The world is constantly adapting, why shouldn’t the style and the goals of teaching and

learning be evolving as well? Implementing a new form of pedagogy that can be best utilised

to promote greater engaged and proactive learning is transformative pedagogy. This student

centred learning benefits students’ critical and creative thinking, as well as adaptive

reasoning (the understanding of the relationships amongst a mixture of concepts and

situations). The development of the least K-10 Mathematics syllabus has made note of the

increasingly sophistication and increased demands within maths and numeracy in the 21st

century (BOSTES, 2014). The focus is not solely on procedural fluency, but has included

mathematical understanding, communication, logical reasoning, analytical thought and

problem solving skills. There was this change in focus because it is recognised that numeracy

is an essential skill for students to become successful learners (MCEETYA 2008).

Numeracy is the key that enables individuals to successfully participate within the schooling

environment (Kraayenoord, C., & Elkins, J.2004). This statement represents the changing

processes and beliefs of how great of an impact understanding all facets of mathematics and

numeracy. In previous years of education the focus was purely on mathematical processes.

Students didn’t truly understand the purpose of numeracy and how they could implement this

knowledge in everyday life, understanding numeracy has greater use than literacy in life

(Watson, D. 2010). The role of the teacher is vital in introducing and improving student’s

knowledge and application of numeracy; however since the goals and processes have

changed to benefit students, so teaching techniques should adapt to facilitate these changes. A

typical classroom will be structured either transmissional pedagogy (teacher centred, little

interaction between students and teacher) or transactional pedagogy (curriculum focus on

problems and solutions), for students to progress further the implementation of a

transformative pedagogy/constructivist approach is necessary. A constructivist approach

encourages students to decipher their own understanding from their own experiences; also it

promotes a holistic view of education within one bracket (concept relationships), rather than

see them as separate articles (Kraayenoord, C., & Elkins, J.2004). The importance of students

being able to construct their own personal meaning is pivotal for students to develop their

base knowledge; however the role of the teacher as a facilitator needs to be more than this. A

teacher needs to be able to understand the needs of the students and recognise that there isn’t

just one avenue of learning. This is why the mixture of stimuli is necessary because if

students are only taught through one avenue of learning they become restricted in their

knowledge, only when students are constantly provided with different materials will they

fully grasp knowledge of numeracy (Rice, D., 2008). The focus of numeracy in Australia has

been neglected, causing students to become illiterate in their numeracy knowledge.

PARAGRAPH 2: Critically discusses results in relation to research context reflects critically

on links to current practice.

PARAGRAPH 3: There are difficulties in integrating/implementing quantative literacy into

the curriculum and classrooms; this is because students have not been provided the necessary

framework knowledge and skills (Frith, V.2012). For this method to be effective of

maths/numeracy to be effective it must be implemented throughout the schooling experience

because it is a process that must be constantly adapted and challenged to further progress the

student’s knowledge (Watson, D. (2010). As previously noted the research mentioned that the

stimuli must be constantly varied students to develop full understanding. However this may

be detrimental to learners because if they are constantly changing stimuli students may not

develop the necessary knowledge to connect relationships with other facets of numeracy

(Watson, D. 2010).
REFERENCE LIST:

1) BOSTES. NSW Government, (2014). Mathematics K–10 Syllabus. Retrieved from

Board of Studies Teaching & Educational Standards NSW website:

http://syllabus.bos.nsw.edu.au/mathematics/mathematics-k10/

2) Frith, V. (2012). Quantitative Literacy Interventions at University of Cape Town: Effects of

Separation from Academic Disciplines. Numeracy, 5(1), 1-23. Retrieved March 11, 2015,

from http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/numeracy/vol5/iss1/art3/

3) Kraayenoord, C., & Elkins, J. (2004). Learning Difficulties in Numeracy in Australia. Journal of

Learning Disabilities, 37(1), 32-41. Retrieved March 17, 2015, from ProQuest Education

Journals.

4) Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs

(Australia). (2008). Melbourne declaration on educational goals for young

Australians. Retrieved from ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training

and Youth Affairs website:

http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0C

CAQFjAA&url=http://www.curriculum.edu.au/verve/_resources/national_declaration
 _on_the_educational_goals_for_young_australians.pdf&ei=otUHVde3D8HbmAXFlo

DADg&usg=AFQjCNFypuFrEcp6Ot-30TlwY_UY1-

EqVw&sig2=2a8UZY7ITdil_QrIpnX_oQ&bvm=bv.88198703,d.dGY

5) Rice, D. (2008). What Teachers Need to Know about Numeracy. Adult Education, 19(3/4),

50-50. Retrieved March 10, 2015, from ProQuest Education Journals.

6) Watson, D. (2010). Critical Numeracy in Context. National Numeracy and Literacy.