CHAPTER 6 FINDINGS
6.6 CONCLUSION
The aim of this study was to explore how learners experienced the CTA, which was grounded in 'real-life' context. My study revealed that learners experienced problems with the CTA, which was grounded in the context of the Kruger National Park. Also, the learners' perceptions revealed that they would have preferred decontextualised items as opposed to contextualised items. The readability of the CTA revealed that some crucial questions were set a level higher than that of an average gradenine learner. The learners in my study are not anywhere close to being average readers ofEnglish because the average applies to first language learners and my learners are second language learners. My study also revealed that the manner in which the teacher mediated the CTA was more of a hindrance than a help to the learners.
Finally, the CTA was a summative assessment used as a validity tool to determine what learners' capabilities are. However the study revealed that the CTA was not fair because for the participants, the context of holiday bookings was out of their experience; the teachers marking was inconsistent; the teacher often provided incorrect information; the participants did not fully understand the instructions and the participants did not understand the specialised language used in the context. Therefore the CTA is not a good indicator of what learners can and cannot do.
The Common Tasks for Assessment needs to be more closely aligned with the curricular outcomes. It must address barriers to learning and consequently the challenge is to determine a standard that can be realistically applied to all learnersacross the country.
6.7 SUMMARY
In this chapter I provided answers to the three research questions. I also compared learners' experiences to literature discussed in the literature review. Merits of the study were also presented as well as implications, suggestions and recommendations and finally I provided a conclusion to my study.
Allan, S., McGhee, M., & van Krieken, R. (2005). Using Readability Formulae for
Examination Questions. QCA, 83 Piccadilly, London, WIJ 8QA. United Kingdom:
Qualifications and Curriculum Authority.
AlIen, F. B. (1988). Language and the Learning ofMathematics. Paper presented at the NCTM Annual Meeting, Chicago.
Arcavi, A. (2002). The Everyday and the Academic in Mathematics. InM. Brenner& J.
Moschkovich (Eds.), Everyday and Academic Mathematics in the Classroom (pp.
12-29). Virginia: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Atkinson, P., & Delamont, S. (2006). Interviewing in Qualitative Research. Qualitative Research, 6(4),311-333.
Au, K. H. (1998). Social Constructivism and the School Literacy Learning of Students of Diverse Backgrounds.Journal ofLiteracy Research, 30(2),297-319.
Bansilal, S. (2006).South African grade 9 mathematics teachers, professional expertise: A situative perspective. Unpublished Doctoral thesis, Curtin University of
Technology, Perth, Australia.
Bansilal, S.,& Wallace, J. (2008). National Perfornlance Assessment in a South African Context: A case Study of Issues of Classroom Implementation and Task Design.
African Journal ofResearch in Science, Mathematics and Technology Education (12), 77-92.
Bell, J. (1991). Doing Your Research Project. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Boaler, J. (1993). The Role of Contexts in the Mathematics Classroom: do they make mathematics more real?For the learning ofMathematics, 13(2), 12-17.
Boaler, J. (1994). When do girls prefer football to fashion? An analysis of female under achievement in relation to realistic mathematics contexts. British Educational Research Journal, 20(5), 551-564.
Boaler, J. (1998). Open and Closed Mathematics Approaches: Student Experiences and Understandings. Journalfor Research in Mathematics Education, 29(1), 41-62.
Boaler, J. (1999). Participation, Knowledge and Beliefs: A community Perspective on Mathematics Learning. Educational Studies in Mathematics (40),259-281.
Boaler, J. (2003). When Learning no Longer Matters - standardized testing and the creation of inequality. Phi Delta Kappan, 84(7), 502-506.
Boeree, C. G. (1998). The Qualitative Methods Workbook. Qualitative Methods
Workbook. Retrieved 5 January 2008, from http: // www. yccc. edul..1References.
doc
Brenner, M. E. (2002). Everyday Problem Solving and Curriculum Implementation: An invitation to try pizza. In M.Brenner & J. Moschkovich (Eds.), Everyday and Academic Mathematics in the Classroom (pp. 63-92). Virginia: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Carraher, D. W., & Schliemann,A. D. (2002). Is Everyday Mathematics Truly Relevant to Mathematics Education. In M. Brenner& J. Moschkovich (Eds.), Everyday and Academic Mathematics in the Classroom (pp. 131-153). Virginia: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Civil, M. (2002). Everyday Mathematics, Mathematicians' Mathematics, and School Mathematics: Can we bring them together? In M. Brenner& J.Moschkovich (Eds.), Everyday and Academic Mathematics in the Classroom (pp. 40-62).
Virginia: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2000). Research Methods in Education(5th ed.).
London and New York: Routiedge Falmer.
Cooper, B. (1992). Testing National Curriculum mathematics: some critical comments on the treatment of 'real' contexts for mathematics. The Curriculum Journal, 3(3),231- 243.
Cooper, B. (2001). Social class and 'real-life' mathematics assessment. In P. Gates (Ed.), Issues in Mathematics Teaching (pp. 245-258). London and New York: Routledge Falmer.
Cooper, B., & Dunne, M. (1998a). Anyone for tennis? Social class differences in children's responses to national curriculum mathematics testing. The
Sociological Review, 46(1), 115-148.
Cooper, B., & Dunne, M. (1998b).Social class, gender, equity and National Curriculum tests in maths. Paper presented at the ESRC Project, University of Nottingham.
Cooper, B., & Dunne, M. (2004). Constructing the 'legitimate' goal of a 'realistic'maths item. In AlIen B& S. Johnston- Wilder (Eds.), Mathematics Education(pp. 69-90).
London and New York: Routledge Falmer.
Cooper, B., & Harries, T. (2002). Children's Responses to Contrasting 'Realistic' Mathematics Problems: Just how realistic children are ready to be?Educational Studies in Mathematics, 49(2), 1-23.
Department of Education. (1998). Assessment Policy in the General Education and Training Band, Grades R to 9and ABET. Pretoria: Department of Education.
Department of Education. (2000). Curriculum 2005: Towards a Theoretical Franwwork.
Pretoria: Department of Education.
Department of Education. (2001). Revised National Curriculum Statement for Mathematics. Pretoria: Department of Education.
Department of Education. (2002). Curriculum 2005: Assessment Guidelines Pretoria: Department of Education.
Department of Education. (2002). Draft Frameworkfor the DevelopmentofCTA'S.
Pretoria: Department of Education.
Department of Education. (2002). Revised National Curriculum Statement Grades R-9, Policy: Mathematics. Pretoria: Department of Education.
Department of Education. (2003). Assessment Policy in the GeneralEducation and Training Band, Grades R to9and ABET. Pretoria: Department of Education.
Department of Education. (2003). Interim Policy Frameworkfor Assessmentand Promoting learners in Grade 9 (Vol. 461). Pretoria: Departmentof Education.
Department of Education. (2003). Teacher's Guide for the DevelopmentofLearning Programmes. Pretoria: Department of Education.
Department of Education. (2005). Common Tasks for Assessmentin Mathematics, Mathematical Literacy and MathematicalSciences. Pretoria: Department of Education.
Department of Education. (2006). National Curriculum StatementGrades R -9. Pretoria:
Department of Education.
Department of Education. (2007). Mathematics HODISMT Meeting. Planningfor 2008.
Retrieved. from.
Eisner, E. (1991). The Enlightened Eye: qualitativeInquiry and the Enhancement of Educational Practice. New York: Macmillan.
Epstein, M. (2002). Constructivism [Electronic Version]. Using Information Effectively in Education. Retrieved 18 June 2005 from http://vV\vw.constructivism.epstein.htm.
Golafshani, N. (2003). Understanding Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research. The Qualitative Report, 8(4),597-607.
Hitchcock, G., & Hughes, D. (1995). Research and the teacher. London: Routledge.
Hoepfl, M. C. (1997). ChoosingQualitative Research: A Primerfor Technology Education Researchers.Journal of Technology Educat ion, 9( 1), 1-17.
Johnson, C. (2008). Measuringthe reading age of books and otherreading matter.
[Electronic Version), 1-19. Retrieved 27 January 2008 from http:///\\'w\v.timctableLcom/rcading.html.
Key, J. P. (1997). Research Designin Occupational Education. InIRB, Thesis Handbook:
Oklahoma State University.
Kohlbacher, F. (2006). The Use of Qualitative Content Analysis in Case Study Research.
Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 7(1), 1-38.
Krefting, L. (1991). Rigor in qualitative research: The assessment of trustworthiness. The American Journal ofOccupational Therapy, 45(3), 214-222.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Beveriy Hills: Sage Publications.
Masingila, J. O. (2002). Examining Students' Perceptions of their Everyday Mathematics Practice. In M. Brenner& 1. Moschkovich (Eds.),Everyday and Academic
Mathematics in the Classroom (pp. 30-39). Virginia: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Mayring, P. (2000). Qualitative Content Analysis.Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 1(2), 1-15.
Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case Study Research in Education: A Qualitative Approach. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Merriam, S. B. (2000). Qualitative Research in Practice.San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Moll,I. (2002). Clarifying constructivism in a context of curriculum change.Journal of Education(27), 5-32.
Morrison, K. R. B. (1993). Planning and Accomplishing School- centred Evaluation.
Norfolk: Peter Francis Publishers.
Moschovich, J. N. (2002a). An Introduction to Examining Everyday and Academic Mathematical Practices. In M. Brenner& J. Moschkovich (Eds.), Everyday and Academic Mathematics in the Classroom (pp. 1-11). Virginia: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Moschkovich, J. (2002b). Bringing together Workplace and Academic Mathematical Practices during Classroom Assessments. In M. Brenner& J. Moschkovich (Eds.), Everyday and Academic Mathematics in the Classroom (pp. 93-110). Virginia:
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Murray, H. (2003). Word problems: A problem! Pythagoras, 58,39-41.
Myburbh, N., Oerson, P., Poggenpoel, M.. & Van Rensburg. W. (2004). Learners' Experience of Teaching and Learning in a Second or Third Language. Education, Spring, 12 - 22.
Neuman, W. (1997). Social Research Methods. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitati\'e Em!uation and Research Methods. Ne\vbury Park, CA:
Sage Publications.
Poliah, R. (2003).
Assessment. Paper'presented at the AEAA Conference, Cape Town.
Prestage, S., & Perks, P. (2001). Context, reality and ambiguity. In S. Prestage& P. Perks (Eds.),Adapting and Extending Secondary Mathematics Activities. London: David Fulton Publishers.
Pretorius, J., Potgieter, R., & Ladewig, W. (2005). Oxford Successful, Mathematical Literacy, Learner's Book. Cape Town: Oxford University Press Southern Africa.
Schlebusch, G. (2002). Cognition and the Language of Learning in South Africa: A Grade 10 Economics Perspective. The Qualitative Report, 7(3), 1-11.
Schoenfeld,A. H. (1988). Problem solving in context(s). In The teaching and assessing of mathematical problem solving. Reston,VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Sethole. (2004). Meaningful contexts or dead mock reality: which form will everyday take?Pythagoras (59), 18-25.
Soy, S.K. (1997). The case study as a research method: University of Texasat Austin.
Sullivan, P., Zevenbergen, 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.
Taylor, N. (2000). 'Anything but Knowledge': The Case ofthe Undisciplined Curriculum.
Paper presented at the International Conference Designing Educationfor the Learning Society, SLO, Enschede, Netherlands.
Taylor, N., & Vinjevold, P. (1999). Curriculum 2005: Finding a balance between everyday and schoolknowledges. In N. Taylor& P. Vinjevold (Eds.), Getting Learning Right (pp. 105-130). Johannesburg: Joint Education Trust.
Tellis, W. (1997). Application of a Case Study Methodology. The Qualitative Report, 3(2), 1-18.
Von Glasersfeld, E. (1995).Radical Constructivism: A Way of Knowing and Learning.
New York: Falmer Press.
Vygotsky, L. (1934). Thought and Language. Cambridge, Massachusetts London, England: The MIT Press.
Weitzel, D. (2003). Who's reading your writing? Retrieved 30 November, 2007, from http://wvv\v.cdllscapcs.com/..Ipath].html
William, D. (1997). Relevance as MacGujJin in Mathematics Education. Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Conference, York.
Yin, R. K. (1984). Case study research: Design and methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Zevenbergen,R. (2001). Language, social class and underachievement in school mathematics. In P. Gates (Ed.), Issues in Mathematics Teaching (pp. 38-50).
London and New York: Routledge Falmer.
A Common Tasks for Assessment for MLMMS for 2005