MATHEMATICAL LITERACY IN SOUTH AFRICA
8.3 Definitions, statements of intention and curricular agendas for the subject Mathematical Literacy 70
8.3.2 Dominant Agenda(s) and Intention(s) in the CAPS conception of the subject Mathematical Literacy 87 & 88
8.3.2.7 Dominant intentions and agendas in the CAPS document
The discussion above has highlighted that within the CAPS framework – and at the level of curriculum intention − there is the promotion and prioritisation of a dominant Agenda for contextual sense-making practices (Agenda 4) and, to a lesser and more implied degree, the agenda associated with Modelling (Agenda 3). And, although there are elements of the CAPS framework that do emphasise the agenda associated with numeracy-based contextual calculations (Agenda 2 – specifically Agenda 2 [b]), these are prioritised to a far lesser degree than Agenda 3 and, particularly, Agenda 4. In the CAPS framework, any numeracy elements are always in service to a broader goal for contextual
sense-making practices. This suggests a shift from the NCS to the CAPS along the spectrum of agendas towards increased prioritising of contextual sense-making of contexts over primarily mathematical considerations and forms of participation.
Interestingly, this shift in the CAPS framework towards a structure of legitimate participation in the subject characterised by increased prioritisation of an agenda for contextualised sense-making practices is contrary to the dominant agendas for modelling and contextualised applications in the majority of the international literatures on mathematical literacy, numeracy and/or quantitative literacy read for this study.
This area of divergence is easily explained. Despite the fact that Mathematical Literacy is positioned as a subject that is entirely separate from scientific mathematics, pedagogic and assessment practices in the NCS framework continued to prioritised participation in the subject primarily according to mathematical structures. As such, a key intention of mine in authoring the CAPS document and in defining a modified philosophy and agenda for the subject in this document was driven by the intention to move the subject further away from the domain of mathematics and from mathematical and mathematised forms of participation. Hence, the increased emphasis in the CAPS framework on the contextual terrain and on associated contextually legitimate forms of knowledge, participation and communication. If you now consider that the majority of international perspectives on mathematically literate, numerate and/or quantitatively literate behaviour do not call for a separation of mathematical literacy from the domain of mathematics, then it is logical, inevitable and appropriate that within those conceptions the envisioned pattern of behaviour is legitimated and organised around mathematical structures and forms of participation. It is the separation of the knowledge domain of mathematical literacy from the domain of mathematics in South Africa that has prompted necessary re- conceptualisations of the basis of legitimate participation in the subject and of the dominant structure of knowledge required to facilitate access that that legitimate participation. With this in mind, my assessment is that the conception of mathematically literate behaviour espoused in the CAPS curriculum is more closely aligned to the type of participation conceptualised in various international perspectives of adult numeracy than to perspectives of school-based mathematical literacy. Conceptions of adult numeracy generally prioritise engagement with mathematical contents as being in service to the solving and sense-making of contextualised problem scenarios – and the CAPS conception of Mathematical Literacy prioritises a similar form of participation.
Despite the attempt in the CAPS to shift the dominant agenda prioritised in the subject closer towards contextual sense-making practices, this attempt is largely thwarted by the continued prioritisation of mathematised practices and mathematically legitimised forms of participation in the national assessments. As discussed above in relation to the NCS framework, the national examinations for Mathematical Literacy – both in the past and also at present – continue to prioritise a near exclusive agenda for numeracy in context type calculations (Agenda 2 [b]). Agendas for modelling (Agenda 3) and, particularly, for contextual sense-making practices (Agenda 4) are virtually excluded from these national assessments such that participation in the assessments is endorsed almost entirely according to appropriate and legitimate mathematical structures, knowledge, routines and
forms of communication.91 Even the contexts employed are predominantly contrived or reconstructed mathematised representations of reality, with every effort made to enhance and facilitate access to the mathematical components of the contexts. In short, participants who understand mathematics will function successfully in these assessments; participants who understand the world will not. Considering that pedagogic practices in the NCS framework followed suit with the prioritising of an agenda for numeracy in context type practices to prepare learners for successful engagement in the assessments, it seems likely that a similar situation will occur in the CAPS framework. As such, it appears that the attempt at curriculum reform in the subject will, thus, be largely undermined by the inflexibility and unchanging agenda that dominates the national examinations.
At the level of Intention, the CAPS follows suit in promoting a conception of mathematical literacy for the development of Human Capital, and continues to emphasise the role of the subject in enabling learners to become “a self-managing person, a contributing worker and a participating citizen in a developing democracy.” (DBE, 2011a, p. 7). Interestingly, while the NCS framework also makes passing reference to most of the other intentions, the CAPS framework does not reference any other intention beyond an intention for Human Capital. This point is important in that it signifies that an intention for critically Evaluating Structures − which Jablonka (2003) argues is a necessary component of any conception of mathematical literacy that hopes to promote critical citizenship (c.f. page 46 above) – is absent in the CAPS structure. However, despite the absence of an explicit statement for this intention, there are a small number of statements of content in the curriculum that indicate a limited degree of the type of critical engagement characteristic of a Critical Evaluation intention. For example, “Evaluate and critique the validity of expressions and interpretations of probability presented in newspapers and other sources of information.” (DBE, 2011a, p. 94).
WHERE TO FROM HERE
In Part 3 of this study I investigate the underlying basis for some of the claims and criticisms directed at current practices in the subject Mathematical Literacy. In doing so I bring to light the reasons why the continued legitimisation of participation in the subject according to mathematical structures is inhibiting the development of mathematical knowledge, future career opportunities, and life-preparedness. To do this I draw on the work of Paul Dowling (1998), and focus specifically on the elements of his theoretical language that highlight the forms of mythologising associated with the type of Public Domain practices that characterise the subject Mathematical Literacy.
91 In Part 7 and Chapter 25 (starting on page 402) I demonstrate this state of affairs through detailed analysis of the 2014 Grade 12 National Exemplar Examinations for the subject Mathematical Literacy.
However, in this analysis I argue that the dominant structure of knowledge in these examinations – as evidenced in the structure of the signifiers, routines and endorsed narratives that characterise the examinations − is reflective of a form of participation associated with of the Mathematical Competency domain of practice of the knowledge domain of mathematical literacy. In connecting this current
discussion to the later analysis of the examinations, the analysis reveals that it is the agenda of Numeracy- in-Context prioritised in the examinations, which is characterised by and facilitated through engagement with a structure of knowledge that relies on a form of mathematical competency.