Search

While international research has demonstrated that ability grouping is inequitable, Australian research has often overlooked equity concerns, predominantly focusing on studying the benefits of grouping for students perceived to have high ability, especially in mathematics. This paper investigates the effect that mathematics ability grouping has on senior secondary mathematics participation for low and middle grouped students in New South Wales, Australia. We drew on interviews about mathematics participation with 85 students and 22 mathematics teachers from 11 government high schools. Our thematic analysis of these data identified that secondary school grouping practices often serve to entrench student interest and/or performance from primary school. This has consequences for many students, with a differentiated curriculum in Years 9 and 10 precluding low and middle grouped students from participating in high-level mathematics when they reach senior secondary school. These findings raise serious equity questions about the current push in Australia for universities to re-introduce high-level mathematics as a prerequisite to entering certain degrees. We argue that stakeholders need greater awareness of the consequences of ability grouping and that those seeking to lift post-compulsory mathematics participation should be targeting primary and early secondary school. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aligned with recent changes to syllabuses in Australia is an assessment regime requiring teachers to identify what their students `know' and `can do' in terms of the quality of understanding demonstrated. This paper describes the experiences of 25 secondary science and mathematics teachers in rural schools in New South Wales as they explore the changing nature of assessment and its implications on their classroom practice. To help reconceptualise these changes, teachers were introduced to a cognitive structural model as a theoretical framework. Throughout the 2-year study, teachers attended a series of professional development sessions and received ongoing consultative support. Each session was taped and transcribed while interviews were conducted with each teacher at the end of both years. Analysis of these data using a grounded theory approach identified seven major components of teacher practice impacted by the study. The core component was questioning while the six contributing components were teachers' pedagogical practices, attention to cognition, teaching strategies, assessment linked to pedagogy, classroom advantages for students, and classroom advantages for teachers. These findings represent a major shift in teachers' perceptions of assessment from a focus on the accumulation of students' marks to one of diagnosis as a means of directing teaching to enhance students' scientific and mathematical understandings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper we explore how participation in a constructivist-oriented, classroom aligned mathematics intervention program advanced the learning and positive dispositions of Grade 1 students who were failing to thrive when learning mathematics. Intervention programs are an approach to differentiated instruction that some schools adopt, but there are questions about whether such interventions advance equity and inclusion for students. To provide insight about these issues, we draw on data from the Extending Mathematical Understanding for All study in NSW, Australia (2016-2020) to address two research aims. The first aim was to evaluate the effectiveness of the EMU intervention approach for progressing the mathematics learning of students who were failing to thrive mathematically, and for closing the performance gap with their peers. The second aim was to consider the impact of participating in EMU intervention on students' dispositions for learning mathematics. The findings confirm the potential of intensive constructivist-based intervention approaches for closing the performance gap for students who were not thriving in mathematics, and for improving the learning dispositions of these students. However, two years after the intervention, the performance gap was again apparent for many students. It is likely that a one-off intervention program is not sufficient for enabling all students to thrive mathematically, and that well-focused classroom-based differentiated instruction and further intervention support may be warranted for some students. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]