In England, a relatively new set of post-16 qualifications has been developed under the umbrella term ‘Core Maths’, with a focus on the application of mathematics in context, including the kinds of mathematics needed to support other subjects, to provide a sound basis for the mathematical demands of higher education and employment and to develop problem-solving skills for use in life. The UK government has an ambition that all post-16 students should be studying some mathematics, and Core Maths was designed in part with this aspiration in mind. In this paper, longitudinal questionnaire data from over 100 Core Maths students in 13 case study institutions are analysed to measure students’ views of teaching as transmissionist, their mathematical dispositions and self-identification and how these change over a year of studying Core Maths. We find some evidence that pedagogy in lessons is perceived as being less transmissionist than it was in school mathematics pre-16. There is also some evidence of a negative change in students’ mathematical dispositions over a year of Core Maths. We conclude that supporting teachers in embedding new pedagogical approaches remains a challenge and that this issue could inhibit the growth of new qualifications like Core Maths.
A recent government move to increase numbers of students taking post‐16 (post‐compulsory) mathematics in England saw 2930 students being awarded the first Core Maths (CM) qualifications in 2016, the number rising to 9027 in 2019. This paper uses qualitative data, from a study investigating the successes and challenges of these new qualifications in their initial period of implementation, to explore perspectives on how the new qualification is being positioned within the existing post‐16 curriculum structure. First‐ and second‐order effects of the policy are considered, particularly in relation to the dichotomy between CM and the longstanding, highly academic, A‐level Mathematics. Our findings reveal a positive regard for many aspects of CM. However, the systemic processes by which certain students are manoeuvred onto the CM course, and the resulting opportunities for progression of those students, could be interpreted as restrictive, despite the benefits for students of new opportunities for pursuing mathematics study.
Dynamo Assessment is a computerized assessment that tests children's performance on 14 mathematical components. 4 of these components involve number magnitude (visual quantity approximation, ordering numbers, number comparison, estimation); 4 involve number meanings (counting; single-digit number symbols; multi-digit number symbols; sequencing) and 6 involve number relationships and arithmetic (number facts; mental strategies; number bonds; problem solving; tens; and multiplication. It has mainly been used to plan interventions. This study aimed to find out more about typically developing children's performance. 2759 children between 7 and 11 underwent the assessment. Key findings are that all tests correlate significantly with one another, and that performance on all tests improves with age. When the Number Magnitude scores were grouped together, the biggest age change seemed to occur between ages 9 and 10. The same was true for the Number Relationships scores. When the Number Meaning scores were grouped together, the biggest age change seemed to occur between ages 8 and 9. The Number Meaning and Number Magnitude scores correlated negatively with the reaction times to these tests (faster children did better), but the Number Relationships score correlated positively with reaction time (slower children did better). Implications for our understanding of mathematical development are discussed.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.