Skip to content

Maths Coursework 2006

  • Anderson, M., Sáenz-Ludlow, A., Zellweger, S. and Cifarelli, V.V. (eds): 2003, Educational Perspectives on Mathematics as Semiosis: From Thinking to Interpreting to Knowing, Ottowa, Legas.Google Scholar

  • Atweh, B., Bleicher, R.E. and Cooper, T.J.: 1998, ‘The construction of the social context of mathematics classrooms: A sociolinguistic analysis’, Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 29(1), 63–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Barwell, R.: 2003, ‘Patterns of attention in the interaction of a primary school mathematics student with English as an additional language’, Educational Studies in Mathematics 53(1), 35–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Bernstein, B.: 1996, Pedagogy, Symbolic Control and Identity: Theory, Research, Critique, Taylor & Francis, London.Google Scholar

  • Bullen, R.K., Edmondson, A. and Ward, T.: 2001, Success in Maths – Pupil's Book G2, Longman, Harlow.Google Scholar

  • Burton, L. and Morgan, C.: 2000, ‘Mathematicians writing’, Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 31(4), 429–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Carreira, S., Evans, J., Lerman, S. and Morgan, C.: 2002, ‘Mathematical thinking: Studying the notion of ‘transfer”, in A.D. Cockburn and E. Nardi (eds.), Proceedings of the 26th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 2), School of Education and Professional Development, University of East Anglia, Norwich, pp. 185–192.Google Scholar

  • Chapman, A.: 1993, ‘Language and learning in school mathematics: A social semiotic perspective’, Issues in Educational Research 3(1), 35–46.Google Scholar

  • Chapman, A.: 2003, Language Practices in School Mathematics: A Social Semiotic Approach, Edwin Mellen Press, Lewiston, NY.Google Scholar

  • Chouliaraki, L. and Fairclough, N.: 1999, Discourse in Late Modernity: Rethinking Critical Discourse Analysis, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.Google Scholar

  • Cobb, P., Yackel, E. and McClain, K. (eds): 2000, Symbolizing and Communicating in Mathematics Classrooms: Perspectives on Discourse, Tools and Instructional Design, Mahwah, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

  • Duval, R.: 2000, ‘Basic issues for research in mathematics education’, in T. Nakahara and M. Koyama (eds.), Proceedings of the 24th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1), Hiroshima University, Hiroshima, Japan, pp. 55–69.Google Scholar

  • Evans, J.: 2000, Adults' Mathematical Thinking and Emotions: A Study of Numerate Practices, RoutledgeFalmer, London.Google Scholar

  • Fairclough, N.: 1992, ‘The appropriacy of ‘appropriateness”, in N. Fairclough (ed.), Critical Language Awareness, Longman, Harlow, pp. 33–56.Google Scholar

  • Fairclough, N.: 1995, Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language, Longman, Harlow.Google Scholar

  • Forster, P.A. and Taylor, P.C.: 2003, ‘An investigation of communicative competence in an upper-secondary class where using graphics calculators was routine’, Educational Studies in Mathematics 52(1), 57–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Halliday, M.A.K. and Hasan, R.: 1989, Language, Context and Text: Aspects of Language in a Social-Semiotic Perspective (2nd ed.), Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar

  • Halliday, M.A.K.: 1974, Some Aspects of Sociolinguistics, Interactions between Linguistics and Mathematical Education Symposium, UNESCO, Paris.Google Scholar

  • Halliday, M.A.K.: 1978, Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning, Edward Arnold, London.Google Scholar

  • Halliday, M.A.K.: 1985, An Introduction to Functional Grammar, Edward Arnold, London.Google Scholar

  • Halliday, M.A.K.: 1993, ‘The analysis of scientific texts in English and Chinese’, in M.A.K. Halliday and J.R. Martin (eds), Writing Science: Literacy and Discursive Power, Falmer, London, pp. 124–132.Google Scholar

  • Hewitt, D.: 1992, ‘Train spotters' paradise’, Mathematics Teaching 140, 6–8.Google Scholar

  • Hodge, R. and Kress, G.: 1988, Social Semiotics, Polity Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar

  • Houssart, J.: 2001, ‘Rival classroom discourses and inquiry mathematics: The “whisperers”,’ For the Learning of Mathematics 21(3), 2–8.Google Scholar

  • Hoyles, C.: 1992, ‘Illuminations and reflections – teachers, methodologies and mathematics’, in W. Geeslin and K. Graham (eds.), Proceedings of the 16th International Conference for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 3), University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH, pp. 263–286.Google Scholar

  • Kieran, C., Forman, E.A. and Sfard, A.: 2001, ‘Bridging the individual and the social: Discursive approaches to research in mathematics education: A PME special issue’, Educational Studies in Mathematics 46(1–3).Google Scholar

  • Kieran, C.: 2001, ‘The mathematical discourse of 13-year-old partnered problem solving and its relation to the mathematics that emerges’, Educational Studies in Mathematics 46(1–3), 187–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Kress, G. and van Leeuwen, T.: 1996, Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design, Routledge, London.Google Scholar

  • Kress, G. and van Leeuwen, T.: 2001, Multimodal Discourse: The Modes and Media of Contemporary Communication, Arnold, London.Google Scholar

  • Kress, G.: 1989, Linguistic Processes in Sociocultural Practice (2nd ed.), Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar

  • Morgan, C., Evans, J. and Tsatsaroni, A.: 2002a, ‘Emotion in school mathematics practices: A contribution from discursive perspectives' in P. Valero and O. Skovsmose (eds.), Proceedings of the Third International Mathematics Education and Society Conference (Vol. 2), Centre for Research in Learning Mathematics, Copenhagen, Denmark, pp. 400– 413.Google Scholar

  • Morgan, C., Tsatsaroni, A. and Lerman, S.: 2002b, ‘Mathematics teachers' positions and practices in discourses of assessment’, British Journal of Sociology of Education 23(3), 445–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Morgan, C.: 1995, An Analysis of the Discourse of Written Reports of Investigative Work in GCSE Mathematics, Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Institute of Education, University of London.Google Scholar

  • Morgan, C.: 1996, ‘Teacher as examiner: The case of mathematics coursework’, Assessment in Education 3(3), 353–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Morgan, C.: 1998, Writing Mathematically: The Discourse of Investigation, Falmer, London.Google Scholar

  • Morgan, C.: 2001, ‘Mathematics and human activity: Representation in mathematical writing’, in C. Morgan and K. Jones (eds.), Research in Mathematics Education Volume 3: Papers of the British Society for Research into Learning Mathematics, British Society for Research into Learning Mathematics, London, pp. 169– 182.Google Scholar

  • Morgan, C.: 2003, ‘The linguistic construction of social identities in mathematical communities’, in M. Anderson, A. Sáenz-Ludlow, S. Zellweger and V.V. Cifarelli (eds.), Educational Perspectives on Mathematics as Semiosis: From thinking to interpreting to knowing, Legas, Ottowa, pp. 109–128.Google Scholar

  • O'Halloran, K.L.: 2003, ‘Educational implications of mathematics as a multisemiotic discourse’, in M. Anderson, A. Sáenz-Ludlow, S. Zellweger and V.V. Cifarelli (eds.), Educational perspectives on Mathematics as Semiosis: From Thinking to Interpreting to Knowing, Legas, New York, pp. 185–214.Google Scholar

  • Pimm, D.: 1987, Speaking Mathematically: Communication in Mathematics Classrooms, Routledge Kegan & Paul, London.Google Scholar

  • Radford, L.: 2000, ‘Signs and meanings in students' emergent algebraic thinking: A semiotic analysis’, Educational Studies in Mathematics 42(3), 237–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Radford, L.: 2003, ‘On culture and mind: A post-Vygotskian perspective with an example from Greek mathematical thought’, in M. Anderson, A. Sáenz-Ludlow, S. Zellweger and V.V. Cifarelli (eds), Educational Perspectives on Mathematics as Semiosis: From Thinking to Interpreting to Knowing, Legas, Ottowa.Google Scholar

  • Sáenz-Ludlow, A.: 2004, ‘Metaphor and numerical diagrams in the arithmetical activity of a fourth-grade class’, Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 35(1), 34– 56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Santos, M. and Matos, J.F.: 1998, ‘School mathematics learning: Participation through appropriation of mathematical artefacts’ in A. Watson (ed.), Situated Cognition and the Learning of Mathematics, University of Oxford Dept. of Educational Studies, Oxford.Google Scholar

  • Sfard, A.: 2000, ‘Symbolizing mathematical reality into being – or how mathematical discourse and mathematical objects create each other’, in P. Cobb, E. Yackel and K. McClain (eds.), Symbolizing and Communicating in Mathematics Classrooms: Perspectives on Discourse, Tools, and Instructional Design, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 37–98.Google Scholar

  • Sfard, A.: 2001, ‘There is more to discourse than meets the ears: Looking at thinking as communicating to learn more about mathematical learning’, Educational Studies in Mathematics 46(1–3), 13–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Steinbring, H., Bartolini Bussi, M.G. and Sierpinska, A. (eds): 1998, Language and Communication in the Mathematics Classroom, Reston, VA, National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar

  • Walkerdine, V.: 1988, The Mastery of Reason: Cognitive Development and the Production of Rationality, Routledge, London.Google Scholar

  • Walkerdine, V.: 1989, Counting Girls Out, Virago, London.Google Scholar

  • Wells, D.: 1993, Problem Solving and Investigations (3rd (enlarged) ed.), Rain Press, Bristol.Google Scholar

  • Zack, V. and Graves, B.: 2001, ‘Making mathematical meaning through dialogue: ‘Once you think of it, the z minus three seems pretty weird”, Educational Studies in Mathematics 46(1–3), 229–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Zevenbergen, R.: 1998, ‘Classroom interactions and linguistic capital: A Bourdieuian analysis of the construction of difference in mathematics education’, in P. Gates (ed.), Mathematics Education and Society: Proceedings of the First International Mathematics Education and Society Conference, Centre for the Study of Mathematics Education, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, pp. 360–366.Google Scholar

  • Coursework for GCSE mathematics is to be axed in England, the Education Secretary, Alan Johnson, has announced.

    All other GCSE coursework would have to be supervised, Mr Johnson told the Labour party conference on Wednesday. Wales is to follow the same course.

    Mr Johnson said qualifications could not be undermined by a few cheats who took their work from the internet.

    Parents needed to be reassured that coursework assessed pupils' work in a "fair and robust way".

    Coursework - or work done outside normal classroom conditions - was introduced when GCSEs replaced O-levels almost 20 years ago.

    Steve Sinnott
    National Union of Teachers

    I hope that coursework is retained for subjects such as the arts, geography and history

    But there has long been a problem over its use, with concerns about whether work done outside school is always entirely the student's own efforts.

    And the growth of model answers on the internet has increased concerns.

    In many subjects, coursework is typically worth between 25% and 40% of marks.

    Coursework is generally popular with teachers, who argue it allows pupils to show a wider range of skills and knowledge than traditional, timed exams.

    'Robust and reliable'

    In his speech to the Labour Party conference, Mr Johnson said: "Last year, we asked the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority to look at making GCSE coursework more robust and reliable.

    "As a result of the QCA's report, we will be removing all GCSE coursework from maths and stipulating that in other subjects, coursework must be supervised in classroom style conditions.

    Coursework is typically worth between 25% and 40% of marks

    "Coursework can be very beneficial and I am determined that the hard work of the vast majority of students should not be undermined by questions of validity.

    "We will work closely with teachers to develop even more effective and reliable coursework assessments."

    In Wales, Education Minister Jane Davidson said she shared his concern.

    "I shall ask my officials to work closely with teachers in Wales to ensure that these developments are taken forward in ways that are manageable for teachers and their pupils."

    'Knee-jerk'

    Shadow education secretary David Willetts said Mr Johnson needed to go further in cracking down on the use of coursework in other subjects where it was open to abuse.

    Liberal Democrat education spokeswoman, Sarah Teather, said: "We have to be careful not to disadvantage those students who don't perform well in the exam hall environment.

    "We mustn't simply have a knee-jerk reaction against coursework."

    Unions cautious

    National Union of Teachers general secretary Steve Sinnott said: "We welcome the removal of unnecessary coursework.

    "There are some subjects for which it is totally inappropriate. I hope however that coursework is retained for subjects such as the arts, geography and history."

    The NASUWT teachers' union said it would examine the proposals very carefully but was sure supervised coursework would address problems of plagiarism.

    The Association of School and College Leaders praised the announcement.

    "In the age of the internet, plagiarism represents a real problem and it is right that the regulations on carrying out coursework recognise this," said general secretary Dr John Dunford.

    Last week, it was announced that the coursework component in geography A-level would be scrapped, although in English it could be a greater amount than now, and it has been made compulsory for the first time in history.

    Mr Johnson also outlined new measures to improve support for children in care and their education.

    He said an extra £100 a year would be put into their Child Trust Fund accounts for every full year they spent in care.

    And a £2,000 bursary would help children in care go to university.