory form a key facet of the overall prior knowledge that

children use to develop their understanding of mathematical concepts.

The use of context to support understanding is limited by what the

children are familiar with and exposed to in terms of context. When

considering individual prior knowledge, we must include the context that

forms this prior knowledge and furthermore understand that context

within prior knowledge is made up of many different external experiences

which have been reshaped by the individual to formulate an evolving

model or image to support new understanding. Without context, prior

knowledge would not be complete as the physical experiences that

individuals have shape the tools they bring to understanding the

mathematical tasks presented.

6.4 Acculturation

6.4.1 Theoretical Perspective

Throughout the data analysis, another recurring theme was the noticeable

reference by children to having done the task or aspect of the task before

in a formal educational setting. Also there were some interpretations

given to tasks which could be linked directly to having engaged with it in a

specific manner before with formal instruction. These events were

distinctively different to context, encompassed within which were external

non-school contexts which children were using to rationalise the task. A

category to emerge is one where all events are related to individual

244
understanding of mathematics linked to formal education settings. It is

this that I have labelled as acculturation.

Much of the research on acculturation is based within the context of

multicultural integration and how individuals cope with the cultural, social

and psychological impact. Cabassa (2003) defines acculturation as “the

social and psychological exchanges that take place when there is

continuous contact and interaction between individuals from different

cultures” (p. 127). Berry (2005) states that “acculturation is the dual

process of cultural and psychological change that takes place as a result of

contact between two or more cultural groups and their individual

members” (p. 698). The definitions above can be used to explain events

that emerge where children bring their influences based on their prior

formal educational experiences and are now becoming accustomed to the

culture of the current setting.

Every child in every society has to learn from

adults the meanings given to life by his society;
but every society possesses with a greater or
lesser degree of difference, meanings to be
learned. In short, every society has a culture to
be learned though cultures are different.

(Levitas, 1974, p. 3)

We could argue that all schools and teachers have a way of thinking which

varies and is dependent upon the cultural values and demands of the

school and challenge the notion that all teaching of mathematics is carried

out in the same way. As Nickson (1994) states, the culture of the

mathematics classroom is “the invisible and apparently shared meanings

245
that teachers and pupils bring to the mathematics classroom and that

govern their interaction in it” (p. 8).

These definitions have some bearing upon my research in that they

emphasise that within primary schools, each classroom has its own

culture, with different classrooms in the same school having different

cultures by the virtue of being constructed by individuals who are

different.

First, we argue that teachers and students

together create a classroom mathematics
tradition or microculture and this profoundly
influences students’ mathematical activity and
learning.

(Cobb, Perlwitz & Underwood-Gregg, 1998, p. 63)

When considering classroom traditions and learning about mathematics in

the classroom and in wider society, fundamental questions are raised

about how children acculturate. I use the term acculturation and not

enculturation as they are distinctly different. My data show that there are

clear efforts made by both the teacher and the child to assimilate and

change to come to a common cultural position which is defined as

acculturation, that is the working of two cultures to adjust together. On

the other hand, enculturation implies that teachers support and shape the

way in which the children fit within the classroom culture which is not

influenced by the children (so it is a one-way process from teachers to

children). The data show that both children and teachers have made

efforts to understand the influences of prior knowledge, and in this case

the aspects of prior school experience, to support understanding of

246
mathematical tasks, hence to acculturate. However, in my analysis, I have

focused on the acculturation process of children.

In the transcript extract below, we see that Caitlin is using a previously

established routine for calculating a difference that she has used

previously in mathematics to support how she attempts the current task.

Extract from transcript of seventh lesson by Miss Lora Hunter at St

Paul First School
Teacher: What is ten and one more … when you’ve found the answer
get your number fan at the ready … when you show me ten
the one comes first and then the zero … Caitlin’s got nine
what did you do Caitlin?
Child: I used my fingers and … like with Mrs Jones [Mrs Jones is the
class teaching assistant]
Teacher: You counted on your fingers … can you show me how you did
it?
Child: I had this many [holds up 10] and then I closed one…
Teacher: You had ten … then why did you close one
Child: That’s how we worked yesterday in numeracy … made the
first number then closed the other number … like this

The events show that in order to understand tasks, children refer to how

they learnt within school and how this supports them to develop methods

to approach similar tasks.

Data also show the ideas that children use to carry out mathematical

tasks and how are these shaped by their past experiences in other formal

educational settings. Furthermore children are required to adapt their

thinking or, in Piagetian terms, assimilate their cognitive process to fit

within the existing structure. Children bring their own social psychological

culture and there is a process of negotiation between teacher and child to

assimilate into classroom norms.

247
In the transcript extract below, we see that the child’s understanding of

the vocabulary to describe shapes has been shaped by their experience in

previous lessons and the rules they gathered in terms of the use of

prefixes. The teacher accepted the logic applied by the child to support

the development of understanding in sorting out shapes into different

properties.

Extract from transcript of fifth lesson by Mrs Jane Marshall at

Argyle Common First School
Teacher: Everyone I looked at managed to sort out their shapes
perfectly … so well done … I was just sad that one table
couldn’t share glue … so blue table are going to lose a star …
(long pause) … right let’s see red not thick red … instead of
using the words not thick what other word could I have
used?
Child: Unfat …
Teacher: Could do … is that a word?...
Child: Last time … un is the same as not… like in literacy when we
did the opposite quiz
Teacher: Is that always the case? … unfat is not a word but ok we can
use unfat here … so now look at this shape … where will I put
it? … [teacher holds up a green thin shape]
Child: Over there [pointing to a Venn diagram on the floor made
out of hoops with the label Not red]

As Cobb et al. (1998) noted, classroom norms are full of microcultures

and routines which shape children’s way of approaching the tasks

presented. When children are in classrooms, they have to reacclimatise to

the rules and order of that classroom and the data show that within prior

knowledge, children’s understanding of mathematics is formed in part by

the cultural influences of previous formal educational settings. Therefore

children need to begin to understand the social and psychological

(Cabassa, 2003) changes that must be made in a new classroom. This

process of acculturation has an impact upon shaping prior knowledge. In

248
the transcript extract below (part of this transcript extract also appears on

page 186), we see that children are not used to number stories as they

are distracted by wider events of school routine and associate these

mathematical questions to those routines to support the calculation

required.

Extract from transcript of seventh lesson by Mrs Jill Thomas at St

Paul First School
Teacher: Umm now we’re going to see how good you are at listening
and how you can try and work out the answers to these
number stories … you could use adding … or taking away so
let’s try … ready ok? … Ok let’s think I had ten cakes and I
ate three of them … how many cakes did I have left … Lucy?
Child: From the cake sale yesterday … but you were helping at the
table miss.
Teacher: Yes at the cake sale … I had ten cakes and I ate three of
them … how many cakes did I have left …
Child: Seven
Teacher: Seven good girl … I have five pencils … if I put five more in
my tin … five pencils in my tin I put five more in my tin how
many altogether Molly
Child: That’s my job to sort the pencils..
Teacher: Ok can we just work out the answer to the number stories …
I have five pencils … if I put five more in my tin
Child: It is ten that is how many you have in there now …
Teacher: How did you work out that the answer was ten?
Child: I can see them from here … hehe … we had to tidy up
yesterday … remember?

In simplistic terms how children approach a task, e.g. adding, is

influenced to some extent by how this has been explained or taught and

understood in their previous classroom experiences. Children may have to

do 23 + 9 by putting 23 in their head first and then counting on 9 more in

their previous classroom experience, and in their new classroom they may

be taught or expected to carry out the same process as 23 + 10 – 1 which

requires a different structural understanding of the relationship between +

249
and –. This change in process and the underlying understanding can be

equated to a change in the culture and values of the classroom which they

will need to adjust to. Also it could be that the practical tools used by the

previous teacher had a constructivist pedagogical philosophy. Children

bring that to their new learning. Therefore, as Bishop (2002) states, a

child is experiencing a “cultural conflict” and it is this conflict that requires

understanding and supporting. Wolcott (1974) further clarifies the process

of acculturation as “the modification of one culture through continuous

contact with another” (p. 136). Throughout the data, we see that one of

the areas that are present prior to the task is a process that has been

developed through being in a formal setting that has to be modified in

order to assimilate into their new classroom culture where these methods

may be very different. Overall this cultural tension between child, teacher,

classrooms, past formal educational experiences and present formal

educational experiences is one which forms a part of prior knowledge.

To consider in a little more depth, the cultural conflicts which are

inevitably present between not only different settings, but also by the

virtue of children having different teachers each year and being on the

whole in different spaces complicates the transition process. The transition

process is a slow but essential process which understands that in order to

shift an individual’s thinking, they must understand the reasoning behind

the change and this reasoning depends upon children’s prior experiences.

Within schools, there is some effort to overcome these “cultural”

differences in mathematics by implementing strategies such as a

calculation policy or a whole school progression plan within mathematics.

The sound principles of these strategies are based upon recognising that

250
the way in which children develop understanding is dependent upon the

way in which their teaching and learning is structured. If we are accepting

the premise that this has key influence upon the individual’s prior

knowledge, then the change in the nature of this is a high cultural shift for

individual children. It is crucial to be explicit in that the data show not

only change in children to a new culture in their current class, but also all

the teachers developing an understanding of the way in which children are

thinking and processing and adjusting to this process. As has been

evidenced by the data, the notion that children can attempt a task without

any influence of their prior experience in a formal setting seems clearly

improbable. Though the data did not show this to be clearly the case in

every event, we cannot rule out the influence in the construction of their

prior knowledge as children’s understanding and processing of a task in

some form has been influenced by being part of a formal educational

setting, which at times is so woven into their understanding of

mathematics that it is difficult to always tease out.

6.4.2 Definition

In my prior knowledge model, I am defining acculturation as the events

related to the experiences of children within formal educational settings,

e.g. the classroom. The previous formal educational experiences that

children have had have an impact upon their understanding and

knowledge of mathematics. The cultures of schools, nurseries and pre-

school environments have a unique effect on children’s ability to

understand and attempt mathematical tasks.

251
6.4.3 Further Empirical Evidence

In the transcript extract below, children talk about having done the task

before in school. Children are bringing a wider educational culture and

what they learn from it to the task. This has an effect on how and what

they have to help support them in doing a mathematical task. In this

example, acculturation refers to the talk that teachers engage in, the rules

and routines of how mathematics is approached, and the ethos of the

teacher. The teacher is choosing to focus children into a particular method

for calculating one more and one less than. However children remember

one less than as take away, so there is a compromise made and both

approaches are used.

Extract from transcript of first lesson by Mrs Jo Fishily at

Greenville Park Community School
Teacher: And he’d be very pleased to hear that, won’t he? … now …
yesterday in number … put your hand up if you can
remember what we were doing yesterday in number? …
Hannah
Child: Ummm, counting
Teacher: Can you remember? Is it coming? … Shall I ask somebody
else? Martha
Child: Taking away and
Teacher: Taking away and? … nearly nearly there, what were you
going to say Richard?
Child: Adding one more
Teacher: Adding one more orrrr?
Child: Taking away we did this before
Teacher: Taking away one more … we were working out one more or
one less … and do you remember yesterday in numeracy, we
started off … just sit for a little bit Logan … by using our
number lines from nought to twenty, didn’t we? and we said
… oh Gemma can you point to the number one less than
nine? … one less, one less than nine … so take away one …
what should she point to?
Child: Eight

252
Some of the ideas, as can be seen in the transcript extract below, have

nothing to do with formal mathematics, but to do with the environment

and culture of the classroom created by the games that children have

recalled from previous classroom experiences.

Extract from transcript of third lesson by Mrs Jennie Brooks at

Draycott First School
Teacher: Well done are we ready? if I have got 10p and somebody
gives me another 6p how much will I have
Child: 16p … I remembered the p from before we played shops
there with Mrs Jones
Teacher: You didn’t forget the p well done … Oh this one is much too
hard … let me see if you can do this today … ten add zero

Each classroom observed had a definite set of routines and processes for

the way in which mathematics was approached. The transcript extracts

below show how, in each of the lessons, the teacher negotiated the way in

which children would approach new challenges in the tasks. For example,

a clear routine can be seen which consists of children regularly counting to

start each lesson.

Extract from transcript of third lesson by Mrs Sally Crane at Hatton

First School
Teacher: Good well done … we had the twenty instead of the twelve …
good you are getting the hang of that really well … Ruth try
and I know you don’t feel very well but see if you can join in
with us ok remember to move your hands helps you
remember how many you are counting … have a little look at
our hundred square ok … Nicholas would you like to stand up
and point to number ten for me … ok Nicholas is going to be
in charge then … can you count down the numbers with
Nicholas in ten’s as he points to them for me … off you go …
ten
Most children: Twenty thirty forty fifty sixty seventy eighty ninety a
hundred
Teacher: Wonderful … thank you sit down then … Richard would you
like to stand up and do you think you could point to them as
we count backwards

253
Child: Ohhh
Teacher: Ah yes
Child: Easy
Teacher: Oh easy jolly good right … let’s see if everybody can do it
with Nic Richard then ready … a hundred
Most children: Ninety eighty seventy sixty fifty forty thirty twelve
Teacher: Ah I caught somebody saying twelve
Child: Ten

Extract from transcript of fourth lesson by Mrs Sally Crane at

Hatton First School
Teacher: And thirty will stop there … well done ok let’s see if we can
remember our counting in tens we tried last half term …
ready with your hands
Most children and teacher: Zero ten twenty thirty forty fifty sixty
seventy eighty ninety a hundred
Teacher: Well done … let’s see if we can go backwards … ready
Teacher: Right let’s start going backwards from fifty
Most children: Fifty forty thirty twenty ten zero
Teacher: Now who can remember the robot from last time
Most children: Yeah yeah
Teacher: Now we are going to be doing some robot maths today

Extract from transcript of seventh lesson by Mrs Sally Crane at

Hatton First School
Teacher: Oh dear I think we’ve had all sorts of numbers
Child: He did eight
Teacher: What number is it?
Child: Ten
Child: Eight
Teacher: It’s number eight … let’s do it together ready
[Children start clapping]
Teacher: No we are all going to start together Richard … ready and
[Teacher and children clapping]
Few children: One two three

The interaction between teacher and children, and between children

themselves forms part of the culture of the classroom, and influences the

254
way in which children are able to approach mathematical tasks and what

they are drawing upon to support their understanding of the tasks. The

data further show that children bring to the task ideas they have gathered

in different settings. In the transcript extract below, the child recalls a

mathematical technique that they considered in their previous school

year.

Extract from transcript of eighth lesson by Mrs Sally Crane at

Hatton First School
Teacher: Eight all right … can anyone tell me let’s write it down what
the … difference
Child: What the difference
Teacher: Between is … what the difference between those two
numbers (8 and 6) … Josh
Child: Six you write 6 like this we practiced this with Mrs Wilson in
handwriting.
Teacher: You think it’s six … would you like to come and try and see if
you were right … can you remember how we did it
Child: Oh I know
Teacher: Let him see
Child: It’s the same two numbers as yesterday
Child: Jumps like we used to do with Mr Ellis
[After discussion with Mrs Crane, it was noted that Mr Ellis
was their reception teacher last year]
Teacher: Jump we did jump yes see if you’ve got the right jump …
count as you do it … out loud
Teacher and child: One two three four five
Teacher: Ah how many jumps?

Conversations which occur in a classroom about mathematics shape what

is available to children in supporting them with a task. Different classroom

cultures not only cultivate different ideas, but also shape the memory for

children to continue their mathematical development. In the transcript

extract below (part of this transcript extract appears earlier on page 203),

255
the teacher is keen and has reinforced many times for children to draw

upon facts and methods (counting on their fingers) they may already

know to support with the new task. This changes the way in which prior

knowledge is shaped and brought to bear upon this task. There is greater

emphasis on what has been learnt in this classroom and limited

acknowledgement of other ideas that children may have.

Extract from transcript of fifth lesson by Mrs Jane Marshall at

Argyle Common First School
Teacher: Let’s try this one? … fourteen add what makes twenty? so
you put fourteen in your head shhh … put it down you can’t
have number fans in your hands cause you need them for
counting … fourteen in your heads and count on till you get
to twenty … (long pause)
Child: Mrs Marshall it is easy it’s
Teacher: I’ll come to you in a moment I know what you’re going to say
… Liam?
Child: Umm six
Teacher: You are well on the ball now you’ve got it haven’t you Emily
… it is six Devon what are you going say?
Child: It’s changing the fourteen over to a four and then it’s easy
Teacher: You mean like that … put that there … well done remember
when we did some work with families it’s the thing I’ve got it
up here bargain basement if you know one thing you get a
lot of other things free … if you know that sixteen and four is
twenty all you’ve got to do is swap it around … ok if you
know that six and four is ten you should be able to work that
six and fourteen is twenty … and six and twenty-four is thirty
… one more
Child: We had that in our speedy maths
Teacher: We have done it in our speedy maths … Emily what were you
going to say?
Child: Thirteen add seven is twenty you get the seven and take
away one and add one you get four
Teacher: Right last one … (long pause) … twelve add I can see James
and Jay can’t listen this morning twelve add what makes
twenty … (long pause) … think about what number’s going to
go in your head … I am going to ask someone I haven’t
heard from today … twelve in your head and count on to
twenty … (long pause) … Ashley?

256
There is a great deal of variation in the acculturation experiences children

have had and this leads to variation in the shapes of individual memories,

and thus prior knowledge. Children bring what they understand and

remember based on their formal educational experiences of how they

were taught to approach mathematical tasks. This shapes memory and

also is a key element of prior knowledge. The data do not indicate which

classroom culture is better for mathematical development, merely that

part of what is used to address mathematical tasks by children is this

notion of acculturation and specifically, data point to acculturation of

formal educational settings.

To summarise, the data show that memory is shaped by the nature and

culture of the formal educational experiences that children have had,

shaping what children may be using in terms of addressing the

mathematics they are engaged in. There is great influence on other

elements of prior knowledge as a result of acculturation.

6.5 Metacognition

6.5.1 Theoretical Perspective

My data show that children bring some sense of their own prior

understanding – a level of self-awareness and an understanding of what

knowledge is already there and the connections that they have already

made (metacognition) – to mathematical tasks. It is not important

whether this self-awareness is erroneous or limited. However it is vital to

understand that as part of the tools that are employed to approach

mathematical tasks, children have an internal vocabulary that they refer

257
to in order to think through approaches they have that can be used or

knowledge that is familiar and understood. The data also show that there

is some element of individual thinking occurring before, during and after

performing a task. Children have some understanding of their thoughts.

They may not be able to verbalise these thoughts, but they do have a

sense of their thinking.

In the transcript extract below, we notice that Mary is aware that she does

not know how to count in sequence of two’s and offers a strategy that will

support her in carrying out the task. Also we can see that Scott has

established that the task is well below his competence and requests

further challenge by insisting on moving to higher numbers, thus

demonstrating a clear awareness of his own thinking.

Extract from transcript of eighth lesson by Mrs Jennie Brooks at

Draycott First School
Teacher: Three … right well done right stand still and let’s keep going
… the next one is … remember you’ve got to miss one and
say the next one
Child: Four … umm no it’s … umm five …
Teacher: Ok good let’s keep going next one Mary?…
Child: Are we allowed to count out to work it out … five … six [child
talks quietly] … seven
Teacher: Next?
Child: This is easy I can do them all … three five seven … … can we
go … high … I can count really high
Teacher: Well you will have to wait … now I know you can count …
you’ve got to listen … Harry Harry listening … right you’ve got
to miss one and say one … now there are … Scott … you’ve
got to listen …
Child: Mrs Brooks this is boring can we do bigger numbers …
Teacher: You’ve got to listen … you think you’ve got to miss one … and
say one and listen … this is going to be harder … Zeno won’t
know what to do cause he’s not listening … Hannah’s going to
start and she’s got to miss one … so she can’t say number?

258
There are aspects of the data that demonstrate knowledge of having

carried out similar tasks before, the level of understanding that was

established the last time it was carried out, and the impact this may have

on the task being presented, as can be seen in the transcript extract

below.

Extract from transcript of ninth lesson by Mrs Jo Fishily at

Greenville Park Community School
Teacher: Can anyone think of another word that means add we have
had plus add
Child: Adding
Teacher: That is add another word …
[Then the teacher goes on to explore some more properties
of addition … adding more than two numbers, the number
gets bigger … then she moves on to what is meant by taking
away]
Teacher: What do we mean when we take away?
Child: I know…. Oh oh… make it smaller…
Teacher: Can you see a word on the board that also means take away
Child: I know the word… but I can’t read it … what does subtract
look like
Teacher: It’s on the board it begins with a s s
Child: No what does it look like … I remember the word but can’t
work out the one it is …

Metacognition is defined by Schoenfeld (1992), on a simplistic level, as

knowledge about one’s thought process and self-regulation. Flavell (1979)

defined metacognition as “thinking about thinking” (p. 906).

‘Metacognition’ refers to all processes about

cognition, such as sensing something about
one’s own thinking, thinking about one’s
thinking and responding to one’s own thinking
by monitoring and regulating it.

(Papaleontiou-Louca, 2003, p. 12)

259
Metacognition needs to be deconstructed in order for me to understand

and apply it correctly in ideas that emerge through the data. There are a

limited number of studies considering the meaning of metacognition.

However educational psychologists have understood the value of

metacognition to support pupils’ development.

Kuhn and Dean (2004) define metacognition as “awareness and

management of one’s own thought” (p. 270). This aspect is visible

through the data. While children consider the tasks they are presented

with, they evaluate the abilities they had to tackle the task as can be seen

in the transcript extract below.

Extract from transcript of seventh lesson by Mrs Jo Fishily at

Greenville Park Community School
Teacher: She’s taken away a cuboid … right Hannah have a seat …
umm Josh can you come and take away a cube a 3D shape
you’re so smart this morning … a 3D shape can you take
away a 3D shape please … good boy you’ve taken away?
Child: Peasy a cuboid … let’s cover our eyes so we don’t look … so it
is harder
Teacher: Umm looks like you are finding all these shapes easy ok … let
try this one …
Child: With our eyes closed … pleeeeeease …
Teacher: Ummm … ok fine with your eyes closed there you go pick one
Child: Ooh it feels like a … tricky … umm is it a pyramid?
Teacher: Why do you think it is a pyramid?
Child: I can feel the sides … there is one which feels like a square
and I poked myself on the pointy bit …
Teacher: Ok open your eyes and check
Child: Yes (fist in air) I knew it … easy

Using these definitions, I can see two aspects of metacognition – one

which is likened to knowing how to do something, and other which is the

ability to choose the best strategy to achieve a task (Carr, Alexander &

260
Folds-Bennett, 1994). Researchers have examined and considered the

strategies that children use in mathematics and this “has indicated that

children possess and use metacognition to their advantage” (Carr et al.,

1994, p. 584).

Further research states that children possessing metacognition know

about mathematical strategies (Garofalo & Lester, 1985). It is the

reflective nature of this aspect of prior knowledge that has emerged

through the data. There is much connection between cognition and

metacognition and between metacognition and the impact it has on

individual motivation. The ability to reflect, select and act upon one’s own

engagement in a mathematical task is an intrinsic part of the prior

knowledge that children bring to the task, as evident in my data. Carr et

al. (1994) have suggested that the influence of metacognition upon

mathematical tasks is “instrumental when the task demands challenge the

child but do not overtax cognitive capacity and existing skills” (p. 584).

Schraw (1998) further states that “metacognition differs from cognition, is

multi-dimensional, and domain-general in nature” (p. 118).

My data show that one of the factors which children are bringing to

resolving and understanding mathematical tasks is this multi-dimensional

thinking and connecting of ideas and experiences. The ability to evaluate

and internalise how they will approach a task is clearly shaped by an

individual’s thinking and understanding of themselves – the ability to be

self-aware.

The idea of metacognition being domain-general implies in terms of prior

knowledge that the metacognition used to address mathematical tasks is

261
not specifically mathematical metacognition and is developed through the

whole of a child’s experience. The data show us that a child’s thinking

about their own knowledge and thinking cannot be partitioned into their

understanding of a particular aspect of mathematics. Children are thinking

through all areas of their knowledge in order to support and decipher the

mathematical tasks they are presented. The mere fact that the data have

demonstrated the children are thinking through what they already know,

understand and have experienced and are using it as a tool to develop

new understanding means that, by definition based on research by others,

metacognition is a part of prior knowledge and is there before the task is

attempted.

To summarise, metacognition is an element of prior knowledge as it is

developed from individual experiences and is present before the task. Also

throughout engaging in the task, children are using their strategies to

reflect upon their approaches to the task.

6.5.2 Definition

In my prior knowledge model, metacognition refers to children’s ability to

reflect and think about mathematical tasks and the methods they are

using. The data showed how children, while engaged in mathematical

tasks, were thinking of the following:

 thoughts about the mathematical concepts needed and what they

mean;

 how they would approach the task;

 how well they were doing the task;

262
  the ease or difficulty of the task;

 the outcome of the task.

All of these processes, as evident in the data, are aligned with the

established theoretical base presented earlier. When looking at the

transcripts, it emerged that there were many events within which children

were being introspective and this introspection would affect the approach

taken by the children to complete the task. Therefore within my prior

knowledge model, metacognition is the introspection and self-evaluation

that children engaged in while attempting a mathematical task. This is

further supported by the data when I look at the transcripts.

Through the analysis of the data, there was a recurrence of events which

indicated reflection and construction of understanding based on self-

questioning by children. Though children did not always verbalise this

thinking and filtering through their ideas and thoughts before attempting

mathematical tasks, anecdotally there were many occurrences when

children would pause to evaluate how they should proceed forward.

Though there is no concrete evidence to support this as being

metacognition, it raises the question about what process was being

employed to result in the choices they made. We could speculate that in

order to descend upon a path forward, children must be thinking about

what they know and how they would be able to carry out the task,

therefore thinking about their own knowledge and understanding. There is

further support for this in concrete data gathered as we will see in the

transcripts to follow. The data support the theoretical perspective which is

integrated into this definition of metacognition.

263
6.5.3 Further Empirical Evidence

Having considered the theoretical base which was supported by what was

emerging in my data, the definition developed above is a shorthand

overview to understanding the element of prior knowledge which is

metacognition. In order to develop and clarify this definition, it is of value

to look at the evidence upon which it is based. When listening to children,

while they were using many aspects of prior knowledge as evident in this

whole dataset, metacognition was one aspect which was not apparent at

first viewing and one which needed some teasing out.

There were many events where children expressed their inability to

attempt a task, as we have seen in the transcript extract in Section 5.5.4

on page 181. This raised the following question – how do children make

the decision that they cannot do a task? What factors are they taking into

consideration? I can argue this in many ways – they have never seen such

a task before; when they tried it previously, they were unsuccessful; they

are not familiar with all aspects of the task e.g. they may not understand

how to start it or know all the steps to develop the outcome needed. We

could hypothesise and conjecture the many different reasons why a child

states their inability to perform a task or indeed the choices they make to

perform the task. However that would not resolve the simple fact that the

child has made a choice. The child has, through their ability to think about

their skills, knowledge and thinking, come to conclude the choices they

had made, or put simply they have metacognated.

264
It is this that is of importance. Without this ability to think about their

thinking (metacognition), as emerged from the data, children would not

be able to make choices in relation to approaches in the way they perform

mathematical tasks. Metacognition forms a crucial facet of prior

knowledge. The extent of a child’s ability to metacognate is very much

dependent on other areas of their prior knowledge and interlinked to other

facets. However we could extrapolate that the extent to which individuals

can assess their thinking has an impact upon their approach to the task.

In the transcript extract below, the child has considered what would be

easier for him and what they had already engaged in i.e. 9 + 2 and how

this links to the question being asked i.e. 9 + 3. Furthermore when asked

about the process, he explains what he felt he could do or not do. The

child has understood the needs of the questions through some process of

evaluation and thinking about their own knowledge base which has

enabled them to address the questions. The question is considered and

processed with some thoughts about what one’s own capacity is to answer

and address the questions, and an evaluation through metacognition of

what may be the correct direction is made for the individual. The child is

struggling to vocalise their thinking process clearly. However there is

some choice made to start from their previous answer of 9 + 2 = 11 and

then build on this to adding 1 more. Though not expressed, some internal

thinking has led to the choice of adding 1 more to 11 and not counting

from 9 in 1’s to get to the answer. It is this internal process which is

manifested in the way in which the child is expressing the puzzle that they

face.

265
 Extract from transcript of third lesson by Mrs Jill Thomas at St
Paul First School
Teacher: Eleven … right I am sorry that was my fault I forgot come on
I’ll change that then … right you should be able to get this
really quickly then … nine add three … nine add three … nine
add three ready … steady … show … nine add three is … ?
Few children: Twelve
Teacher: Twelve right Greg how did you work that out?
Child: Umm I know that I am good at this
Teacher: Oh shhh will you be quiet I cannot hear what Greg is saying
so neither will anyone else be able to … sorry Greg
Child: I started from nine and counted on three
Teacher: Counted on three did anyone else work it out in a different
way? Chris?
Child: I counted in three’s
Teacher: You counted in three’s why did you count in three’s?
Child: To make it a little bit easier
Teacher: Right well did anybody when I said the one before nine add
two
Child: I added one
Teacher: Is that what you did?
Child: I put twelve because I thought I can’t put eleven so I might
as well put twelve then when you said nine and three I did
twelve again
Teacher: So you thought nine add two was twelve? … no
Child: Well because I couldn’t do eleven I thought I might as well
do twelve but then
Teacher: What do you mean you might as well?
Child: Umm
Teacher: Why did you say why did you think twelve why did you know
it was twelve?
Child: I didn’t think it was twelve but there wasn’t any eleven so
Teacher: No but then I changed it didn’t I? I didn’t say nine plus two …
I said nine plus three
Child: I counted on one from eleven because it was 2 and now it is
number 3

In the next transcript, Liam has considered the task carefully and is able

to answer the numerical question, and also further clarified independently

266
about the knowledge he does not have in the question relating to pounds

and pence. This indicates that there are some thoughts about what

children know in terms of what is being presented. Here Liam is able to

control his own choices through his metacognitive process.

Extract from transcript of seventh lesson by Miss Lora Hunter at St

Paul First School
[The class are asked to tell each other what they were
looking at in the lesson yesterday … they were looking at
money]
Teacher: What were we doing … what were we thinking about when
doing money … (long pause)
Child: Will you give us some money? … wow
[The class did not know … after a long pause one child was
able to read the target on the board … finding many ways to
make different amounts of money … the teacher was able to
then ask individual children what they did in relation to the
target … the answers were slow in coming … the class was
told that they were going to do something similar … she
shows them how she is going to do this … on the board she
has created a shop front and the children are asked to go
shopping with her … she asks questions about how much
each item in the shop costs]
Teacher: How much does the guitar cost me
Child: Umm 5p
Teacher: I asked Liam
Child: 5p
[The teacher goes on to ask about each of the items in the
shop … first about the cost of each item on their own then
she goes on to combining items and calculating the cost]
Child: When you know it’s money how do you know what is pounds
and what is pence?

Liam was able to think and link to other parts of his understanding to take

control of how the task is resolved, or in the case of the next transcript,

what does not make sense to the individual and ask further questions as

he does here in terms of really understanding the clock face. The

engagement with the teacher in the transcript has an impact upon the

267
shape that memory will take, and therefore is essential to prior

knowledge.

Extract from transcript of seventh lesson by Miss Lora Hunter at St

Paul First School
[The lesson starts with clocks and the teacher asking
different times to be shown by the children on their clocks]
Teacher: How can I check that that’s right … is there any way of
knowing that that’s right? does anybody know what time it
actually is now … what is the real time … ?
Child: Half past nine
Teacher: If you look at the clock and check and see you’ll see it is
actually half past nine … so we can check that we’ve got the
small hands pointing to nine and
Child: It’s not half past see
Teacher: It is half past nine right now on the clock …
Child: Well it isn’t on the nine or the six
Teacher: Well it’s just past the nine because it’s gone past the hour it
would be … (long pause) … when it comes to ten o’clock we’ll
look at the clock we’ll see what ten o’clock looks like
Child: It is near ten I am not sure why?
[What we see here is a child who is trying to establish what
the task demands in relation to his understanding and has a
clear idea that his knowledge is limited. Furthermore he is
able to express which parts of this question he needs to
understand. There is self-awareness and thinking about the
way in which personal knowledge is constructed and what
needs to be the next step in understanding these
mathematical ideas. A clear sense of self-awareness.]
Teacher: It's just gone past the nine cause in the past the hour it
would be when we come to ten o’clock we’ll have a look at it
and we will have a look at half past ten as well
Child: What do you mean by past the hour?

There is some element of metacognition in all tasks approached in the

next transcript. Ellie is actively thinking about what she has been asked,

going through the process of trying alternates and rejecting them through

some form of evaluation before picking an answer.

268
 Extract from transcript of eighth lesson by Mrs Sally Crane at
Hatton First School
Teacher: Now do you remember when we looked at our number line
yesterday … we only had it going up to ten didn’t we … and
can anyone remember what we were doing with the number
line yesterday … what were we actually doing? we were doing
some number work and it was slightly different we hadn’t
done it before
Child: We were like rolling a dice
Teacher: No we’re thinking about the number line Richard that’s the
other part of the lesson good boy but which what did we do
with the number line Rowena?
Child: Umm we put dots by how many umm … it was away from it
Teacher: Yes that’s a very good try … Ellie can you remember the
words that we used?
Child: Is it … no … wait let me think I know … it is a bit like … I can
work it out … umm its difference between
[This interchange between not knowing and having some
notion of knowing the answer is more than just the skill of
recollection. It is a sense in Ellie and her thinking that the
answer is something she is aware of, but cannot recall. There
is thinking about what knowledge she has and how this links
to what is needed.]
Teacher: The difference between that’s right we put two spots didn’t
we and we chose those numbers and then we worked out
Charlotte I’ll have that please … what the difference between
the two numbers was … right let’s stick to the line that’s
between one to ten to start with and see if you can
remember how to do it from yesterday … right I am going to
put my stops by that number which is which number?
Few children: Three

Metacognition is the active process of introspection and self-evaluation of

what is being asked and what is required to complete the task. Children

are questioning within themselves and using this to support the

completion of mathematical tasks. This notion of metacognition is a facet

of prior knowledge as it considers the cognition and will also be linked to

the other elements in order to shape these ideas and meaning. Within the

data, children bring this need to evaluate and consider how best to

approach a mathematical task.

269
6.6 Other Emerging Categories

My data revealed the emergence of further categories – individual

motivation, perception, cognition, social group and abstraction – which

also form prior knowledge of children. In the subsections to follow, I will

explore these categories through a similar structure as done for the three

categories discussed so far – theoretical perspective, definition and

empirical evidence.

The data do not make it possible to conclude that the three categories

considered earlier and the further emerging five categories being

considered in this section are a finite list of components that constitute

prior knowledge.

6.6.1 Individual Motivation

6.6.1.1 Theoretical Perspective

Despite the existence of an immense body of research in the field of

motivation, there is no agreed common definition. Research in the

psychology of motivation and what affects individual motivation states

that children are motivated by tasks that they feel are important to them,

measure their value as individuals, enable them to express their views, or

provide them with a sense of ownership (Lovell, 1973).

The author has suggested a new definition for

motivation: a potential to direct behaviour
through the mechanisms that control emotion.

(Hannula, 2006, p. 175)

270
This definition of motivation helps me to realise the value of motivation in

children’s choice in their level of engagement in mathematical tasks.

Motivation is broadly distinguished into intrinsic and extrinsic motivation.

The most basic distinction is between intrinsic

motivation, which refers to doing something
because it is inherently interesting or enjoyable,
and extrinsic motivation, which refers to doing
something because it leads to a separable
outcome.

(Ryan & Deci, 2000, p. 55)

Children bring a level of motivation to some tasks and are, to some

extent, intrinsically motivated by the task they see. What is it that drives

this intrinsic motivation? Children enjoy the task for its own sake as they

feel they can be successful or are externally motivated by the experience

of rewards (Middleton & Spanias, 1999). Whatever the cause of individual

motivation, researchers widely agree that there are many knock-on

effects of children being motivated.

When individuals engage in tasks in which they

are motivated intrinsically, they tend to exhibit a
number of pedagogically desirable behaviours
including increased time on task, persistence in
the face of failure, more elaborative processing
and monitoring of comprehension, selection of
more difficult tasks.

(Middleton & Spanias, 1999, p. 66)

These effects upon a task are crucial to my research as individual

motivation impacts on the choices that children make and how they

engage in mathematical tasks, and hence shape prior knowledge.

271
6.6.1.2 Definition

In my prior knowledge model, the key features which define individual

motivation are the approach and attitude with which children tackle

mathematical tasks. These are both positive and negative attitudes and

feelings towards the task. When children first look at some mathematical

tasks, they have a response which controls the degree to which they are

willing to engage in the task presented to learn mathematics. Individual

motivation also comprises children’s desire to get the correct answer and

the consequent enjoyment which is produced. Furthermore individual

motivation includes events that allude to children’s self-confidence, both

at the beginning and during mathematical tasks.

6.6.1.3 Empirical Evidence

When I consider the data, I can see that the individual motivation that

children have towards any particular task is influenced by the prior

knowledge (by prior knowledge, I mean the emerging partial model that I

am constructing through this thesis and not the narrow common

definition) state of the child before embarking upon the task. In the

transcript extract below (this extract also appears on page 213), the child

has a positive attitude towards the game being played. This in turn

increases his desire to engage in the mathematical task and has the effect

of further shaping his memory through the experiences gained. This

desire to join in is there prior to the task being set. Therefore individual

motivation is not only there prior to the task, but has further influence on

future prior knowledge.

272
 Extract from transcript of first lesson by Mrs Jo Fishily at
Greenville Park Community School
[Children are using a 100 square playing various games]
Teacher: Right who could roll the dice for me? … then we’re gonna
move the button … that many times ok … we’re going
forwards …counting … Josh would you like to roll? just stay
where you are, stay where you are and see if you can roll it
onto the floor … oh what’s it landed on?
Some children: (shout) Six
Teacher: Right, who can put their hand up and guess where I’m going
to have to move button to? … uh let me ask somebody with
their hand up … Louise
Child: Six
Teacher: Yeah, shall we see if you are right? Can you count with me?
Some children: One two three four five six
Teacher: Good girl Louise, right … (whispers) who can roll the dice this
time? … (normal) shh … let’s have Kealee can you roll it onto
the dice onto the snake, ready? … ok … oops pass it to
Kealee … ok don’t worry, you’re gonna have your own dice in
a minute if you don’t get a turn now … ooh … what’s that
landed on?
Some children: (shout) Four
Child: Easy … are we going to get to play this today?
Teacher: Yes four (child makes a fist and punches the air with a smile)
… right put your hand up if you can work out already where
my blue bead’s going to be? … let me ask somebody with
their hand up … let me ask Aiden
Child: Worked it out already its ten …

The next transcript (this transcript extract appears earlier on page 212 as

well) reveals the lack of desire which causes lack of connections to be

made with the tasks. This emotional response is a direct result of the

individual’s prior knowledge and the shape of prior knowledge to support

understanding of the task.

273
 Extract from transcript of sixth lesson by Mrs Jo Fishily at
Greenville Park Community School
Teacher: Cylinder … right can you put your hand up if you notice
anything about what is left on my white board this morning …
Jack … what do you notice about what is left on my white
board [the question put on the board was 9+3 =11 children
were asked to consider the question] this morning cause
you’re talking … (long pause) … what do you notice Jack?
Child: Umm I don’t know…it’s too hard… I don’t know…
Teacher: Make a guess
Child: I don’t know
Teacher: Right anyone help … Jack right Hannah what do you notice

Data seem to show that the degree of motivation that individuals have

influences the extent to which memory is drawn upon as can be seen in

the transcript below. Where there is little desire to draw upon any

previous experiences, the shape of the memory will be limited in its effect.

When I look at the example below, I can see that individual motivation

has an influence on shaping memory. The fact that the child is

unmotivated to join in the task limits the degree to which memory may be

modified. The shape of prior knowledge has led to this child perceiving the

mathematical task as being one he cannot do.

Extract from transcript of third lesson by Miss Lora Hunter at St

Paul First School
Teacher: Are we ready … when you found the answer Harry hold it
here … haven’t asked the question yet … going to ask the
question … don’t talk about it … it is what you know … not
what the person next to you knows … Oliver … right seven
subtract two … seven subtract two … shhh … going to ask you
how you did it Oliver not how Matthew did it … how did you
work it out … shhh … well … Abbie do it yourself please … I
think that this table is ready … nearly ready red table …
Oliver
Child: I don’t know how to do it … I can’t do it

274
Teacher: Well just wait till we have all finished … have a guess … shhh
… ha Hannah … nearly ready? show me … remember if you
get it right you just put a thumb up … ok no shouting just a
thumb up … seven subtract two is five … put your hand up if
you can tell me what you had to do? what did that word
subtract mean what was it telling you to do or asking you to
do? Jordan
Child: Oh ok that’s easy Take away
Teacher: Good boy it was a take away … so Oliver what does subtract
mean?
Child: Don’t know…I am not sure ... I can’t remember.

In the next transcript, I see that the child is very keen to consider the

mathematical task in front of him. This individual desire to consider the

mathematics being presented has a changing effect upon memory in

terms of allowing new experiences to enter. Both positive and negative

motivations have an effect upon the memory of a child and therefore the

overall shape of prior knowledge.

Extract from transcript of first lesson by Mrs Jane Marshall at

Argyle Common First School
Teacher: Well done three and that number goes here … what have I
got to put next in my sum … Henry
Child: Equals I know what the answer is I’ve counted you count the
top line. I know what to do can I show can I

Therefore individual motivation is an essential element of prior knowledge

as it has great impact upon shaping of memory, but furthermore is

interconnected with the other elements that make up prior knowledge. As

can be seen from the example in the last transcript, the confidence with

which the child wants to answer is linked to the child’s cognition and

perception of the question presented. Without prior knowledge containing

individual motivation within it, there would be no engagement with the

mathematical tasks presented and thus limiting reshaping and developing

275
of ideas. The shape of prior knowledge before tasks influences what takes

place during the task.

6.6.2 Perception

6.6.2.1 Theoretical Perspective

When looking at what research has to tell me in terms of perception and

mathematics, I am hindered by the many meanings and uses of the word

perception. There is research which has considered perception or views of

teachers and children about the subject of mathematics (Borthwick, 2011;

Burton, 2009). There is also much research about social perception of

mathematics (Malkevitch, 1997; Steele & Ambady, 2006). Perception is

considered in one of two ways – as a feeling and opinion or views of

mathematics, or as a physical aspect of self and how we use our senses to

understand the world around us. It is this latter use of the word

perception that has emerged from my data.

It is of little value to consider the established research on how our senses

perceive as that is not reflected in my data, but more so what children

perceive and how are they making sense of this information. Therefore I

am not looking at pure psychological research on perception, but

considering the applied psychological views of how we develop our

understanding of the world through our perception.

I need to consider two aspects of perception – one which looks at the

sensory modes of how we make sense of the world, and the other which

looks at the cognitive processes to use this sensory understanding and

276
formulate thought. Though I have given these as separate ideas, they are

very much linked.

Pertinent to this understanding of perception are the ideas surrounding

enrichment and differentiation theory (Gibson & Gibson, 1955; Piaget,

1954).

Piaget’s view of enrichment suggests that we

impose meaning on our sensory data, either by
making it fit in with pre-existing schemas or by
generating new ones. ... Gibson’s differentiation
theory proposed that sensory stimulation is all
we need.

(Flanagan, 1996, p. 29)

Children are able to take in the vast amount of sensory information similar

to adults, but just do not have the ability to consider these data due to

lack of experiences (Bower, 1982; Gibson, 1987). Developing this

argument further means that the level of experience of the world is key to

the way in which children make sense of mathematics. That is, children

learn to perceive mathematics (enrichment theory) as opposed to just

considering mathematics as it appears to them without any link to

anything they have experienced before (differentiation theory). It is of

little value to make distinctions between these two ideas as they both

have contributions to make in terms of the perceptions that children bring

to mathematical tasks. That is to say, children go through a combination

of differentiation, i.e. experiencing many repeated stimulations and

beginning to distinguish between them, and enrichment, i.e. through the

development of schemas to allow for more sophisticated understanding

and perception of mathematics.

277
Researchers into perception all agree that it is the awareness of the world

through five senses that develops, shapes and influences how we perceive

the world around us. There is further development on this understanding

of perception.

Perception is not determined simply by stimulus

patterns; rather it is a dynamic searching for the
best interpretation of the available data …
perception involves going beyond the
immediately given evidence of the senses.

(Gregory, 1978, p. 13)

This is confirmed by Coon (1989) who defines perception as “the process

of assembling sensations in a useable mental representation of the world”

(p. 137). Therefore the way in which children perceive mathematical tasks

is dependent upon how they have experienced and interpreted the world.

6.6.2.2 Definition

In my prior knowledge model, perception is the set of sensory experiences

that children bring to mathematical tasks and the interpretations that they

have already established from these experiences in line with the

theoretical understanding debated earlier.

The interpretation children make of each mathematical task they are set is

linked to what they are using to perceive these tasks. The perspective of

the child is based on the exposure they have had in the past or are

recalling from memory. Transcripts show that it is not just exposure to

mathematics that has influenced the perception of children, but more so

their exposure to many different things, some being sensory and some

being ideas they have explored. It seems that on approaching a task,

278
children look at it from a particular viewpoint and this is linked to what

they are recalling that they feel helps to understand what they are

presented with.

The transcripts show children perceiving the mathematical tasks from

many vantage points:

 the physical patterns on the page;

 numbers written and what they mean to a child;

 having seen this before and the form it took;

 perception of the challenge of the task;

 the inference a child has made from the task set.

6.6.2.3 Empirical Evidence

The transcript below shows that children have the need to put unknown

ideas into a format that is supported by something they have experienced

before. The perception of one child is very different to that of another.

Extract from transcript of first lesson by Mrs Jane Marshall at

Argyle Common First School
Teacher: If Sharna said none if Sharna said none that’s the answer
what
Child: It isn’t a shape
Teacher: What would the question be?
Child: Umm
Teacher: The answer none the answer is nothing so what would the
question be Devon?
Child: (whispers) zero?
Child: What is it?
Teacher: No … the answer isn’t zero cause you know we are thinking
about shapes … Sharna gave the answer none … what would
the question be Lauren?
Child: What have I got in my hand with none in it?

279
Perception influences the shaping of memory to support the

understanding and achievement of the mathematical task presented. As

can be seen in the transcript below, one child perceives diagonal lines

folded on a square as making a diamond while another child perceives the

same as two triangles. This in itself does not change the outcome of the

task, but is a factor in how children will approach the task. The approach

taken shapes prior knowledge and hence memory, which in the long term

affects the approaches and methods children use in their understanding of

shapes.

Extract from transcript of first lesson by Mrs Jane Marshall at

Argyle Common First School
Teacher: Brilliant excellent that’s it there … that’s it and Ashley said
it’s got a point we are not sure whether it’s a point or a
corner … right … right everybody looking this way … James
shh we’ve got to look and listen … I’ve a piece of paper shh
Few children: Oh
Teacher: And I’ve folded my
Child: In half
Teacher: Piece of paper in half
Child: Like a square
Teacher: Yes it does look a bit like a square now … and this … is the
fold ok … so if I open it out can you see the crease down the
middle? … .now … shh excuse me … on my piece of paper I
am going to draw two lines … from the fold
Child: One two … a triangle
Teacher: What shape have I drawn Lauren?
Few children: Triangle
Teacher: Triangle ok right
Child Child Child (three children speaking simultaneously): She is
going to cut it out … she’ll end up two triangles … she’ll end
up with a diamond
[The three girls in this conversation are sitting and talking
quite actively as to what is going to be the outcome of what
they are seeing. There is a sense that they all want to be
right and perceive vehemently that their estimation of the
outcome will be correct.]

280
Teacher: Shh … excuse me … why will I end up with two Lauren?
Child: Because … because … if you … she’ll end up with a diamonds
Teacher: Shh Lauren’s talking
Child: Because if you folded it up it would make a diamond and if
you chop it at the bottom you’ll have triangles … because
when you folded it over it had two pieces so when you cut it’ll
still have two pieces
Teacher: Ok … I understood ok … if I open it out what shape have I
got Damian?
Child: Two triangles

The function of perception within the partial prior knowledge structure is

to support memory modification. But furthermore there are influences

between how tasks are perceived and how this perception affects the

other elements of the prior knowledge model such as individual motivation

and the context that they draw upon.

The transcript below illustrates how the phrasing of a task is perceived so

differently compared to the intention of the task. The child has perceived

the task as one and four, and has concluded fourteen and not five. This

was a common occurrence in my data in terms of the different perceptions

of language used and implemented by children. The difference in

perception of the vocabulary used by teachers to describe the task and

how children perceive these words is shown here.

Extract from transcript of second lesson by Mrs Sally Crane at

Hatton First School
Teacher: One add four makes … good boy Richard you’re working it
out really well I want everybody … what answer do you think
it is Elly?
Child: 14 (child is holding up 1 and 4)

There is a constant change in perception of children as time passes and

this change in perception has both influence upon memory and memory

281
has an influence upon perception. This can be seen through the transcript

extract below.

Extract from transcript of sixth lesson by Mrs Rebecca Rice at St

Paul First School
Teacher: 9 and what make 10 … write it on your white board
Child: (using his fingers) umm ... 9, 10 … ooh its 1
Teacher: Show me … good … Now … ready … ok ... 8 and what make
10
Child: (again using his fingers) 8, 9, 10…..
Teacher: Good 2 … now let see if you can do 7 and what make…10
Child: This is going 1 and 2 then 3… (child just writes the answer
without the use of his fingers)
Teacher: Ok then ... let’s look at 6 and what make 10
Child: (shouts) 4 it’s going 1 2 3 4 …

In the transcript above, the child starts the task looking at ideas of

number bonds using his fingers to support a solution and perceiving it as

a problem to solve using this method. However by the end there is a

change in this perception to doing these questions as a pattern that has a

logical order to it. Along with this visual change in perception, the

inference made by the child of how best to achieve the task has also

changed. In the transcript below, another child has approached a similar

task in a contrasting manner. Here the child has perceived this as a

problem which requires a number line to support a solution and one where

counting back from 10 is required as opposed to the previous example

where the child was counting on from 10.

Extract from transcript of eighth lesson by Miss Lora Hunter at St

Paul First School
[The class is working on the carpet and they are looking at
number bonds to 10]
Teacher: The next one ... are we ready? … what do I have to add to 4
to make ten?

282
Child: (points to the number line on the wall) 10, 9, 8, 7, 6 … its 6
Teacher: Well done 6

My data have shown the subjective and individual nature of perception

that children bring to each task. In part therefore, the perception of

children has an impact on their ability to achieve the task.

In terms of my prior knowledge model, perception forms an element

which shapes memory. As the data have demonstrated, the perception of

children influences their approach to the given task. Also it is the flexible

nature of perception that supports children’s approach to a mathematical

task and functions as a facet of prior knowledge.

6.6.3 Cognition

6.6.3.1 Theoretical Perspective

There are a plethora of perspectives in relation to how individuals cognate

and what this process entails. Throughout history there have been many

themes about this seemingly unique ability that individuals have to learn

and comprehend. It is of little value for me to consider in any great detail

all the various views and opinions which have been put forward by many

eminent researchers on cognition. I feel that in terms of understanding

what role cognition has as an element of prior knowledge, it is important

to consider the key concepts and ideas in terms of the role they have to

play in the development of prior knowledge. Cognition, in very simplistic

terms, is a way to understand the world.

283
Tait-McCutcheon (2008) states that “cognition refers to the process of

coming to know and understand; the process of storing, processing, and

retrieving information” (p. 507). This idea of cognition and what its

functions are must not be confused with theories provided by many such

as Thorndike, Schoenfeld, Piaget, Anderson, and Bruner which consider

how individuals cognate. This distinction is critical in my model as the role

of cognition within my prior knowledge model is as an element of prior

knowledge which depicts that knowledge which is already known.

Ashcraft (1982) states that there are many methodologies used by

children for retrieval, e.g. number facts from memory, which have been

conceptualised as being automatic skills which do not require any

reflection. Theories of cognition have demonstrated that after processing

understanding of mathematical tasks through various processes such as

Dienes’ (1971) perspective of cognition through practical tasks or Piaget’s

(1954) view that we construct knowledge through our experiences, the

ultimate outcome is that within mathematics, there are concepts that we

eventually realise into our memory and they remain there unchallenged

and unchanged and become intuitive.

For example, if we consider how we calculate 12+1 is 13, adults may find

it very difficult to explain the mental stages involved in arriving at the

answer. However in the past, prior to knowing that 12+1 is 13, there

would have been a series of experiences to allow you time to revisit the

question and explore the ideas and concepts which allow an

understanding of why 12+1 is 13. Thus over time it becomes intuitive. It

is this ability to access answers without any prompts that manifests itself

284
in the transcripts. In prior knowledge, cognition is knowledge which has

become tacit through experience. Children bring an element of tacit

knowledge as part of their prior knowledge.

6.6.3.2 Definition

In my prior knowledge model, cognition is the efficiency and level of

accuracy with which children complete mathematical tasks. It is not to be

mistaken for the process used to complete the task. Throughout the

observations, there were some tasks or parts of mathematical tasks that

the children seemed to be able to do with little or no reference to

anything. It appears as if there are some things that children intuitively

know. These events have been classified in my prior knowledge model as

cognition. Cognition is the ability to carry out a task or series of tasks in

as few steps as possible giving the appearance of intuition or being tacit.

6.6.3.3 Empirical Evidence

Looking at the first transcript below, it can be seen that children are able

to attempt with clarity, accuracy and little link or acknowledgement of any

other idea to support the formulation of an answer. In the second

transcript, I observed a child who is not only very able to solve the

mathematical problem, but also able to explain his answer with clarity.

Extract from transcript of second lesson by Mrs Jane Marshall at

Argyle Common First School
Teacher: Eighty and two … how many tens in eighty Lauren?
Child: Eight
Teacher: How many ten pences would I need?
Child: Eight
Teacher: And how many pennies would I need?

285
Child: Two

Extract from transcript of third lesson by Mrs Jennie Brooks at

Draycott First School
Teacher: Three … ten take away something makes seven … are you
ready think what Matthew has just done …let us try another
… ten take something makes eight … Matthew
Child: Two
Teacher: How did you know that because I didn’t see you doing it?
Child: You know that eight add two make ten so ten take away two
is eight

In the next transcript, children are also able to identify with speed,

accuracy and without any prompting errors that they make.

Extract from transcript of eighth lesson by Mrs Jo Fishily at

Greenville Park Community School
Teacher: Give me a take away sum where the answer is six
Child: 25–16 no I mean umm nine
Teacher: Ok we need a take away sum where the answer is six?
Child: Umm twenty-six take away twenty

In the following transcripts, children are able to provide answers without

any hesitation or further steps.

Extract from transcript of third lesson by Mrs Jill Thomas at St

Paul First School
Teacher: Right let’s see if we can remember the different words we
used for … addition and subtraction … remember all those
different words so you have got to listen very carefully …
remember you are not going show until I say ready steady
show … right three plus four … three plus four … ready steady
show … three plus four is … ?
Most children: Seven … (hold up their white boards)
Teacher: Seven … let’s do another one nine add two … nine add two …
nine add two
Child: Eleven …… (holds up his white board)

286
 Extract from transcript of ninth lesson by Mrs Sally Crane at
Hatton First School
Teacher: What is one less than eleven?
Child: Ten
Teacher: Brilliant how did you do it?
Child: I just put one finger and took it away and I knew it was ten
Teacher: You just did it in your head did you ... you just did it?
Child: Yes

The structure of prior knowledge contains elements of pre-understood

cognition. In common definitions of prior knowledge, it is this ability to

cognate that is mistakenly called prior knowledge. Looking at the data,

children appear to already have the relevant subject knowledge without

any indication showing the need to learn this subject knowledge. There is

a sense that this knowledge has always been part of the children, waiting

for the correct moment for it to be part of an individual’s approach to a

task. Where has this knowledge come from? The transcripts reveal that

the knowledge has been built up as a result of past experiences which

have changed or modified past memory. When considering the overall

range of data, a theme to come through is a notion of practice and

repeated exposure to mathematical ideas. This repetitious exposure to the

same mathematical concept explains the eventual efficiency, fluency and

accuracy with no further changes to that aspect of memory which I have

labelled as cognition. From other sections of this chapter, I have seen that

this repetitious engagement involves children using other elements of

prior knowledge in order to comprehend and make sense of mathematical

tasks and eventually gaining fluency. The process of repetitious practice

removes knowledge from its original context as it becomes tacit.

287
When engaged in some familiar tasks, cognition appears to be the

dominant element of prior knowledge. The development of cognition is

very much influenced by all other elements of prior knowledge. However

in some mathematical tasks, it is the one which has been brought to bear

upon the task. Cognition is not about measuring ability, it represents the

aspect of prior knowledge where children have become efficient. Prior

knowledge has, for any given aspect, been built up through different

elements playing a lead role, and in the case of cognition this has been

manifested through the lack of need to reference to any other external

framework to understand the task. The children’s prior knowledge has

been shaped so that it can be applied to the task with efficiency. Cognition

must not be confused with intelligence, but more so with the structure of

prior knowledge at that moment. Each time children engage in

mathematical tasks, they bring uniqueness in how each element of prior

knowledge influences their understanding and approach to the

mathematical tasks.

6.6.4 Social Group

6.6.4.1 Theoretical Perspective

The element of prior knowledge which has caused the greatest complexity

in defining, though we all understand when we read the words, is social

groups. What is roughly meant by this expression? We all have a very

different interpretation of who constitute our social groups. However we

can agree that there is a common understanding.

288
 A social group can be defined as two or more
individuals who share a common social
identification of themselves.

(Turner, 2010, p. 15)

Furthermore researchers offer ideas of how to classify social groups in

terms of common characteristics, though these do not support my thesis

(Cooley, 1909; Sumner, 1907). Ellwood’s (1919) classification of social

groups offers some clarity in terms of the groups that manifested

themselves in my research – permanent/temporary. Permanent groups

consist of parents and siblings, and this can be extended to any

individuals that form longer relationships such as grandparents, and in

terms of the modern family unit, extended family such as half-siblings and

so on. In Ellwood’s terms, temporary groups, in contrast to permanent

groups, are individuals who have limited relations in terms of length of

time such as friends, friends of siblings, and so on. Over time some

members may move from temporary to permanent. However in terms of

my data, this classification suffices.

Of greater importance are the functions of social groups as stated by Park

and Burgess (1921).

The individual is influenced in differing degrees

and in a specific manner, by the different types
of group of which he is a member.

(Park & Burgess, 1921, p. 52)

This influence of groups upon children as members of a social group

shapes what children bring to their mathematical tasks and influences the

way in which they are able to engage with mathematical tasks.

289
6.6.4.2 Definition

In my prior knowledge model, the experiences that children have with

other people and how those experiences have shaped their ability to

understand and approach mathematical tasks are what I am calling social

groups. The transcripts below provide some examples which help to define

social groups in terms of my model. These transcripts show how children

use the ideas that they have established through their interactions with

other people to support understanding and achievement of tasks.

The data show that the people that children have had experience of fall

into two groups – family and friends. All of the analysis which was marked

as belonging to social group belongs to these two groups. Not included in

this area of social group are teachers as these would form part of

acculturation (Section6.4).

6.6.4.3 Empirical Evidence

In the transcript below, this child’s understanding and familiarity with

money is linked to the experiences and conversations she has already had

with her mother. Prior knowledge has been shaped by the ideas explored

in the past with her mother.

Extract from transcript of third lesson by Mrs Jennie Brooks at

Draycott First School
Teacher: Money sums that’s right … right sit in a circle please … umm
you two are talking to much … don’t … up the top James well
spotted come on Holly … over by Scott … right let’s see what
I’ve got
Child: Looks like money … lots of money… I have 100 pennies in my
piggy bank. Mummy says I can spend it when I am big.

290
In the transcript below, the impact on this child’s tackling of this question

is influenced by how he has experienced the reduction of numbers in

terms of balloons being burst. In this case, there is an overlap between

the element of social group and the element of context represented by

balloons.

Extract from transcript of sixth lesson by Miss Lora Hunter at St

Paul First School
[Children are looking at a card with balloons on it and
crossing out balloons to do a subtraction sum]
Teacher: It was it was a take away … how do we know? how do you
know it was a take away? … Kieran?
Child: Balloons burst and went… my brother does that … he jumps
on balloons and they pop. I don’t like the noise and I lose my
balloons (child looks down and is sad)
Teacher: That’s it the balloons burst so they went away

In the next transcript, it can be seen that ideas developed about addition

are associated with siblings and their ages. This child has used a

chronological number line in order to complete the question asked.

Extract from transcript of sixth lesson by Miss Lora Hunter at St

Paul First School
Teacher: And four more how many do six and four more make … count
them
Child: Nine
Teacher: Count it
Child: One two three four five six seven eight nine
Teacher: How many does it make?
Child: Umm
Teacher: She’s not sure let’s ask somebody else to see if we can have
a clue how they worked it out … Abbie what did you do?
Child: I got six on the number line like me then I jumped on four
more like my sister who is a baby… so six first cos I am
bigger then my baby sister four

291
Another factor derived from the transcripts which links to social groups

and affects how prior knowledge is structured are the ideas and concepts

children have about attitudes and approaches of other members of the

social group towards mathematics. As can be seen in the transcript below,

in this case the child has linked his understanding and ability to complete

this task to the notion that this is as a result of his father’s abilities in

mathematics. I can extrapolate from this example that attitudes of

individual members of the social group have an influence on the approach

and outcome children achieve on mathematical tasks.

Extract from transcript of fifth lesson by Mrs Jennie Brooks at

Draycott First School
Teacher: Well done … how did you do it … Harry if I see bits all over
the floor I shall be cross … ready listen to what I am saying …
four p Harry four p add three p add … five p four p add three
p add five p
Child: I can’t do it on here
Teacher: Shhh shhh yes you can
Child: How do you do it?
Teacher: Have a go Bethany … hold it up … shhh who is going to be
first four p add three p add five p
Child: That is one two three
Teacher: Well done Nathan well done Bethany … no Matthew well done
Chloe
Child: I know four five
Teacher: Shhh … all right add it up Scott … well done Jack … no
Matthew … shhh shhh
Child: It’s
Teacher: No I haven’t asked a number yet
Child: It’s twelve
Teacher: Well done Zeno you are good at these
Child: My daddy is good at these

The next transcript illustrates another aspect of how social groups have an

impact upon children’s ability and methods used to address mathematical

292
tasks. In the transcript below, the child has recalled counting in four’s

through experiencing his friend’s singing.

Extract from transcript of sixth lesson by Mrs Jane Marshall at

Argyle Common First School
[The children build up the pattern of fours to ten]
Child: I know it ends at forty
Teacher: Why
Child: I counted up in four’s … you know Joe (child whispers to his
friend) Poppy sings her counting in four’s …

Children’s level of confidence and security is dependent upon the

encouragement children have experienced from members of their social

group. In the transcript below, the child is comfortable in making further

attempts to answer a question as she has had positive experiences from

her mother even when she has made an error. In this case, this ability

and emotion to attempt the question again impacts upon prior knowledge

and memory. Conversely the impact still exists even when there are

negative experiences from social groups. In terms of shaping prior

knowledge, all experiences have some form of impact upon it.

Extract from transcript of fourth lesson by Mrs Rebecca Rice at St

Paul First School
[The teacher is talking about a worksheet children did at
home and brought into school. The task was to identify odd
and even numbers by colouring them red and blue.]
Teacher: Number fifteen Sam is
Child: Even…
Teacher: Are you sure?
Child: Umm… its 5 and 0…so…can I have another go….?
Teacher: Not fifty … fifteen … yes…
Child: I did this with mummy and said I need to keep trying… it
is…odd?
Teacher: Well done…

293
Children often formulate the question in terms of a scenario they have

already experienced as in the second transcript above where the

disappearance or bursting of balloons and his big brother left the child

with fewer balloons. Furthermore the link to taking away or simple

understanding of numbers is connected to personal factors such as age

and size onto the order in which numbers should be added. Children’s

understanding of numbers is in part linked to actual people. This use of

social groups to formulate understanding is not limited to just numbers,

but also to how concepts in mathematics are formulated.

The social groups that children belong to are all unique and different and,

as seen in the transcripts above, have a huge impact upon how children

approach mathematical tasks. Therefore the influence of social groups

upon children’s prior knowledge was determined by the factors below:

 Using their social group as a frame of reference to understand and

conceptualise the mathematical tasks they are set;

 Time that members of the social group spend with the child

engaged in mathematical activities and conversations;

 The attitudes and approaches of individual members of the social

group towards mathematics;

 The level of security that children feel within this social group to

make mistakes.

The other feature of social groups is the interaction between children

while working on mathematical tasks. The co-construction of

understanding has an impact on the effect social groups have on

development of understanding and shaping of memory. These ideas are

294
reflected through elements of Vygotsky’s (1978) work on social

construction of learning and development.

Every function in the child’s cultural

development appears twice: first, on the social
level, and later, on the individual level; first,
between people..., and then inside the child.
This applies equally to voluntary attention, to
logical memory, and to the formation of
concepts. All the higher [mental] functions
originate as actual relations between human
individuals.

(Vygotsky, 1978, p. 57)

6.6.5 Abstraction

6.6.5.1 Theoretical Perspective

Ferrari (2003) states that “abstraction is a fundamental process in

mathematics ... abstraction is a basic step in the creation of new

concepts” (p. 1225). Mitchelmore and White (2007) provide further

information by stating that “abstraction has been a frequent discussion

topic since the days of Aristotle and Plato” (p. 1).

Therefore it is vital that I consider what this term means, so that there

can be development in understanding the structure of prior knowledge.

Mathematics, by its very nature, demands abstraction as “mathematics

uses everyday words, but their meaning is defined precisely in relation to

other mathematical terms and not by their everyday meaning”

(Mitchelmore & White, 2004, p. 329).

Within the primary classroom, this duality of language is ever-present and

the children make many interpretations. The process of abstraction is

295
important to consider as within mathematics children go through a

transition from something they find quite complex and very specific to a

generalised idea, e.g. from counting and only being able to count objects

by touching them to being able to count anything without needing to have

it even physically present.

This notion that an element of abstraction is about being able to generate

and formulate rules is important in terms of what I have seen in my data.

This idea does have a link to the cognitive processes that children have

acquired and a concept that has been abstracted may appear as cognition

in the classroom as we have seen with the counting example (being able

to count fluently).

The other process which must be considered as a way in which we

abstract is this notion of decontextualisation. Ferrari (2003) states that

“generalisation implies a certain degree of decontextualization” (p. 1226).

The German mathematician Hilbert’s idea that all mathematical tasks

must be eventually stripped of everything that is not essential causes

some difficulty in terms of young children’s acquisition of mathematical

understanding. It is necessary for them to have some degree of

generalisation and application of their understanding. Often children use

contexts to gain a form of abstraction and the memory they glean from

the task to support them in applying ideas to other situations.

Skemp (1987) offers an alternative view of abstraction being empirical

abstraction.

296
 Abstraction is an activity by which we become
aware of similarities ... among our experiences.
Classifying means collecting together our
experiences on the basis of these similarities. An
abstraction is some kind of lasting mental
change, the result of abstracting, which enables
us to recognize new experiences as having the
similarities of an already formed class. ... To
distinguish between abstracting as an activity
and an abstraction as its end-product, we shall
hereafter call the latter a concept.

(Skemp, 1987, p. 21; italics in original)

To summarise therefore, the individual journey towards mathematical

abstraction is going to be very different for each child and each

mathematical task they face. The ways in which children abstract is part

of prior knowledge as the data have shown that it has an influence upon

how children approach their tasks.

6.6.5.2 Definition

In my prior knowledge model, the ideas that children use to make

meaning of mathematical tasks and support their understanding of and

engagement in the task are what I am calling abstraction. It is when

children demonstrate an understanding of similarities between two or

more ideas, and further can use these ideas to develop and understand

new concepts within mathematics.

6.6.5.3 Empirical Evidence

The transcript below shows how a child has used the definition and

characteristics of a shape given by the teacher and linked them to an ice

cream cone. This extrapolation and association of the description to

something which the child has experience of has allowed her to relate to

297
the mathematics being discussed. Further she has been able to take the

concrete example of an ice cream cone and abstract it to a generalised

definition of a geometrical shape.

Extract from transcript of third lesson by Mrs Jo Fishily at

Greenville Park Community School
Teacher: Don’t worry about anyone else just worry about your own
answer please … Shakar can you sit up nice and straight …
well what is that one?
Child: Cone
Teacher: Yes it is a slanty cone that doesn’t matter it’s got one flat
surface and a point
Child: Ice-cream cone … so that is a cone …

Abstraction is also the understanding of symbols and their operations.

Within mathematics, the ability to manipulate numbers without actually

doing the task physically is required. In the transcript below, children are

asked to change numbers to formulate new valid sums. The child shows

the ability to move numbers around in a meaningful manner. He also

understands the notions and ideas of operations as symbols having

meaning in a physical sense without really carrying out these tasks

physically. There is initially some confusion in terms of the symbol of

division and multiplication and also the understanding of numbers.

Extract from transcript of third lesson by Mrs Jo Fishily at

Greenville Park Community School
[Children are asked to make new valid sums based on these
numbers (12 ÷ 6 = 2 or 12 ÷ 2 = 6) … taking the opposite
operation of the one above asking the children to deduce
from the knowledge they have to apply it to a new fact and
create a multiplication sum]
Child: 6 ÷ 12
Teacher: Ok 6 ÷ 12 … what will the answer be
Child: Oops no it’s six times
Teacher: Hang on shh shh Andrew you have a go

298
Child: Six times two equals twelve

The data show the children used visual ideas to understand mathematical

tasks through the use of symbolic representation to understand the tasks

they are being asked to engage in. In the transcript below, children are

working on patterns. The fact that this child is able to abstract from this

pattern to one which is symmetrical and is like looking in a mirror helps

children to visualise the pattern without ever having to use an actual

mirror.

Extract from transcript of eighth lesson by Mrs Jennie Brooks at

Draycott First School
[The teacher has arranged a few children in a pattern
(without telling the children why she is arranging them in this
particular way as a symmetrical pattern) and they are now
asked to explain what they see. Children pick up on the
pattern there is much talk amongst the children.]
Child: Two boys are facing the two boys on that side and one girl is
facing a girl on that side
Child: Oh (shouts) it’s just like a mirror!!!
Teacher: Go on … only it’s not like a mirror because look at him and
look at you
Child: Cause it’s all a bent line
Teacher: What do you mean?
Child: A mirror is like this [child expresses a straight line with her
hand]
[The children are split in half by the teacher and positioned in
a different pattern and asked to look at the others and see if
they can make sure they are standing in the same way …
each child is looking closely and tries to replicates what they
see on the other side the line]
Teacher: Now Matthew said it was like a mirror … what do we call it
when it’s like a mirror what’s that big word? S SS
Child: Similar
Teacher: Nearly Jack
Child: Symmetry
Teacher: Yes that’s right … it is symmetrical

299
In the next transcript, children have understood the ideas involved in

addition and finding numbers that help reach a particular value. They

demonstrate the ability to combine two sets of numbers together. This

ability to use number facts in the task demonstrates the ability to abstract

and understand features of numbers and values.

Extract from transcript of eighth lesson by Mrs Jill Thomas at St

Paul First School
[The children all have number fans on the table they are
going to use those to carry out some questions on number
bonds of ten … the teacher has instructed that she will say
one or hold a number and the children are to find another
they think when added will make ten]
Teacher: When I hold up say umm the number two you will hold up
number
Child: Eight
Teacher: Right you will hold up number eight … well done
Child: So you’ve got to get the number to ten
Teacher: Yes … you don’t need to say the number you don’t need to
say eight or anything else … you need to keep it to yourself
till I say ready steady show … all right … I am not going to
say what my number is I think you can read the number
[The children are given a few examples first by the teacher
saying the number … then she just shows the number … the
children all are trying to work independently but there are
still some who like to see if their answer is correct in relation
to others and lack confidence in their answer … once the
children have shown their answer the number bond is said
out loud]
Teacher: Three and
Most children: Seven
Children and teacher: Seven make ten

The notion of abstraction is dependent upon other elements of prior

knowledge and later formulates the ability to abstract more widely as in

the third transcript or in Piagetian terms:

Piaget (1977) made a distinction between

abstraction on the basis of superficial

300
 characteristics of physical objects (abstraction à
partir de l’objet) and abstraction on the basis of
relationships perceived when the learner
manipulates these objects (abstraction à partir
de l’action). But both are based on the child’s
physical and social experience, and in both
similarity recognition is essential. In using the
term empirical abstraction to cover both cases,
we are making the distinction between
abstraction on the basis of experience and what
we shall call theoretical abstraction.

(Mitchelmore & White, 2004, p. 332)

Abstraction based on physical objects like a mirror or abstraction based on

relationships established when the learner manipulates objects as in the

second transcript leads to abstraction of theoretical concepts as in the

fourth transcript.

6.7 Summary

Having considered the elements emerging from the data that form a

possible structure of prior knowledge and how they influence the central

category of memory, it is essential to finally look at my partial model, how

the elements all fit together and form a possible structure of prior

knowledge, and how may the model function when children are engaged

in mathematical tasks.

Before that is possible, it is essential to consider the lenses which have

been used to carry out this study or, in Glaserian terms, theoretical

sensitivity.

Theoretical sensitivity is the ability to recognize

what is important in data and to give it
meaning. It helps to formulate a theory that is

301
 faithful to the reality of the phenomena under
study.

(Strauss & Corbin, 1990, p. 46)

There are many sources of alignment I have used, all of which have

shaped my understanding and inclination to consider the data in a very

particular manner. Ironically it is the process of researching that has

shaped my senses and allowed me to understand data through reading,

experiences in the classroom, and crucially having spent a long time

thinking about the question “What is prior knowledge?” and looking for an

answer. The desire to understand this phenomenon has heightened my

determination to look for ideas and use many variations to try and fit and

find solutions to the questions. The mere fact that I have spent a large

amount of time thinking about the solution to my question and looking for

an answer means that unusual and creative processes are at work to

make connections which will address the puzzle I am faced with. The

stages of research and the process of analysis itself have shaped the

thinking and evaluations I am able to carry out. Literature for example

has allowed me to consider ideas which may not have been developed in

relation to prior knowledge but could be applied to its understanding. It

allows for the individual creative nature of qualitative analysis to take

hold. It acknowledges that analysis and understanding of data requires a

degree of creativity, problem solving and imagination as the solution is

not concrete, and therefore must be visualised and then put into concrete

form. Like an architect, the researcher is only limited by lack of

imagination and creative thinking, and is also limited by the lack of

practical know how. This idea of being able to link events and concepts in

302
creative new ways to make connections that are not limited by the past is

quite exciting. Furthermore the more I look at the data and interact with

the data, the better I understand what the data are trying to tell me.

Together with reading and exploring through experiences in the

classroom, the emerging model developed has a rich layer of process and

imagination based in conceptual experiences.

As each element was being explored and defined through what the data

showed, one of the key themes to emerge was the marked influence of

each element upon the shape of memory.

An essential point to note is that the structure of prior knowledge is not

static, but one that is moving and changing shape through the interaction

between the elements. Like a snowflake made up of oxygen and hydrogen

and changing shape as it passes through the environment, prior

knowledge also functions in a similar manner. Also what has become

apparent through the process of analysis is that there may be other

categories which make up prior knowledge. It is not possible for me to

definitive in the claim that these are the only constituents of prior

knowledge. The vastness of human understanding and its ever-changing

nature make it problematic to insist that the eight categories I have

proposed are definitive and there may be no more additions to the model.

The interconnected nature of each element is key to understanding how

prior knowledge functions. With every task, children bring different

aspects of prior knowledge to help them complete or understand solving

the mathematical challenges that they face. The choice of which element

they bring to bear is dependent on the shape of their memory. The

303
shaping of one element influences that of all others. For example, when a

child is working out, as in the transcript below, what half of a circle is,

they have a perception that they bring to bear upon the task, that of a

pizza which they have linked to toys they played with in the nursery – the

acculturation experiences they have had. Also they further used their

motivation and ability to metacognate in terms of their approach when a

child states “I have done this before”, “it’s easy”. All of this occurs before

the task is even attempted or becomes possible and on attempts made by

the child.

Extract from transcript of sixth lesson by Mrs Helen Fellows at

Greenville Park Community School
Teacher: What shape do we get if we cut this circle in half … like this?
Child: A moon
Child: It’s like that pretend pizza my sister plays with in nursery
Child: Ooh yes … I have played with that when I was a baby…
Teacher: Do we know what the name of the shape is?
Child: It’s easy
Teacher: Ok any guesses
Child: Umm a chopped circle
Teacher: A good guess but no … anyone else…

Through all the data analysed, there are many different combinations of

each element being used to attempt mathematical tasks. The pattern of

prior knowledge changes in a kaleidoscopic manner. As in a kaleidoscope,

the elements are the same, but keep changing in shape. This will in turn

affect all the other elements, as there are new experiences to alter the

memory, and this in turn reshapes the elements of prior knowledge. In

this case, prior knowledge is more than just prior knowledge of fractions,

it is a series of elements which link together to form modifiers of memory

304
and thus the process of how tasks are managed. Hence each time children

engage in mathematical tasks, they bring their own unique prior

knowledge which is composed of these eight elements, and possibly

others that were not revealed through my data, but in different

proportions for different children as illustrated in Figure 6.2.

Metacognition

Context Acculturation

Richard
Cognition Abstraction Jack
Jonathan

Individual
Social groups
motivation

Perception

Figure 6.2 Composition of three children’s prior knowledge

Figure 6.2 depicts the prior knowledge of three children – Richard, Jack

and Jonathan – as they engage in mathematical tasks related to shapes.

In the transcript extract below, Richard is engaging in the task of naming

shapes. In order to achieve this task, Richard is recalling some ideas from

past experience in terms of the properties of a circle and how this related

to having seen the shape before in the context of an object he has at

home. There is some element of perception in terms of similarities with a

frame for making pompoms, but the context of having used it before at

home has allowed him to name the shape. In the process, he does reflect

305
elements of individual motivation when he is unable to name the shape

right away.

Extract from transcript of second lesson by Mrs Sally Crane at

Hatton First School
Teacher: Elly and Charlotte go and sit back please … now then let’s
have a look at these shapes … now then I am going to ask
you some questions about these shapes … I am going to
choose somebody … to start … to start us off … now then let
me see Richard … would you like to choose one shape? all
right and then see what you can tell me about it? … just
choose one shape and see what you can tell me about it? …
which one would you like to choose? … right now what can
you tell us about that shape?
Child: Umm it’s yellow
Teacher: Turn around and let’s see everybody … show everyone …
right it’s yellow … very good
Child: It’s yellow and it’sss round andddd it’s got no endss and
ummm it’s quite
Teacher: That’s a very good start … a very good start
Child: Umm
Teacher: Do you know what that shape is called?
Child: No
Teacher: Have a try what is it called?
Child: It’s a pompom… It looks like the one my hat
Teacher: No it isn’t … have another go
Child: Its squashed … but has a bit of a side… (child points to the
edge of the plastic shape)
Teacher: Is it a square, triangle or circle?
Child: Circle…. why has it got fat bits at the bottom then like the
thing I’ve got to make pompoms where you have to circle
round to make it … just no hole?

In the transcript extract below, Jack is engaging in the task of identifying

shapes. But in contrast to Richard, he has used acculturation in that he

identifies that he has done this in school with the teaching assistant. Also

there is an element of cognition in that he was able to recall the fact that

they had done 2D shapes. With this, he has also noted that he has played

306
with something similar at home with a parent (social group). All these

elements to some extent support the way in which Jack tackles the task.

Extract from transcript of second lesson by Miss Lora Hunter at St

Paul First School
Teacher: That was in the afternoon … what were we doing yesterday
morning in maths?
Child: Shapes
Teacher: Look at this … what kind of shapes Jack?
Child: 2D shapes
Teacher: Well done Jack … 2D flat shapes now I am….Right I am
thinking of a shape and I am going to describe that 2D shape
and I want you to
Child: This is cool the same as we played in pairs before and with
Mum … outside with Mrs Jones. [Mrs Jones is the TA]
Teacher: Put your hand up in the air if you have guessed what that
shape Harry Harris is holding … ok
Child: Mrs Jones had that one … triangle

In the transcript extract below, Jonathan is engaging in the task of

identifying properties of shapes. In this case, there is a large element of

metacognition which is supporting Jonathan. He acknowledges that the

answer he has given is wrong and needs to be corrected. Using his sense

of what a square and rectangle are in order to address the task, we see in

this extract there are a few occurrences where he notes his error and tries

to correct them (metacognition). He does perceive the difference between

the square and rectangle and talks about the square being pulled

(perception), and goes on to tackle the question with the support of

metacognition. His ability to identify and count corners quickly without

any errors or explanation indicates elements of cognition.

307
Extract from transcript of second lesson by Mrs Rebecca Rice at St
Paul First School
Teacher: Look at my shape Jonathan what can you tell me about
what’s special about it? … why is it different to the square?
Child: It’s got four corners
Teacher: Four corners that’s the same as a square it’s got four corners
hasn’t it? … Connor what’s different about a square and a
rectangle?
Child: It’s a bit different … I know what I mean … I remember … it
is pulled …
Teacher: What’s different about it?
Child: It hasn’t got the same shape … no that is wrong … I know
ummm (child waves hand)
Teacher: What do you mean by it hasn’t got the same shape?
Child: Cause that one’s different than that … before I said corners …
not corners its
Teacher: It is different isn’t it? sides on the top are not the same are
they? … Daniel Harvey and Thomas … what’s different
Jonathan? I know it’s different but I don’t what know you
mean by different
Child: It’s … that one hasn’t got the same corners
Teacher: Not got the same corners it’s got four corners though hasn’t
it?
Child: No not corners … … one two three four one two three four …
it the same but it’s not quite the same shape I got that word
Teacher: It still has four corners but it’s not quite the same shape …
Ellis can you tell what is the difference between these two?
Jonathan has just told us it’s got four corners but it’s not the
same shape … what’s different about it? … go on Jonathan
Child: Cause that one is a rectangle and that one’s a square
Teacher: Yes that one is a rectangle and that one a square but how do
you know what’s different about them? … what makes that
one a rectangle and that one a square?
Child: Cause they’re not the same
Teacher: You are quite right they are not the same so what’s different
about them?
Child: All the other squares are not the same … I am in a muddle
Teacher: They are not the same all the squares are not the same
Child: That one’s bigger
Teacher: Well you can get large squares and small squares can’t you
but that’s not … can you see Jonathan? can you tell me what
the difference is between these two shapes?

308
Child: Well that one’s got longer corners and shorter corners … I
know what I mean (child points to sides) … made a mistake
with the word
Teacher: Oh did you hear what Philip said? … listen Connors … Shh shh
Child: Mrs Rice I have found a big square
Teacher: Listen to what Jonathan said … he said this one’s got longer
corners … does he mean longer corners do you think James?
Child: Umm yes
Teacher: Let’s see here are the corners are they longer? then those
corners … Jonathan those are the corners where my fingers
are touching are they longer?
Child: Nope
Teacher: The corners aren’t longer something else is longer …
Child: … … oh oh I know it is … sides
Teacher: Ahh we got there … good boy well done Jonathan …
Child: Yeah

These three examples illustrate how different children bring different

elements of prior knowledge to support their tackling of similar tasks.

Though in each case there were various degrees of different elements of

prior knowledge, there were individual dominating factors.

To conclude, the structure of prior knowledge based on my research is

eight interlinked elements which impact upon the shape and structure of

memory and is present when children engage in mathematical tasks. We

must consider that my proposed partial model comprising eight elements

is a starting point in the journey to develop a complete and finite

understanding of prior knowledge, as further data may allow for the

emergence of other elements which were not detected in my data.

309
310
 7 RESEARCH IMPLICATIONS

7.1 Introduction

Through this research, I have developed a partial structure for prior

knowledge. By using a combination of grounded theory and content

analysis, my research has resulted in a partial model from a range of

contributory elements defining the prior knowledge of children present

when engaging in mathematical tasks. The partial model turns rhetoric

into reality by giving a deeper understanding to a common and, to a great

extent, widely misunderstood term. There are many implications as a

result of this development for practice and pedagogy. This chapter brings

this research a full circle and considers the value and place of this partial

model in practice; and furthermore examines what the next steps should

be as a result of this deeper understanding of prior knowledge. Without

considering the question “so what is the value of this research?” there is

little point in having developed this partial model. Therefore in this

chapter, I summarise the key findings and then look at the impact,

implications and value of this research on schools, teachers, children and

curriculum.

7.2 Key Findings

 The partial prior knowledge model is made up of three interlinked

elements –acculturation, context and metacognition – which shape

memory, and further five emerging elements – abstraction,

cognition, individual motivation, perception, and social group;

311
  Prior knowledge may contain further elements;

 Prior knowledge is not the same as subject knowledge;

 Each individual has their own prior knowledge profile consisting of a

combination of a range of contributory elements of prior knowledge

present each time they consider a mathematical task;

 The contributory elements of prior knowledge influence individual

memory and shape what children draw upon when approaching

mathematical tasks;

 Any child’s prior knowledge profile is constantly changing due to the

continuous experiences that children have;

 Prior knowledge is shaped by all of a child’s experiences and not

just by classroom experiences;

 Experiences are absorbed very differently by children due to the

individual nature of their prior knowledge.

7.3 Schools

The central mission of schools has always been the activity of developing

both learning and learners. The Cambridge Primary Review proposes

“twelve core educational aims which schools might pursue through the

way they organise themselves, through the curriculum, through

pedagogy, and the relationships they daily seek to foster and enact”

(Alexander, 2010, p. 197).

The proposed aims are organised into three groups – the individual (well-

being; engagement; empowerment; autonomy); self, others and the

wider world (encouraging respect and reciprocity; promoting

312
independence and sustainability; empowering local, national and global

citizenship; celebrating culture and community); and learning, knowing

and doing (exploring, knowing, understanding and making sense;

fostering skill; exciting the imagination; enacting dialogue) (Alexander,

2010, p. 197-199). My prior knowledge model forces us to consider a new

way of developing strategies to support these aims.

If, as has emerged from this research, each individual is dependent on the

shape of their prior knowledge and the elements of this prior knowledge

are made of constituent components, maybe the way to meet the aims set

out above is not to group children in either age or ability, but to consider

their experiential base and gather evidence from the way in which they

approach tasks and the aspects of prior knowledge that are leading

thinking in a particular area.

The partial prior knowledge model offers a way to start understanding the

individual child and support their development in a mass system.

Understanding offered by this structure forces teachers to rethink the way

in which they listen to children and view their actions in the classroom and

consider the complexities of each learner, enabling a process by which

focused informed planning can take place. For example, looking at Figure

6.2, we note that the three children have different aspects of prior

knowledge that they are using to support understanding of a similar task.

Therefore consideration should be given to whether grouping them in

ability groups would be of any benefit or whether considering grouping in

a way that allows them to use areas of prior knowledge to support greater

understanding and engagement would allow them to progress more.

313
Knowing what individuals are using to understand the task helps in

presenting other tasks that will allow relational understanding to take

place. E.g. Jonathan is using his metacognition and perception to

understand the task. Therefore allowing him to consider the task in a

more challenging way which requires him to sort through a range of

outcomes may be the way forward in supporting the way he is using his

metacognition skills to decode the task.

Giving a structure to something that did not previously have any definition

(as seen in Chapter 2) in itself is useful as it empowers teachers to

verbalise and categorise the notion of prior knowledge, giving them a

language for communicating the prior knowledge of children. My partial

model offers schools a starting point for the process of thinking about how

children will be accessing the learning that takes place. Having partly

defined a structure for prior knowledge allows us to know what to look for

in children while they perform a task. Knowing the way in which children

are thinking not just allows us to determine what they are learning, but

also know how they may be using it to make meaning of each task.

Knowing this is powerful as it allows teachers to present material that

maximises the rate at which individuals make sense of the task.

The partial model forces teachers to consider, in terms of mathematical

teaching, a much wider base in children’s understanding. This research

has brought to light the diverse nature of children’s knowledge in

mathematics and how they approach tasks. The discourse for schools is

widened as the realisation that prior knowledge is not based and fixed in

the classroom has been clarified. Also knowing what some of the

314
constituents of prior knowledge are allows us to start thinking of a range

of experiences that we can expose children to in order to develop a bank

of ideas that provide greater tools to access difficult areas of

mathematics.

Understanding gained from this research and the emergence of this partial

model raises questions about the way we organise learning within schools.

There is currently, to some extent, a formulaic approach to mathematics

lessons and the knowledge that must be taught. My partial prior

knowledge model suggests that there must be a shift in thinking away

from a one-size-fits-all solution for organising classrooms to an

individualised personalised model of delivery. We need to move towards

an evidence-based teaching model – one which takes a diagnostic

approach to choice of pedagogy, planning and development of curriculum

and delivery. This is supported by the partial model developed through

this research as the emerging model offers a framework through which

evidence can be gathered.

Using this partial prior knowledge model as a way to gather information

for individualised planning would be ideal. However, as we are constrained

by the current education model, there needs to be a way to implement

this profiling and gathering of evidence. There is little value in planning

within schools without taking into account the new understanding of prior

knowledge offered in this thesis as it offers the ability to start from where

the children already are and opens the door that many learning theories

have relied upon to inculcate learning.

315
7.4 Teachers

The greatest impact of this partial model will be felt by the teachers.

Teachers are the dominant force in the improvement of a child’s ability to

relationally understand mathematics, and therefore form a bridge between

children and knowledge. Understanding of prior knowledge and its impact

upon learning is ingrained in pedagogical dialogue, and with it is the

limited definition – prior knowledge is what children already know about a

subject. This is easy to evaluate as subject knowledge can, to some

extent, be tested. However, my research has demonstrated that children

come to any mathematical task not only with prior subject knowledge, but

also a deeper relationship with the mathematics they are encountering.

My research offers a way to start understanding this deeper relationship.

Being able to listen to children while engaged in mathematical tasks with

some emerging pegs to hang ideas about the child is incredibly useful in

supporting, planning, differentiation, assessment and personalisation of

learning and thus support individual progress. The partial model offers a

way to listen to children and make meaning of how they think who they

are and how to move them forward. It opens the scope to have greater

precise fluid differentiation. Also understanding prior knowledge through

the evidence gathered from this partial model allows teachers to question

children in a more focused manner to direct their daily learning

experiences.

In order to support the development of children, teachers need to know

the real picture of prior knowledge within children. My partial model

supports teachers in gaining a truer picture of individual children.

316
Therefore teachers need to establish a new pedagogy – one which

integrates this emerging structure of prior knowledge within it. This partial

model offers teachers a template with which to begin gathering

information about children, to develop a more accurate detailed picture of

prior knowledge, and to enhance, use and develop to better effect the

critical role that prior knowledge plays in learning. This partial model

takes prior knowledge out of the dark domain of pedagogical rhetoric into

a useable meaningful map to enhance relational understanding and

learning.

Thinking about prior knowledge in terms of my model will require a huge

paradigm shift in the mindset of teachers, from the pre-assumed linear

structure of mathematics teaching to considering mathematics as a more

organic process that needs thoughtful construction of experiences to

support children’s learning. Teachers could argue that this seems like an

onerous task adding to their already heavy workload. However my partial

model offers a starting point to unlocking some of the difficulties that

teachers face on a daily basis. The 2009 House of Commons Public

Accounts Committee Report has highlighted that though, through the

implementation of the National Numeracy Strategy, there have been

improvements in planning and delivery of primary mathematics, there has

been little improvement in attainment (House of Commons Public

Accounts Committee, 2009). This report further highlights a fall in

mathematical knowledge and skills. These outcomes could be due to

teachers’ lack of understanding of the prior knowledge of the children they

are teaching. As already considered in Chapter 2, there is a link between

prior knowledge and learning, and my partial model fills this gap in

317
understanding. Through the use of the partial model, teachers will be able

to gain a better understanding of the prior knowledge of the children they

are teaching and put their strong pedagogical knowledge to better use to

enrich and enhance development of children in mathematics. As most

teachers carry out many activities which will support them in developing

this understanding of the child, it is not a question of implementing a new

process, but using best practice in a more mindful way to understand

children. For each area of my partial model, Table 7.1 and Table 7.2

contain some practical ideas for gaining this information. Table 7.1

focuses on the first three elements of the partial prior knowledge model,

while Table 7.2 focuses on the five other emerging elements of the partial

prior knowledge model. It must be noted that these are only one of a

myriad of possible practical methodologies that can be developed by

teachers to dovetail with existing practice for the understanding of

children’s prior knowledge.

Table 7.1 Possible methods for understanding children’s prior

knowledge

Prior knowledge Possible methods

element

Context  Talking and listening to children’s stories; using

circle time to understand and listen to each child
 Working with parents to develop a mathematics
diary (similar to reading records)
 Homework which ensures using contextual tasks
e.g. counting in pairs for sorting shoes
 Supporting mathematics through outdoor learning

Acculturation  Looking at records from previous settings

 Talking to past class teachers to gain an
understanding of children
 A comprehensive progression map within school
which allows all teachers to establish processes

318
 (e.g. calculation) which are consistent throughout
the school
 Having a clear system of established vocabulary
throughout the school

Metacognition  Choices in the methods in what children do while

engaging in mathematical tasks
 Taking part in self-assessment e.g. traffic lighting
 Choosing own targets
 Lessons where children spend time “marking” their
own work and giving explanations of their own
next steps
 Use of rich tasks and time for children their
approaches

Table 7.2 Possible methods for understanding children’s prior

knowledge

Prior knowledge Possible methods

element

Individual  Look at how they wish to challenge themselves;

motivation consider length of time that children spend on a
task
 Choice in how children record their work

Perception  Problem solving and how they use their logic

 Reading and writing number symbols

Cognition  Through observation, noting mathematical tasks

that children achieve with great efficiency
 “Fact finding” lessons looking at what children’s
subject knowledge is before starting

Social group  Information from parents through pre-existing

structures such as homework diaries

Abstraction  Through written work, considering children’s

understanding of mathematical symbols
 Using and applying their knowledge in a range of
problem solving contexts

On a practical level, one way in which this partial model can be used is at

the start of every school year for teachers, through observations,

consultation with both parents and past teachers, and setting

319
mathematical tasks, to build a prior knowledge profile constituting

elements of the partial model and to use this in order to plan their lessons

and set targets. Furthermore constantly updating this prior knowledge

profile of children can support development. This deepened understanding

will allow teachers to use their skills to plan in a more informed manner.

For example, when we consider the three children’s prior knowledge

described in Figure 6.2, we see a detailed picture of the way in which

these children think and have developed their understanding and

knowledge of shapes. We are given many clues as to the network of ideas

that the children have used to support this understanding. Listening to the

children, as illustrated by the transcripts, we can see that Richard uses his

ideas of other physical objects to understand different shapes. Therefore

in future planning, teachers should build new learning on these existing

ideas. For example, using everyday objects to consider properties of

shapes. In the case of Jonathan, he clearly understands that he is lacking

some vocabulary to express and explain his mathematical concepts.

Though he has an accurate idea of the shape he is looking at, he needs

some guidance to identify its name. Therefore one idea could be to use

resources which link different shapes to names and sharing these with

Jonathan to help build on his existing knowledge which is a clear

understanding of the properties of a rectangle.

7.5 Children

When considering how this partial structure of prior knowledge affects

children, I need to declare that my discovery of this structure does not

320
require any action from children. They are not being asked to consider

how they behave or act when faced with a mathematical task. They will

continue to behave and respond in the ways they always have. However

the impact of my partial prior knowledge model will be felt by children

through the actions of teachers, and in turn their response to these

actions. Starting to understand the structure of prior knowledge as it has

emerged from children, teachers will be equipped to teach in a more

informed manner, and not feel the restrictions imposed upon them by the

current teaching discourse.

The emphasis in almost all cognitive

developmental theories has been on identifying
sequences of one-to-one correspondences
between ages and ways of thinking or acting,
rather than on specifying how the changes
occur.

(Siegler, 1994, p. 1)

Understanding the categories of prior knowledge which have already

emerged or may emerge through further research allows teachers to

understand how the changes they see in children occur. It is the emerging

categories within prior knowledge and the effect that being in the world

has upon each of these categories that develops and supports learning

within children. Knowing this ensures that teachers should be more

mindful of these emerging categories and should understand how to

support appropriate change which will enhance children’s engagement

with mathematical tasks.

Within the system of schools, currently there is great deal of focus on

mechanisms which are perceived to be good teaching such as targets, AfL,

321
APP, cross-curricular planning through a creative curriculum and topic

plans, but little mindful targeted focus on what individual children need.

When starting this journey, I was prompted by a simple question. What

does it mean when teachers say “I want to get to know my class” or “You

should always go from where children are and then build on this”. In

terms of supporting learning and development, both these desires make

perfect sense. However I feel that till now, I was not given any direction

to achieve this understanding which in turn meant that my support was

very mechanical. Knowing the emerging structure of prior knowledge

allows me to start to develop and use a framework to build this picture of

the child and be more targeted in my support. Also this structure forces

teachers to acknowledge that there is more to an individual than just

subject knowledge which has an impact upon their learning and

understanding of mathematics. It allows teachers to observe children as

people and listen to what they are telling teachers about themselves. It is

only by listening and observing that teachers are able to understand the

uniqueness of each child and thus teach children and not just instruct

them. The partial prior knowledge model evolved in this research supports

this process of listening by having a structure for interpreting children’s

responses and ensuing pedagogical choices. It allows the start of a

structure that supports evidence-based practice.

7.6 Curriculum

The biggest challenge facing the current system of education is how to

personalise learning and ensure individual progress. There is much debate

in current educational corridors about the need to ensure progress for

322
every child and to develop strategies which allow for this progress to be

planned. The dominant theme, for the focus of Ofsted (2012) inspections

in the new framework, is the progress of pupils and how well teachers

manage this progress and development to ensure that “tasks matched to

pupils’ learning needs” (p. 15).

In order to meet this sea of change, the focus is back on the teacher’s

ability to evaluate and understand how each child is learning and the prior

knowledge they bring to each situation. This puts the demand upon

understanding the structure of an individual’s prior knowledge at the

forefront of the dialogues developed around good teaching and learning in

schools.

Though we find ourselves in limbo in terms of the current curriculum for

primary mathematics, it provides me with an ideal opportunity to

construct a utopian ideal of the curriculum I would want to see in our

schools. The great number of changes in the curriculum has had some

effect upon how teaching is implemented within schools. I must be clear

in my debate of the practical possibilities for implementing a creative

curriculum. However if I go back to the start of this thesis and consider

the central premise that good teaching is based upon understanding

children’s prior knowledge, and that effective learning is based upon links

made to prior knowledge, then a curriculum must be designed that allows

for this process of developing and considering for each individual child’s

prior knowledge using the partial structure proposed and then developing

learning needs based on this. This new dialogue in education fills me with

hope as there is an appetite for moving away from the mechanical process

323
of consuming knowledge to a more considered organic process – one

which on the face of it has a prominent place for prior knowledge.

Having uncovered some elements that each child brings to every task and

knowing that it is these elements that may have an effect upon the way in

which learning can be organised, the greatest change that should take

place is to change from a linear curriculum to a more organic curriculum.

The curriculum needs to allow for these non-linear ideas and knowledge to

form the central premise of curriculum development.

Throughout conducting this research, I have been privileged in observing

children and learning from them what they have to tell us about what they

already know and how this could support their future learning. The partial

structure of prior knowledge developed through this research allows

teachers to structure their thoughts, to observe and listen mindfully to

children, to understand each child individually and thus to teach the child

and not children, and to have an evidence-based approach to teaching.

7.7 Moving Forward

This journey has been long and one which has taken many interesting

turns. However throughout the process, I have learnt a lot about the way

in which we should teach and the power of children to share openly their

thoughts. Children bring such a cornucopia of dimensions to their

learning, and it is the teachers’ role to listen, observe, understand,

support and guide children through the many mazes they will find in their

learning journey, so that they may eventually be able to work out their

own struggle and path to follow. For me, all theory aside, empirically

324
there is no other way forward but to continue to search for further

elements of prior knowledge and to start using this framework for my

teaching and understanding of children’s mathematics.

It will be naive of me to think that this was the end of the road. There is

much more to be done and much to learn from children. I have listed

below three areas that I think need further exploration, now that a partial

structure for prior knowledge has been developed.

 Application – ask teachers to use this structure in order to see how

it works in practice and develop a toolkit;

 Effects – what are the factors that affect prior knowledge?

 Extension – conduct research to uncover further possible categories

of prior knowledge.

7.8 Summing Up

The goal and intention of this research process was simple – to

understand why children in schools had such varying ability in

mathematics. The journey to understand this has been fascinating and led

me to the key for learning – prior knowledge. Exploring and unpicking this

established concept has enabled me to gain an all-round view of education

and the process of learning. The result of all this exploration is an

emerging partial model for prior knowledge – a structure which exists in

us all – which has been established from a range of contributory

elements. My contribution to the understanding and teaching of children is

325
this partial structure of prior knowledge which has not been discovered

before.

326
 REFERENCES

Ajello, A. M., & Belardi, C. (2002). Acquiring abilities within informal

contexts: recognition and accreditation. Paper presented at the
Learning Communities and Assessment Cultures Conference, EARLI
Special Interest Group on Assessment and Evaluation, University of
Northumbria, 28-30 August 2002. Retrieved from
http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00002241.htm.

Alexander, P. A., Kulikowich, J. A., & Jetton, T. L. (1994). The role of

subject-matter knowledge and interest in the processing of linear
and non-linear texts. Review of Educational Research, 64 (2), 201-
252.

Alexander, P. A., Pate, E. P., Kulikowich, J. M., Farrell, D. M., & Wright, N.
L. (1989). Domain-specific and strategic knowledge: effects of
training on students of differing ages or competence levels.
Learning and Individual Differences, 1 (3), 283-325.

Alexander, R. (Ed.). (2010). Children, their world, their education: final

report and recommendations of the Cambridge Primary Review.
London, UK: Routledge.

Anderson, J. R. (1995). Cognitive psychology and its implications (4th

ed.). New York, NY: W. H. Freeman.

Anderson, L. W., & Burns, R. B. (1989). Research in classrooms: the

study of teachers, teaching and instruction. Oxford, UK: Pergamon.

Apple, M. W. (1979). Ideology and curriculum. London, UK: Routledge.

Ashcraft, M. H. (1982). The development of mental arithmetic: a

chronometric approach. Development Review, 2 (3), 213-236.

Asimov, I. (1991). Foreword. In C. B. Boyer, & U. C. Merzbach, A history

of mathematics (2nd ed.) (pp. vii-viii). New York, NY: John Wiley.

Askew, M., Millett, A., Brown, M., Rhodes, V., & Bibby, T. (2001).
Entitlement to attainment: tensions in the National Numeracy
Strategy. The Curriculum Journal, 12 (1), 5-28.

Atkinson, S. (1992). Mathematics with reason: the emergent approach to

primary maths. London, UK: Hodder & Stoughton.

Ausubel, D. P., Novak, J. D., & Hanesian, H. (1978). Educational

psychology: a cognitive view (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Holt,
Rinehart & Winston.

Baker, C., Wuest, J., & Stern, P. N. (1992). Method slurring: the grounded
theory/phenomenology example. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 17
(11), 1355-1360.

327
Baldwin, B. T., & Stecher, L. I. (1925). The psychology of the preschool
child. New York, NY: D. Appleton.

Baroody, A. J. (1987). Children's mathematical thinking: a developmental

framework for pre-school, primary and special education teachers.
New York, NY: Teachers’ College Press.

Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering: a study in experimental and social

psychology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Becker, H. S. (1990). Generalizing from case studies. In E. W. Eisner, & A.

Peshkin (Eds.), Qualitative research in education: the continuing
debate (pp. 233-242). New York, NY: Teachers’ College Press.

Berry, J. W. (2005). Acculturation: living successfully in two cultures.

International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29 (6), 697-712.

Bishop, A. (2002). Mathematical acculturation, cultural conflicts, and

transition. In G. De Abreu, A. J. Bishop, & N. C. Presmeg (Eds.),
Transitions between contexts of mathematical practices (pp. 193-
212). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Bjorklund, D. F. (1985). The role of conceptual knowledge in the

development of organization in children's memory. In C. J.
Brainerd, & M. Pressley (Eds.), Basic processes in memory
development: progress in cognitive development research (pp. 103-
142). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.

Blanck, G. (1996). Vygotsky: the man and his cause. In L. C. Moll (Ed.),
Vygotsky and education: instructional implications and applications
of sociohistorical psychology (pp. 31-58). Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.

Bloom, B. S. (1976). Human characteristics and school learning. New

York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education:

an introduction to theory and methods (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn
& Bacon.

Borasi, R. (1986). On the nature of problems. Educational Studies in

Mathematics, 17 (2), 125-141.

Borko, H., & Livingston, C. (1989). Cognition and improvisation:

differences in mathematics instruction by expert and novice
teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 26 (4), 473-498.

Borthwick, A. (2011). Children’s perceptions of, and attitudes towards,

their mathematics lessons. In C. Smith (Ed.), Proceedings of the
British Society for Research into Learning Mathematics (pp. 37-42),
31 (1), London, UK, 11 March 2011.

328
Bower, T. G. R. (1982). Development in infancy (2nd ed.). New York, NY:
W. H. Freeman.

Brightman, H. J. (1982). Teaching statistics through advance organizers.

The American Statistician, 36 (3), 217.

British Educational Research Association. (2004). Revised ethical

guidelines for educational research. London, UK: British Educational
Research Association.

Briton, D., Gereluk, W., & Spencer, B. (1998). Prior learning assessment
and recognition: issues for adult educators. In Proceedings of the
17th Annual Conference of the Canadian Association for the Study of
Adult Education (pp. 24-28), University of Ottawa, 29-31 May 1998.

Bugelski, B. R. (1962). Presentation time, total time, and mediation in

paired-associate learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63
(4), 409-412.

Burrell, G., & Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological paradigms and

organisational analysis: elements of the sociology of corporate life.
London, UK: Heinemann.

Burton, M. (2009). Exploring the changing perception of mathematics

among elementary teacher candidates through drawings. In S. L.
Swars, D. W. Stinson, & S. Lemons-Smith (Eds.), Proceedings of
the 31st Annual Meeting of the North American Chapter of the
International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education
(pp. 363-370), Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA, 23-26
September 2009.

Cabassa, L. J. (2003). Measuring acculturation: where we are and where

we need to go. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 25 (2),
127-146.

Cameron, L. (2003). Metaphor in educational discourse. London, UK:

Continuum.

Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-

experimental designs for research on teaching. In N. L. Gage (Ed.),
Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 171-246). Chicago, IL: Rand
McNally.

Carr, M., Alexander, J., & Folds-Bennett, T. (1994). Metacognition and

mathematics strategy use. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 8 (6),
583-595.

Carspecken, P. F. (1996). Critical ethnography in educational research: a

theoretical and practical guide. London, UK: Routledge.

Charmaz, K. (2007). Constructing grounded theory: a practical guide

through qualitative analysis. London, UK: Sage Publications.

329
Chi, M. T. H., & Ceci, S. (1987). Content knowledge: its role,
representation, and restructuring in memory development. In H. W.
Reese (Ed.), Advances in child development and behavior (Vol. 20)
(pp. 91-142). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Chi, M. T. H., Glaser, R., & Farr, M. J. (Eds.). (1988). The nature of
expertise. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Clemson, D., & Clemson, W. (1994). Mathematics in the early years.

London, UK: Routledge.

Cobb, P., Perlwitz, M., & Underwood-Gregg, D. (1998). Individual

construction, mathematical acculturation, and the classroom
community. In M. Larochelle, N. Bednarz, & J. Garrison (Eds.),
Constructivism and education (pp. 63-80). Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.

Cockcroft, W. H. (1982). The Cockcroft Report: Mathematics counts:

report of the Committee of Inquiry into the teaching of mathematics
in schools. London, UK: HMSO.

Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2001). Research methods in

education (5th ed.). London, UK: Routledge.

Cooley, C. H. (1909). Social organization. New York, NY: Scribner’s.

Coon, D. (1989). Introduction to psychology: exploration and application

(5th ed.). St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Company.

Cooper, B., & Dunne, M. (1988). Anyone for tennis? social class
differences in children’s responses to National Curriculum
mathematical testing. The Sociological Review, 46 (1), 115-148.

Coulby, D. (2000). Beyond the National Curriculum: curricular centralism

and cultural diversity in Europe and the USA. London, UK:
RoutledgeFalmer.

Cronbach, L. J. (1975). Beyond the two disciplines of scientific

psychology. American Psychologist, 30 (2), 116-127.

Denzin, N. K. (1989). The research act: a theoretical introduction to

sociological methods (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Department for Education. (1995). Mathematics in the National

Curriculum. London, UK: HMSO.

Department for Education. (2008). DCSF: School Workforce in England

(including Local Authority level figures), January 2008 (Revised).
London, UK: Department for Education. Retrieved from
http://www.education.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/SFR/s000813/index.sh
tml.

330
Department for Education and Employment. (1999). The National
Numeracy Strategy: framework for teaching mathematics from
Reception to Year 6. Sudbury, UK: DfEE Publications.

Department for Education and Skills. (2006). Primary framework for

literacy and mathematics. London, UK: DfES Publications.

Department of Education and Science. (1985). Better schools. London,

UK: HMSO.

Dey, I. (1993). Qualitative data analysis: a user-friendly guide for social

scientists. London, UK: Routledge.

Dickson, L., Brown, M., & Gibson, O. (1984). Children learning

mathematics: a teacher's guide to recent research. London, UK:
Cassell.

Dienes, Z. (1971). Building up mathematics (4th ed.). London, UK:

Hutchinson Educational.

Dochy, F. J. R. C. (Ed.). (1992). Assessment of prior knowledge as a

determinant for future learning: the use of prior knowledge state
tests and knowledge profiles. London, UK: Jessica Kingsley.

Dochy, F., Segers, M., & Buehl, M. M. (1999). The relation between
assessment practices and outcomes of studies: the case of research
on prior knowledge. Review of Educational Research, 69 (2), 145-
186.

Donaldson, M. (1989). Children's minds (16th ed). London, UK: Fortuna.

Draucker, C. B., Martsolf, D. S., Ross, R., & Rusk, T. B. (2007).

Theoretical sampling and category development in grounded
theory. Qualitative Health Research, 17 (8), 1137-1148.

Dudai, Y. (2007). Memory: it’s all about representations. In H. L.

Roediger, Y. Dudai, & S. M. Fitzpatrick (Eds.), Science of memory:
concepts (pp. 13-16). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Duncker, K. (1945). On problem solving (L. S. Lees, Trans.). Psychological

Monographs, 58 (270), 1-113.

Education Reform Act 1988 (c.40). London: HMSO.

Edwards, A. (2002). Responsible research: ways of being a researcher.

British Educational Research Journal, 28 (2), 157-168.

Edwards, A. D., & Westgate, D. P. G. (1994). Investigating classroom talk

(2nd ed.). London, UK: The Falmer Press.

Ellwood, C. A. (1919). Sociology and modern social problems. New York,

NY: American Book Co.

331
Ely, M., Anzul, M., Friedman, T., Garner, D., & Steinmetz, A. M. (1991).
Doing qualitative research: circles within circles. London, UK:
RoutledgeFalmer.

Erickson, F., & Schultz, J. (1981). When is a context? some issues in the
analysis of social competence. In J. Green, & C. Wallat (Eds.),
Ethnography and language in educational settings (pp. 147-160).
Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Ernest, P. (1999). Forms of knowledge in mathematics and mathematics

education: philosophical and rhetorical perspectives. Educational
Studies in Mathematics, 38 (1), 67-83.

Evans, K. (2002). The challenges of 'making learning visible': problems

and issues in recognising tacit forms of key competences. In K.
Evans, P. Hodkinson, & L. Unwin (Eds.), Working to learn:
transforming learning in the workplace (pp. 79-94). London, UK:
Kogan Page.

Ferrari, P. L. (2003). Abstraction in mathematics. Philosophical

Transactions: Biological Sciences, 358 (1435), 1225-1230.

Finlay, L. (2008). Introducing phenomenological research. Retrieved from

http://www.lindafinlay.co.uk/An%20introduction%20to%20phenom
enology%202008.doc.

Flanagan, C. (1996). Applying psychology to early child development.

London, UK: Hodder & Stoughton.

Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: a new area

of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34 (10),
906-911.

Gardiner, T. (2000). Reference levels in school mathematics education in

Europe: national presentation: England. Helsinki: Committee on
Mathematics Education, European Mathematical Society.

Garofalo, J., & Lester, F. K. J. (1985). Metacognition, cognitive

monitoring, and mathematical performance. Journal of Research in
Mathematics Education, 16 (3), 163-176.

Gelman, R. (1980). What young children know about numbers.

Educational Psychologist, 15 (1), 54-68.

Gibson, E. J. (1987). Introductory essay: what does infant perception tell

us about theories of perception? Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 13 (4), 513-523.

Gibson, J. J., & Gibson, E. J. (1955). Perceptual learning: differentiation or

enrichment? Psychological Review, 62 (1), 32-41.

332
Gillard, D. (2004). The Plowden Report. In The encyclopaedia of informal
education. London, UK: infed. Retrieved from
http://www.infed.org/schooling/plowden_report.htm.

Ginsburg, H. P. (1989). Children's arithmetic: how they learn it and how

you teach it (2nd ed.). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.

Glaser, B. G. (2001). The grounded theory perspective: conceptualization

contrasted with description. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory:

strategies for qualitative research. New York, NY: Aldine.

Glaser, R. (1984). Education and thinking: the role of knowledge.

American Psychologist, 39 (2), 93-104.

Glaser, R., & De Corte, E. (1992). Preface. In F. J. R. C. Dochy (Ed.),

Assessment of prior knowledge as a determinant for future
learning: the use of prior knowledge state tests and knowledge
profiles (pp. 1-2). London, UK: Jessica Kingsley.

Glaser, R., Lesgold, A., & Lajoie, S. (1987). Toward a cognitive theory for
the measurement of achievement. In R. R. Ronning, J. A. Glover, J.
C. Conoley, & J. C. Witt (Eds.), The influence of cognitive
psychology on testing and measurement (pp. 41-85). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Gold, R. L. (1958). Roles in sociological field observations. Social Forces,

36, 217-223.

Gregory, R. L. (1978). Eye and brain: the psychology of seeing (3rd ed.).
New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Groen, G., & Resnick, L. B. (1977). Can preschool children invent addition
algorithms? Journal of Educational Psychology, 69 (6), 645-652.

Hadow, H. (1931). The Hadow Report: the primary school: a report of the
Consultative Committee. London, UK: HMSO.

Haenggi, D., & Perfetti, C. A. (1992). Individual differences in

reprocessing of text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84 (2),
182-192.

Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P. (2007). Ethnography: principles in

practice (3rd ed.). London, UK: Taylor & Francis.

Hannula, M. S. (2006). Motivation in mathematics: goals reflected in

emotion. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 63 (2), 165-178.

333
Harris, J. (2000). Re-visioning the boundaries of learning theory in the
assessment of prior experiential learning (APEL). Paper presented
at 30th Annual Standing Conference on University Teaching and
Research in the Education of Adults (SCUTREA) Conference,
University of Nottingham, 3-5 July 2000. Retrieved from
http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00001448.htm.

Hatch, J. A. (2002). Doing qualitative research in education settings.

Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Hayes, J. R. (1985). Three problems in teaching general skills. In S. F.

Chipman, J. W. Segal, & R. Glaser (Eds.), Thinking and learning
skills: research and open questions (Vol. 2) (pp. 391-406).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Haylock, D., & Cockburn, A. (1989). Understanding early years

mathematics. London, UK: Paul Chapman.

Hazel, E., Prosser, M., & Trigwell, K. (2002). Variation in learning

orchestration in university biology courses. International Journal of
Science Education, 24 (7), 737-751.

Hitchcock, G., & Hughes, D. (1995). Research and the teacher: a

qualitative introduction to school-based research (2nd ed.). London,
UK: Routledge.

Hoepfl, M. C. (1997). Choosing qualitative research: a primer for

technology education researchers. Journal of Technology Education,
9 (1), 47-63.

House of Commons Public Accounts Committee. (2009). Mathematics

performance in primary schools: getting the best results. Twenty-
third report of session 2008-09. HC 44. London, UK: TSO.

Hsieh, H. F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative

content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15 (9), 1277-1288.

Hughes, M. (1986). Children and number: difficulties in learning

mathematics. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Hume, D. (2010). A treatise on human nature (Vol. 1). Charleston, SC:

Forgotten Books. (Original work published in 1739)

Jaworski, B. (1994). Investigating mathematics teaching: a constructivist

enquiry. London, UK: Falmer Press.

Jones, A., Todorova, N., & Vargo, J. (2000). Improving teaching

effectiveness understanding and leveraging prior knowledge for
student learning. In Proceedings of the 15th Annual Conference of
the International Academy for Information Management (pp. 205-
209), Brisbane, Australia, 6-10 December 2000.

334
Kant, I. (2010). The critique of pure reason (J. M. D. Meiklejohn, Trans.).
Charleston, SC: Forgotten Books. (Original work published in 1781)

Kaplan, A. S., & Murphy, G. L. (2000). Category learning with minimal

prior knowledge. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning,
Memory, and Cognition, 26 (4), 829-846.

Kincheloe, J. L. (2003). Teachers as researchers: qualitative inquiry as a

path to empowerment (2nd ed.). London, UK: RoutledgeFalmer.

Kirk, J., & Miller, M. L. (1986). Reliability and validity in qualitative

research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Kitcher, P. (1984). The nature of mathematical knowledge. New York, NY:

Oxford University Press.

Krathwohl, D. R. (1993). Methods of educational and social science

research: an integrated approach. New York, NY: Longman.

Kuhn, D., & Dean, D. (2004). A bridge between cognitive psychology and
educational practice. Theory into Practice, 43 (4), 268-273.

Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (2003). Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: The
University of Chicago Press.

Laurillard, D. (1993). Rethinking university teaching: a framework for the

effective use of educational technology. London, UK: Routledge.

Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice: mind, mathematics, and culture in

everyday life. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Lave, J., Murtaugh, M., & de la Rocha, O. (1984). The dialectic of

arithmetic in grocery shopping. In B. Rogoff, & J. Lave (Eds.),
Everyday cognition: its development in social context (pp. 67-94).
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Lavine, T. Z. (1984). From Socrates to Sartre: the philosophic quest. New

York, NY: Bantam Books.

LeCompte, M. D., & Preissle, J. (1993). Ethnography and qualitative

design in educational research (2nd ed.). San Diego, CA: Academic
Press.

Levitas, M. (1974). Marxist perspectives in the sociology of education.

London, UK: Routledge.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. E. (1985a). Naturalistic inquiry. Mountain Oaks,

CA: Sage Publications.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. E. (1985b). Research, evaluation, and policy

analysis: heuristics for disciplined inquiry. Review of Policy
Research, 5 (3), 546-565.

335
Little, D. (2008). What is hermeneutic explanation? Dearborn, MI:
University of Michigan. Retrieved from http://www-
personal.umd.umich.edu/~delittle/Encyclopedia%20entries/hermen
eutic%20explanation.htm.

Lovell, K. (1973). Educational psychology and children (11th ed.). London,

UK: University of London Press.

Malkevitch, J. (1997). Discrete mathematics and public perceptions of

mathematics. In J. G. Rosenstein, D. S. Franzblau, & F. S. Roberts
(Eds.), Discrete mathematics in the schools (pp. 89-97).
Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society.

Marshall, S. P. (1993). Assessment of rational number understanding: a

schema-based approach. In T. P. Carpenter, E. Fennema, & T. A.
Romberg (Eds.), Rational numbers: an integration of research (pp.
261-288). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Merriam, S. B. (1995). What can you tell from an n of 1?: issues of

validity and reliability in qualitative research. PAACE Journal of
Lifelong Learning, 4, 51-60.

Merttens, R., & Head, J. (2000). Series editors’ preface. In D. Coulby,

Beyond the National Curriculum: curricular centralism and cultural
diversity in Europe and the USA (p. viii-x). London, UK:
RoutledgeFalmer.

Meyer, H. (2004). Novice and expert teachers' conceptions of learners'

prior knowledge. Science Education, 88 (6), 970-983.

Middleton, J. A., & Spanias, P. A. (1999). Motivation for achievement in

mathematics: findings, generalizations, and criticisms of the
research. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 30 (1),
65-88.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd

ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Mitchelmore, M., & White, P. (2004). Abstraction in mathematics and

mathematics learning. In M. J. Hoines, & A. B. Fuglestad (Eds.),
Proceedings of the 28th Conference of the International Group for
the Psychology of Mathematics Educations (Vol. 3) (pp. 329-336).
Bergen, Norway, 14-18 July 2004. Cape Town, South Africa:
International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education.

Mitchelmore, M., & White, P. (2007). Abstraction in mathematics learning.

Mathematics Education Research Journal, 19 (2), 1-9.

Moon, B. (2001). A guide to the National Curriculum (4th ed.). Oxford,

UK: Oxford University Press.

Mouly, G. J. (1978). Educational research: the art and science of

investigation. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

336
Nickson, M. (1994). The culture of the mathematics classroom: an
unknown quantity? In S Lerman (Ed.). Cultural perspectives on the
mathematics classroom (pp. 7-35). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer
Academic Publishers.

Novak, J. D., & Canas, A. J. (2007). Theoretical origins of concept maps,

how to construct them, and uses in education. Reflecting Education,
3 (1), 29-42.

O'Donnell, A. M., Dansereau, D. F., & Hall, R. H. (2002). Knowledge maps

as scaffolds for cognitive processing. Educational Psychology
Review, 14 (1), 71-86.

Ofsted. (2012). The framework for school inspection. Manchester, UK:

Ofsted.

Onions, P. E. W. (2006). Grounded theory applications in reviewing

knowledge management literature. Paper presented at Leeds
Metropolitan University Innovation North Research Conference,
Leeds Metropolitan University, 24 May 2006. Retrieved from
http://www.patrickonions.org/docs/academic/2006%20Grounded%
20theory%20from%20literature%20review.pdf.

Papaleontiou-Louca, E. (2003). The concept and instruction of

metacognition. Teacher Development, 7 (1), 9-30.

Park, R. E., & Burgess, E. W. (1921). Introduction to the science of

sociology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Parkerson, J. A., Lomax, R. G., Schiller, D. P., & Walberg, H. J. (1984).

Exploring causal models of educational achievement. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 76 (4), 638-646.

Peterson, P. L., Marx, R. W., & Clark, C. M. (1978). Teacher planning,

teacher behavior, and student achievement. American Educational
Research Journal, 15 (3), 417-432.

Piaget, J. (1954). The constructing of reality in the child (M. Cook,

Trans.). New York, NY: Basic Books.

Plowden, J. P. (1967). The Plowden Report: children and their primary

schools: a report of the Central Advisory Council for Education
(England). London, UK: HMSO.

Pressley, M., & McCormick, C. B. (1995). Advanced educational

psychology for educators, researchers and policymakers. New York,
NY: HarperCollins College Publishers.

Rand, A. (1965). Who is the final authority in ethics? The Objectivist

Newsletter, 4 (2), 7.

Rand, A. (1979). Introduction to objectivist epistemology. New York, NY:

Mentor.

337
Resnick, L. B. (1981). Instructional psychology. Annual Review of
Psychology, 32, 659-704.

Resnick, L. B., & Ford, W. W. (1981). The psychology of mathematics for

instruction. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Reynolds, D. (1998a). Implementation of the National Numeracy

Strategy: the final report of the Numeracy Task Force. London, UK:
Department for Education and Employment (DfEE).

Reynolds, D. (1998b). Numeracy matters: the preliminary report of the

Numeracy Task Force. London, UK: Department for Education and
Employment (DfEE).

Roschelle, J. (1995). Learning in interactive environments: prior

knowledge and new experience. In J. H. Falk, & L. D. Dierking
(Eds.), Public institutions for personal learning: establishing a
research agenda (pp. 37-51). Washington, DC: American
Association of Museums.

Rose, J. (2009). Independent review of the primary curriculum: final

report. Nottingham, UK: DCSF Publications.

Rosengren, K. E. (1981). Advances in Scandinavian content analysis: an

introduction. In K. E. Rosengren (Ed.), Advances in content analysis
(pp. 9-19). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Rumbold, A. (1990). The Rumbold Report: starting with quality: the

report of the Committee of Inquiry into the quality of the
educational experience offered to 3 and 4 year olds. London, UK:
HMSO.

Ryan, A. B. (2006). Methodology: analysing qualitative data and writing

up your findings. In M. Antonesa, H. Fallon, A. B. Ryan, T. Walsh, &
L. Borys (Eds.), Researching and writing your thesis: a guide for
postgraduate students (pp. 92-108). Maynooth, Ireland: MACE
Publications.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations:

classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 25 (1), 54-67.

Schmidt, H. G., De Volder, M. L., De Grave, W. S., Moust, J. H. C., &

Patel, V. L. (1989). Explanatory models in the processing of science
text: the role of prior knowledge activation through small-group
discussion. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81 (4), 610-619.

Schneider, W., Körkel, J., & Weinert, F. E. (1989). Domain-specific

knowledge and memory performance: a comparison of high- and
low-aptitude children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81 (3),
306-312.

338
Schneider, W., & Pressley, M. (1989). Memory development between 2
and 20. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.

Schofield, J. W. (1993). Increasing the generalizability of qualitative

research. In M. Hammersley (Ed.), Social research: philosophy,
politics and practice (pp. 171-204). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.

Schoenfeld, A. H. (1992). Learning to think mathematically: problem

solving, metacognition, and sense-making in mathematics. In D. A.
Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and
learning (pp. 334-370). New York, NY: MacMillan.

Schraw, G. (1998). Promoting general metacognitive awareness.

Instructional Science, 26 (1-2), 113-125.

Schwandt, T. J. (2001). Dictionary of qualitative inquiry (2nd ed.).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Shrager, L., & Mayer, R. E. (1989). Note-taking fosters generative

learning strategies in novices. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81
(2), 263-264.

Siegler, R. S. (1994). Cognitive variability: a key to understanding

cognitive development. Current Directions in Psychological Science,
3 (1), 1-5.

Skemp, R. R. (1987). The psychology of learning mathematics. Hillsdale,

NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Smith, J. K., & Hodkinson, P. (2002). Fussing about the nature of

educational research: the neo-realists versus the relativists. British
Educational Research Journal, 28 (2), 291-296.

Sotto, E. (1994). When teaching becomes learning: a theory and practice

of teaching. London, UK: Cassell.

Spencer, B. (2005). Defining prior learning assessment and recognition.

In L. M. English (Ed.), International encyclopaedia of adult
education (pp. 508-512). New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan.

Spindler, G., & Spindler, L. (1992). Cultural process and ethnography: an

anthropological perspective. In M. D. LeCompte, W. L. Millroy, & J.
Preissle (Eds.), The handbook of qualitative research in education
(pp. 53-92). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Spradley, J. P. (1979). The ethnographic interview. New York, NY: Holt,

Rinehart & Winston.

Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.

339
Starkey, P., & Gelman, R. (1982). The development of addition and
subtraction abilities prior to formal schooling in arithmetic. In T. P.
Carpenter, J. M. Moser, & T. A. Romberg (Eds.), Addition and
subtraction: a cognitive perspective (pp. 99-116). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Starr-Glass, D. (2002). Metaphor and totem: exploring and evaluating

prior experiential learning. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher
Education, 27 (3), 221-231.

Steele, J. R., & Ambady, N. (2006). “Math is hard!” The effect of gender
priming on women’s attitudes. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 42 (4), 428-436.

Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. (1990). Basics of qualitative research:

techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Sturman, L., Ruddock, G., Burge, B., Styles, B., Lin, Y., & Vappula, H.
(2008). England’s achievement in TIMSS 2007: national report for
England. Slough, UK: National Foundation for Educational Research.

Sullivan, P., Zeverbergen, R., & Mousley, J. (2003). The contexts of

mathematics tasks and the context of the classroom: are we
including all students? Mathematics Education Research Journal, 15
(2), 107-121.

Sumner, W. G. (1907). Folkways: a study of the sociological importance

of usages, manners, customs, mores, and morals. Boston, MA:
Ginn.

Sutton, J. (2010). Memory. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford

Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2010 edition). Stanford, CA:
The Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved from
http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2010/entries/memory/.

Taber, K. S. (2001). The mismatch between assumed prior knowledge and

the learner's conceptions: a typology of learning impediments.
Educational Studies, 27 (2), 159-171.

Tait-McCutcheon, S. L. (2008). Self-efficacy in mathematics: affective,

cognitive, and conative domains of functioning. In M. Goos, R.
Brown, & K. Makar (Eds.), Navigating currents and charting
directions (Proceedings of the 31st Annual Conference of the
Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia) (pp. 507-
513). The University of Queensland, Brisbane, 28 June-1 July 2008.
Brisbane: MERGA.

Tesch, R. (1990). Qualitative research: analysis types and software tools.

London, UK: RoutledgeFalmer.

340
Thomas, D. R. (2006). A general inductive approach for analyzing
qualitative evaluation data. American Journal of Evaluation, 27 (2),
237-246.

Thomas, W. I. (1923). The unadjusted girl: with cases and standpoint for
behaviour analysis. Boston, MA: Little, Brown, and Company.

Thompson, I. (1995). "Pre-number activities" and the early years number

curriculum. Mathematics in School, 24 (1), 37-39.

Tizard, B., & Hughes, M. (1984). Young children learning. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.

Tobias, S. (1994). Interest, prior knowledge and learning. Journal of

Education Psychology, 87 (3), 399-405.

Toffler, A. (1970). Future shock. New York, NY: Random House.

Turner, J. C. (2010). Towards a cognitive redefinition of the social group.

In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Social identity and intergroup relations (pp. 15-
40). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Turner, J. H., Beeghley, L., & Powers, C. H. (2012). The emergence of

sociological theory (7th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.

UCAS. (2011). Applications (choices), acceptances and ratios by subject

group 2011. Cheltenham, UK: UCAS. Retrieved from
http://www.ucas.com/about_us/stat_services/stats_online/data_ta
bles/subject/2011.

UNESCO. (2002). Cultural diversity, common heritage, plural identities.

Paris: UNESCO.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: the development of higher

psychological processes. M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E.
Souberman (Eds.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wakeley, R. A. (2002). Early mathematical development in low birth-

weight children. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of
California, Berkeley, CA.

Walker, C. H. (1987). Relative importance of domain knowledge and

overall aptitude on acquisition of domain-related information.
Cognition and Instruction, 4 (1), 25-42.

Walkerdine, V. (1990). Difference, cognition and mathematics education.

For the Learning of Mathematics, 10 (3), 51-56.

Ward, S. (2004). Government policy on education in England. In S. Ward

(Ed.), Education studies: a student's guide (pp. 81-91). London,
UK: RoutledgeFalmer.

341
Weber, R. P. (1990). Basic content analysis (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA:
Sage Publications.

Weinert, F. (1989). The impact of schooling on cognitive development:

One hypothetical assumption, some empirical results, and many
theoretical implications. EARLI News, (8), 3-7.

West, L. H. T., & Fensham, P. J. (1974). Prior knowledge and the learning
of science. Studies in Science Education, 1 (1), 61-81.

Wiersma, W., & Jurs, S. G. (2005). Research methods in education: an

introduction (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Williams, P. (2008). Independent review of mathematics teaching in early

years settings and primary schools. Nottingham, UK: DCSF
Publications.

Windschitl, M. (2002). Framing constructivism in practice as the

negotiation of dilemmas: an analysis of the conceptual,
pedagogical, cultural, and political challenges facing teachers.
Review of Educational Research, 72 (2), 131-175.

Winter, G. (2000). A comparative discussion of the notion of 'validity' in

qualitative and quantitative research. The Qualitative Report, 4 (3 &
4). Retrieved from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR4-
3/winter.html.

Woods, P. (1979). The divided school. London, UK: Routledge & Kegan
Paul.

Wolcott, H. F. (1974). The teacher as an enemy. In G. D. Spindler (Ed.).

Education and cultural process: towards anthropology of education
(pp. 136-150). New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Yinger, R. J. (1978). A study of teacher planning: description and a model

of preactive decision making. (Research Series No. 18). East
Lansing, MI: The Institute for Research on Teaching, Michigan State
University.

Yinger, R. J. (1980). A study of teacher planning. The Elementary School

Journal, 80 (3), 107-127.

Yuret, D. (1995). A brief review of memory research in cognitive

neuroscience. (Working Paper No. 343). Cambridge, MA: Artificial
Intelligence Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Zeitoun, H. H. (1989). The relationship between abstract concept

achievement and prior knowledge, formal reasoning ability and
gender. International Journal of Science Education, 11 (2), 227-
234.

342
 APPENDICES

Appendix A – Data Collection Schools’ Ofsted

Reports

This appendix contains Information about the School and/or Description of

the School and Main Findings and/or Overall Effectiveness of the School
sections from the recent Ofsted inspection reports for each of the five
schools used in the data collection.

Hatton First School

This information comes from an Ofsted inspection carried out in 2009.

Information about the School

This small school stands in a rural location some distance from

Hatton village. About a third of the pupils come from the village,
others travel in from a wide area. The great majority are of White
British backgrounds, and the very small number from other ethnic
backgrounds all speak English as their first language. Few pupils
are entitled to free school meals. The proportion of pupils with
special educational needs and/or disabilities is low. The Early Years
Foundation Stage comprises of a Reception class.

Several teaching staff have been appointed since the last

inspection, including the head teacher who has been in post for two
years.

The school holds an Activemark award.

Main findings

This is a good school that equips pupils with a love of learning,

happy memories and firm foundations for their future education and
life beyond. Behaviour and attendance are excellent and pupils are
very well supported by first-rate links between the school and their
parents and carers. The school is firmly at the centre of the village
community and has strong links with the church, craft centre and
Hatton Hall. Parents and carers value the school’s warm family
ethos where their children feel very safe and secure, and make
good progress in their learning and personal development.

343
 The Early Years Foundation Stage gives children a good start,
enhanced by outdoor activities, especially when they learn in a local
woodland area known as the ‘Forest School’. Pupils achieve well
throughout the school and attain above average standards by the
time they leave. Good teaching and rigorous monitoring ensure that
no-one falls behind. Boys and girls progress equally well but school
assessment data indicate some differences; boys do not reach
similar standards to girls in writing, and girls do not match the boys
in mathematics.

Good teaching and well planned lessons challenge all groups of

pupils. Pupils are confident learners, know they are expected to
work hard and say lessons are interesting. They know what they
will learn in each lesson but are not always aware of their next
steps in learning, for example what they are aiming for in
mathematics or writing. Well managed provision, and skilled
support from the teaching assistants, enables pupils with special
educational needs and/or disabilities to progress well and
participate fully in all activities. Local links and partnerships provide
extra learning activities for able, gifted and talented pupils, for
example, a music day at Hatton Hall.

The school cares well for all pupils. They say bullying is not a
problem and are certain that staff will sort out any problems. Pupils
understand how to be healthy and willingly contribute to the school
and local community. They participate eagerly in all opportunities
presented by the good curriculum and exciting range of extra
activities and clubs; sports activities are recognised in an
Activemark award. Links and visits beyond the immediate locality,
for example to a city synagogue, give pupils a good awareness of
other ways of life within our society. However, this does not extend
to the range of lifestyles and cultures in the wider world.

Senior leaders, staff and governors are strongly united in their

commitment to a shared vision for school improvement. Leaders at
all levels evaluate the school’s performance accurately and
inspection findings match their judgements of the school’s
effectiveness. Improvements since the last inspection include staff
involvement in leadership, more accurate assessment and wider
professional development. Value for money is good. Consequently,
there is good capacity for sustained improvement.

St Paul First School

This information comes from an Ofsted inspection carried out in 2009.

Information about the School

This is a large school. Most pupils come from White British families
living within the local town, although a significant number travel

344
 from nearby towns and villages. Few pupils do not speak English as
their first language. Many pupils have experience of other
educational settings before they begin school. The proportion of
pupils with special educational needs and/or disabilities is below
national average. There has been a period of higher than usual staff
mobility but this has stabilised. The head teacher has been in post
for two years.

Main findings

St Paul’s C of E First School is a good school that promotes high

quality care for the well-being of all pupils, together with a
stimulating learning environment that enables pupils to achieve
well. Behaviour and relationships are good and this contributes to
the calm, safe, industrious and happy atmosphere within the
school. Pupils are comfortable expressing their opinions to adults,
and this demonstrates their growing independence and confidence.
They enjoy their learning and the opportunities available to help
them find out about other places, people and cultures. Their
spiritual, moral, social and cultural development is outstanding.
This is evident in the mutual respect and understanding shown by
everyone. Pupils appreciate the wide range of creative and sports
that enrich their education, including visits to places of interest and
working closely with other schools. There are dose links with the
local church and pupils also have an understanding of other faiths
and cultures. Pupils are engaged in fundraising and charity work
locally, nationally and in Africa.

Pupils make good progress in their academic work. They enter

school with skills and understanding above the level expected for
their age and make good progress, so that by the time they
transfer to the next stage of their education their attainment is well
above average. In the Early Years Foundation Stage the outdoor
learning area is used well to provide interesting activities but the
indoor experiences are less stimulating. The headteacher and senior
management team acknowledge that staffing issues in the past
have slowed the pace of learning for some pupils but this has been
rectified. As a result, pupils are generally making good progress in
their lessons. Strategies have recently been introduced to improve
the mathematical ability of all pupils, particularly in calculation and
problem solving, but there has been insufficient time for them to
have had an impact on standards which for the more-able pupils
are not as high as they could be.

The quality of teaching is good and there are some examples of

outstanding teaching. Teachers know the pupils very well. Detailed
assessments inform lesson planning so that tasks are usually
matched to the individual needs of pupils. High quality support is
used well to support pupils in lessons. Marking is good, particularly
in writing, and guides pupils well so that they know what to do to
improve the quality of their work. Where teaching is less effective,

345
 pupils have too few opportunities to engage in discussions and to
become actively involved in their learning, and in mathematics in
particular, the more-able pupils are not always fully challenged.

Pupils have a very good knowledge and understanding of factors

which contribute to their physical and emotional well-being so that
they are keen to adopt healthy lifestyles. Pupils assume
responsibilities within school, including organising the music for
assemblies and looking after younger children through a mentoring
programme. Attendance is satisfactory, but not enough has been
done to motivate the few pupils who do not attend school regularly
into doing so.

The school has shown that it has good capacity to improve. The
senior leadership team have accurately identified areas for
development aid effective action has been taken to address the
issues raised in the last inspection. Innovative strategies have been
introduced to raise attainment in writing. The curriculum has been
reviewed and revised so that pupils can consolidate their literacy,
numeracy and information and communication technology skills
across different subject areas. Work is progressing well to provide
appropriate opportunities for more-able pupils through more
accurate target setting and planning individual learning
opportunities in mathematics.

Argyle Common First School

This information comes from an Ofsted inspection carried out in 2009.

Information about the School

This is a smaller than average primary school which draws its pupils
from the local village and the surrounding area. Almost all pupils
are of White British origin and they are taught in five mixed-age
classes. The proportion of pupils with special educational needs
and/or disabilities is below average but increasing. There is Early
Years Foundation Stage provision for children from the age of four
who share their classroom with pupils in Year 1. The school has
very spacious outdoor areas.

Main findings

This is a good school. It has improved markedly since its last

inspection because the headteacher's strong leadership has
successfully encouraged the staff to have high aspirations for
themselves and pupils. Improvement in the way leaders monitor
and evaluate teaching and learning outcomes has strengthened
pupils' progress. Pupils achieve well, and standards are above
average and improving. Evidence from the standardised

346
assessments in 2009 and from the work of current pupils, shows
there is more to do to improve writing, particularly for boys of all
ages. However, a good start has been made to encourage pupils to
write by making writing activities more meaningful and relevant
and developing word banks so that the pupils can be more
independent. Good progress has been made in improving the level
of challenge provided for the more able pupils, especially at Key
Stage 1, which was a key area for improvement from the last
inspection. The curriculum has also been strengthened and is now
good. The inclusion of themes such as being healthy, recycling and
climate change ensure that it reflects a changing world. The school
is rightly proud of its recently acquired 'green flag' award for its eco
work. Success is celebrated through good quality displays across
the school which also reflect the global dimension of the curriculum.
The school is well placed to improve even further.

Most pupils behave well in and around the school and have very
positive attitudes which make a considerable contribution to their
learning. However, there is a very small minority in one class who
find it difficult to maintain their concentration in lessons and display
immature attitudes. This is a barrier to their learning. The pupils
have a good understanding of how to keep safe and lead healthy
lives. Their spiritual, social and moral development is good and is
shown in their friendly manner, cooperative working and in the way
that older pupils support and help younger ones. Their cultural
development is satisfactory. Although attendance is above average,
too much time is lost for some pupils because they are taken on
holidays in term time. The school council has a positive influence on
how the school develops. Pupils have a good understanding about
keeping themselves safe and trust the adults who look after them.
At break times, the pupils are very active in the spacious play
areas. Most express their views and opinions with great confidence
and maturity.

Teaching and learning are good because lessons are well planned to
meet the full range of pupils' needs. Teaching assistants make a
good and sometimes outstanding contribution to those with special
educational needs and/or disabilities. While lessons have clear
objectives for learning, these are occasionally too This is a good
school. It has improved markedly since its last inspection because
the headteacher's strong leadership has successfully encouraged
the staff to have high aspirations for themselves and pupils.
Improvement in the way leaders monitor and evaluate teaching and
learning outcomes has strengthened pupils' progress. Pupils achieve
well, and standards are above average and improving. Evidence
from the standardised assessments in 2009 and from the work of
current pupils, shows there is more to do to improve writing,
particularly for boys of all ages. However, a good start has been
made to encourage pupils to write by making writing activities more
meaningful and relevant and developing word banks so that the
pupils can be more independent. Good progress has been made in
improving the level of challenge provided for the more able pupils,

347
especially at Key Stage 1, which was a key area for improvement
from the last inspection. The curriculum has also been strengthened
and is now good. The inclusion of themes such as being healthy,
recycling and climate change ensure that it reflects a changing
world. The school is rightly proud of its recently acquired 'green
flag' award for its eco work. Success is celebrated through good
quality displays across the school which also reflect the global
dimension of the curriculum. The school is well placed to improve
even further.

Most pupils behave well in and around the school and have very
positive attitudes which make a considerable contribution to their
learning. However, there is a very small minority in one class who
find it difficult to maintain their concentration in lessons and display
immature attitudes. This is a barrier to their learning. The pupils
have a good understanding of how to keep safe and lead healthy
lives. Their spiritual, social and moral development is good and is
shown in their friendly manner, cooperative working and in the way
that older pupils support and help younger ones. Their cultural
development is satisfactory. Although attendance is above average,
too much time is lost for some pupils because they are taken on
holidays in term time. The school council has a positive influence on
how the school develops. Pupils have a good understanding about
keeping themselves safe and trust the adults who look after them.
At break times, the pupils are very active in the spacious play
areas. Most express their views and opinions with great confidence
and maturity.

Teaching and learning are good because lessons are well planned to
meet the full range of pupils' needs. Teaching assistants make a
good and sometimes outstanding contribution to those with special
educational needs and/or disabilities. While lessons have clear
objectives for learning, these are occasionally too general and of
limited benefit in helping pupils understand what is expected. The
marking of writing is consistently good, providing comments to
commend good work and set further challenges. Pupils have regular
opportunities to share how well they think they are doing. However,
the use of individual pupil targets during lessons is at an early stage
of development.

Provision for children in the Early Years Foundation Stage is good.

The children enjoy school and join in confidently with all the
activities offered. They respond well to the good range of
opportunities to make choices and decisions for themselves.
Leadership has continued to be well focused since the time of the
last report. Staff have an accurate view of the school's strengths
and weaknesses, which they openly debate. This is enabling them
to refine and further develop their practice. Governors have a
visible presence around the school and have helped to forge strong
links with parents. They provide a satisfactory challenge to the
headteacher and other leaders to account for the success of
changes being made.

348
Draycott First School

This information comes from an Ofsted inspection carried out in 2007.

Description of the School

Draycott is a very small rural school with 37 pupils on roll. The

school draws most of its pupils from the surrounding villages. The
school's social and economic context is relatively favourable and
very few pupils are eligible for free school meals. A small number of
pupils are registered by the school as having learning difficulties
and disabilities. There are no pupils with a statement of special
educational need. All pupils are of White British origin.

Overall Effectiveness of the School

Draycott is a good school which is distinguished by a caring, family-

centred ethos where everyone works together. Pupils enter the
Reception class with standards expected for their age. As a result of
the good provision, which is reflected in careful assessment, and a
good appreciation of the individual needs of the pupils, a higher-
than-average proportion of them gain the early learning goals.
Pupils continue to make good progress in Key Stage 1 and Year 4,
achieving above-average standards. In Year 3, the pupils' progress
in mathematics and writing is too slow and standards are average.

All the pupils are well cared for in a safe, secure and welcoming
school community which successfully promotes the school's
Christian ethos. The school has very strong links with the village
church. The pupils' personal, social, emotional development and
well-being are given high priority and are good. Secure academic
guidance supports the pupils to achieve well in most year groups.
The pupils' behaviour and attitudes to learning are good. Pupils are
enthusiastic, respectful and well mannered. They know about
healthy eating and the importance of leading a healthy lifestyle. The
school council are good ambassadors for the school. They greatly
appreciate their school and have confidence in the adults who work
with them.

Almost 80% of the parents returned inspection questionnaires and

the responses were overwhelmingly positive. One parent said: 'My
child loves this school. She has thrived in the friendly, one big
happy family atmosphere.'

The quality of teaching and learning is good. Expectations are high

and relationships are positive. On occasions, there are too many
objectives in lessons, which results in a lack of clarity to drive
forward the learning at a fast enough pace, for example, in
mathematics and writing in Year 3. Pupils with learning difficulties

349
 and disabilities make satisfactory progress in light of their often
complex difficulties and low starting points. The curriculum is good
because it is carefully tailored to the needs of the pupils, and has a
wide range of enrichment activities.

Leadership and management are good. The headteacher has a

passionate commitment to improving the life chances of the pupils,
which is clearly shown through a good team spirit and a common
sense of purpose in all aspects of the school's day-to-day life.
Whole-school self-evaluation is satisfactory but is not sufficiently
evaluative. The outcomes of monitoring the quality of teaching do
not always result in the identification of clear targets for
improvement or show the links between good teaching and
effective learning.

Greenville Park Community School

This information comes from an Ofsted inspection carried out in 2008.

Description of the School

The school serves an area that has many social and economic
disadvantages. When pupils enter the Foundation Stage, their
knowledge and skills are usually well below what is expected for
their age. Basic skills in language are weak and social, emotional
and behavioural skills are underdeveloped. The proportion of pupils
who are eligible for free school meals is well above the national
average. The proportion of pupils who are on the school's register
of learning difficulties and/or disabilities well above the national and
local authority averages

Overall Effectiveness of the School

The overall effectiveness of the school and pupils' achievements are

satisfactory although standards are too low, particularly in Years 3
to 6 and in English. Over the last 18 months, there have been The
pupils' personal development and well-being, including their
behaviour, are satisfactory. Pupils' attitudes to school life and
learning are consistently satisfactory and often good. The provision
and outcomes for pupils on the school's register of learning
difficulties and/or disabilities and for those who speak English as an
additional language are good.

The quality of teaching and learning is satisfactory with an

increasing proportion that is good. Nevertheless, a few weaknesses
remain, particularly the lack of challenge in some lessons, where
pupils' work is either too easy or too difficult and not matched well
enough to their different capabilities. The curriculum is satisfactory
and there is a good range of enrichment activities, which improve

350
the pupils' self-esteem. The quality of care, guidance and support is
good. Pupils are well looked after and feel safe and secure. The
school is successful in helping them to understand their emotions
and appreciate the importance of respecting each other, themselves
and the adults who work with them.

The pupils' attendance is well below the national average for

primary schools. In addition, the attendance of just over 10% of
the pupils is poor, and below 85%. The school is working hard with
parents and external agencies, including the education welfare
officer, to raise attendance levels, but is not yet making sufficient
inroads into improving overall attendance. Most of the pupils whose
attendance is poor make slow progress and attain low standards.

Collective leadership and management are secure. The headteacher

is resilient, has successfully raised expectations and given the
school a sense of purpose and clarity about what it can achieve.
There is a good team spirit and senior teachers know there is still
much to do to raise standards and the achievement of all pupils.
For example, while monitoring is satisfactory, the guidance teachers
receive to help improve their work is not always sharp enough and
timescales for improvement are sometimes too long. The school
provides sound value for money and has a satisfactory capacity to
improve further.

351