Now more than ever there is a push for citizens of Australia to be mathematically

competent to participate in 21st century society as well as contribute to societal

development (Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth

Affairs [MCEETYA], 2008). Regarding education, the curriculum was structurally

updated to include Numeracy as a general capability to be developed in all students

and the mathematics curriculum expanded to include proficiencies in mathematical

reasoning, understanding, problem solving, and fluency (“ACARA”, 2016). While

these notions appear to have positive implications for the development of future

citizens, data from national and international testing suggests that Australia’s

mathematical performance is declining (Siemon et. al, 2015) in a time where it needs

to be growing stronger. A direct focus needs to be applied to the teaching and

learning in a classroom and the students in it to ensure that every individual,

regardless of disposition or inclination, can succeed and be numerate. Westwood

(2015) outlines dyscalculia, Mathematics anxiety, and teaching approaches as

potential obstacles to success in mathematics; while Bryant, Bryant and Porterfield

(2014) collected data on a thorough planning approach that could overcome these

issues and put students on the path to success.

dyscalculia is a recent development in the learning difficulties of students, or at the

very least it was only until recently that it has been recognised as a learning

difficulty, affecting the comprehension of and working involved with numbers and

arithmetic, however, it has also been seen to affect working memory in some cases

(Westwood, 2015). Mathematics anxiety has been a topic of investigation for nearly

sixty years now, involving the stress over performance and potential failures in

mathematics as well as the tension or nervousness that arises in the responses of the
student to assessments (both the content and assessment itself) (Dowkar, Sarker &

Looi, 2018). Coupled with these observable signs and challenges, Westwood (2015)

also refers to documentation that the backgrounds of students may also affect student

achievement; gender, socio-economic stature, and family influences being given

specific mentions as they appear to be commonly discussed in other literature cited

by Westwood (2015). These problems are not the only contributing factors to

Australia’s undesirable performance in mathematics, as these assessments take place

in schools, another factor contributing to mathematical difficulties is the teachers

delivering the content.

Every teacher has their own preferences and styles regarding methods of planning,

teaching, and assessment (Clarke & Pittaway, 2015), but if these are not adequate or

considerate of all students in a classroom then they are going to create obstacles in

learning for many students that may be overlooked. Effective teaching requires a

strong and flexible knowledge of pedagogy and content for the mentioned planning

or sequencing to occur, enabling the teacher to target specific interventions and

demands of tasks to the level students are currently at in their learning. Within a

single lesson this may manifest through access to concrete materials (i.e. counters

and dice in concepts of number), time extensions, simplified word problems or

having the problems read aloud (also of benefit for students with Dyslexia) and

representing steps or processes with visual cues (Westwood, 2015). It must never be

forgotten that differentiation also applies to students that are gifted or talented within

a learning area. The approaches required to extend other students should not be any

different from those that are utilised to enable students, using pedagogical content

knowledge to give students targeted content (possibly from a higher year group) that

challenges them instead of boring them.

Westwood (2015) elaborates from the outline of problems to state that changes to

teaching approaches could be a desirable or even effective method of differentiating

to meet the needs of all students and provide opportunities to succeed in mathematics

education. Westwood (2015) did not define or clarify many of the terms mentioned

in the summary above, requiring further research as to better understand what the

obstacles to learning were. As dyscalculia is a recently recognised cognitive learning

difficulty and Mathematics anxiety is aligned more closely with issues of self-

efficacy (Fletcher & Garton, 2007), there is not a wide range of peripheral resources

or methods to implement in a classroom as if it were a sensory impairment. The

purpose of the text as outlined in the preface is to provide advice and evidence-based

suggestions to people working with children on how to enable them to learn on a

strictly theoretical basis (Westwood, 2015), there is no data or on consequential

effects seen from the use of these suggestions. This chapter on numeracy and

mathematical skills contains more approaches and techniques than information about

mathematical difficulties, not necessarily meaning it is not effective in meeting its

purpose outlined in the preface, but research beyond the text may be required if a

teacher or someone working in tutoring or educational support was looking for

something to use with a specific difficulty. Despite this, approaches such as

diagnostic assessment, professional development for teachers, could be implemented

and become beneficial for a whole class, small groups, or as a part of direct

instruction which is ideal for standard engagement in the curriculum, consistency

among students, and effective teaching for all students.

A study was completed in the United States centring on a specific structure of

lessons that could supplement standard curriculum engagement. The authors refer
heavily to the Response to Intervention (RtI) model as way to classify the needs of

students, this is outlined in an early chapter of Westwood’s text (2015) but it is not

aligned to mathematics difficulties specifically. Before discussing the study, it is

vital to clarify these classifications of needs. All students receive Tier 1 interventions

as standard instruction to the expected standard, while Tier 2 requires students that

do not respond to this as expected to receive more intensive learning through small

groups to supplement the Tier 1 teaching (Westwood, 2015). Tier 3 is the highest

level and is only for the students that continue to struggle after Tier 2 interventions

have been put into place over a length of time, requiring more targeted instruction in

a small ability-based group or one on one with the educator or support staff outside

of the classroom or outside of the regular teaching of the specific content

(Westwood, 2015).

Bryant, Bryant and Porterfield (2014) completed a study on the effects of a Tier 3

(Westwood, 2015) level response in a grade 2 class (Year 3 in Australia) that were

deemed to have severe difficulties in mathematics. Their background research found

that nearly up to 10% of students are prone to mathematics-based learning

disabilities, and given the hierarchal structure of the mathematics curriculum, early

identification and intervention is essential to enable successful engagement in

mathematics. The goal of the study was to ensure that students did not need this level

of intervention and therefore participate in the standard or expected mathematics

instruction with some Tier 2 assistance if needed (Bryant, Bryant & Porterfield,

2014).

The lesson structure was broken into five sections that were routinely followed along

with one session in the week that had students engaged in a mathematical game

linked to the concept; considerations of reduced ‘teacher talk’ (more metacognition

and direct reference to concepts), smaller group sizes, breaking concepts down into

smaller units, and providing more opportunities for students to respond and interact

were made for this intervention (Bryant, Bryant & Porterfield, 2014). All stages

included and encouraged appropriate use of concrete materials wherever possible,

with each lesson consisting of a ‘Warm-Up’ to activate background knowledge and a

‘Preview’ of the content to be covered through discussion of objectives or a physical

planner. ‘Modelled Practice’ takes place through engaging the students directly as

part of the explicit teaching of concepts and procedures before moving onto ‘Guided

Practice’ where the entire group will all engage and respond to tasks or questions

before moving into more independent tasks to repeat or explain the concept back to

the teacher for understanding (Bryant, Bryant & Porterfield, 2014). To conclude each

lesson, a ‘Daily Check’ is completed for assessment purposes where the teacher

proposes a point or statement that allows students to identify connections between

concepts in the lesson and others to form a generalisation that can be applied

elsewhere (Bryant, Bryant & Porterfield, 2014). The students that received this

program were also receiving the standard mathematics instruction as the whole class,

where each lesson was centred on the students themselves and an inquiry approach

with little to no differentiation at all (Bryant, Bryant & Porterfield, 2014). 9 of 12

students in the four-week intensive program made substantial progress across all

concepts by the end of the year, including some concepts that were not directly

targeted, each achieving to a point where it was regarded that they did not require

Tier 3 intervention and could participate in the core instruction of mathematics with

some Tier 2 interventions where they were required (Bryant, Bryant & Porterfield,

2014).
The study completed by Bryant, Bryant and Porterfield (2014) has outlined a lesson

structure that has been seen to improve student learning. While Westwood (2015)

does focus on the segmentation and appropriate use of concrete materials per specific

concepts, no examples are given of how this would look if implemented. Parts of the

lesson structure involved elements similar to that of the Gradual Release of

Responsibility model (Fisher & Frey, 2013), where students become active

participants and eventually independent leaders of their own learning, allowing

students feel some confidence and combat potential issues of Mathematics anxiety

(Dowker, Sarkar & Looi, 2018) Specific resources and concepts were listed in the

data of the paper, but the appeal lies in structure being effective enough to be taken

and applied to other concepts and other year groups where it is needed.

While the results of the study were desirable, there are still some limitations that

must be taken into consideration. The study was completed in the United States,

using a curriculum and standards of achievement for both students and teachers that

are not the same as what the School Curriculum and Standards Authority (2014)

would hold Western Australians accountable to. On-going assessment and

monitoring is required of all students, their success through these interventions do

not guarantee that they will continue to succeed in the distant future per the

increasing difficulty of content over time. The specific intervention only ran for four

weeks, if it were to occur over a full year the results could be drastically different

and have more long-term implications for student achievement and effective

teaching.
The high demand for competency in mathematics through education means that it is

the duty of all teachers to ensure that all students can meet these demands. With

learning difficulties such as dyscalculia and Mathematics anxiety becoming more

prominent and documented in classrooms (Westwood, 2015), teachers must ensure

that there are measures in place that can be drawn on that will assist students and

allow them to be numerate citizens of Australia (MCEETYA, 2008). Regardless of

learning difficulties or disabilities, all students should be able to engage with the

standard curriculum and expectations wherever possible. Westwood (2015) referred

to minor considerations and techniques to better enable all students to succeed in

mathematics, measures as simple as time extensions, fragmented and specific

sequencing of content, and access to concrete materials to support cognition; catering

the needs of students and engaging in effective teaching practices. Using the RtI

model (Westwood, 2015) is an appropriate method to map out which students need

extra assistance and to what extent before they cannot participate autonomously.

Studies have confirmed a positive effect on student success through highly structured

lessons of modified content, with results showing higher success across many

concepts and the capability to achieve more with less severe interventions (Bryant,

Bryant & Porterfield, 2014). Incorporating more explicit techniques into teaching

will allow greater involvement of students and provide opportunities to succeed

where previously unable in Mathematics, a learning area that is only going to

become more and more demanding for current and future students for the future

development of the global community.

References
ACARA. (2016). Retrieved from http://www.acara.edu.au/
Bryant, B., Bryant, D., Porterfield, J., Dennis, M., Falcomata, T., & Valentine, C. et al.
(2014). The Effects of a Tier 3 Intervention on the Mathematics Performance of Second
Grade Students With Severe Mathematics Difficulties. Journal Of Learning Disabilities,
49(2), 176-188. doi: 10.1177/0022219414538516
Clarke, M., & Pittaway, S. (2014). Marsh's Becoming a Teacher (6th ed.). Frenchs Forest:
Pearson Australia Pty Ltd.
Dowker, A., Sarkar, A., & Looi, C. (2018). Mathematics Anxiety: What Have We Learned in
60 Years?. Retrieved from
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00508/full
Fletcher, J., & Garton, A. (2007). Psychology (1st ed.). Melbourne: Pearson/Education
Australia.
Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs.
(2008). Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians.
Melbourne: Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs.
School Curriculum and Standards Authority. (2014). Retrieved from
https://www.scsa.wa.edu.au
Siemon, D., Beswick, K., Brady, K., Clark, J., Faragher, R., & Warren, E. (2015). Teaching
Mathematics (2nd ed.). South Melbourne: Oxford University Press.

Westwood, P. (2015). Commonsense methods for children with special educational needs
(7th ed.). London: Routledge Falmer.