Social Justice in the Mathematics Classroom: Participatory Action Research

1. Session for BSRLM Day ConferenceNovember 2016:Social justice in the mathematics classroom:Adopting a participatory action research methodologyPowerPoint presentation and further details about the research project available from:http://maths-socialjustice.weebly.com/Pete WrightUCL Institute of Educationpete.wright@ucl.ac.uk@PeteWrightIOE

2. (Anticipated) outline of research workshop: • Introduction – providing some context for the session.(5 mins) • Which methodological approaches to research are most appropriate for transforming classroom practice?(10 mins presentation followed by 10 mins discussion) • Methodological implications of the ‘Teaching Mathematics for Social Justice’ research project.(10 mins presentation followed by 10 mins discussion) • Challenges in carrying out larger-scale follow-up research studies – some thoughts and dilemmas.(5 mins presentation followed by 5 mins discussion)

3. Introduction – context for session Relevant biographical details (Pete): • Secondary mathematics teacher for 15+ years. • Worked with teachers as curriculum developer/consultant. • Developed interest in mathematics education, social justice, inequity through classroom expriences. • Began doctoral studies (EdD) in 2010. • Became teacher educator in 2011. • Began ‘Teaching Mathematics for Social Justice’ research project in 2013. • Completed doctoral studies/thesis accepted in April 2015. • Focus since then on presenting/publishing findings. • Focus now shifting towards larger-scale follow-up study.

4. Methodological approaches for transforming classroom practice? The current situation regarding mathematics teaching: • Secondary mathematics classroom practice in general has changed little since I began teaching in 1987. • Persistent correlation between family income and attainment. • One only needs to scan the plethora of literature, or indeed the common societal perspective, that portrays mathematics as dull, irrelevant, useless and often harmful to see the lingering issues that have emerged for both individuals and society at large from forms of mathematics education that have not been attentive to the personal and moral dimensions of mathematical learning. (Grootenboer, 2013, p.324) • Skovsmose (2011, p. 9) describes the ‘exercise paradigm’, which cultivates a ‘prescription readiness’ and ‘prepares the students for participating in work processes where a careful following of step by step instructions without any question is essential’.

5. Methodological approaches for transforming classroom practice? The problem with mathematics education research: • Much research fails to take account of mathematics teachers’ perspectives, classroom situations, constraints (Bishop, 1998). • Mathematics education research, like mathematics, is political in nature – much research claiming to be objective and devoid of bias ignores power relationships and ideology (Valero, 2004). • Too much focus on school effectiveness – questions relating to purpose of curriculum discouraged (Leat et al., 2014) • Teachers’ reluctance to engage with research findings – can be attributed to distrust of new initiatives – seen as promoting a political agenda or tacit monitoring/scrutiny (Thomas, 2004). • Jaworski (2006) argues ‘communities of practice’ can lead to ‘alignment’ and perpetuation of the ‘normal desirable state’ - ‘communities of inquiry’, with external support/stimulus, can achieve ‘critical alignment’ and challenge to status quo.

6. Methodological approaches for transforming classroom practice? Participatory Action Research: • Participatory Action Research (Brydon-Miller & Maguire, 2009) involves: collaboration with marginalised/oppressed communities; addessing underlying causes of inequality. It is “… a systematic approach to personal, organizational, and structural transformation, and an intentionally and transparently political endeavor that places human self-determination, the development of critical consciousness, and positive social change as central goals of social science research” (p.80).

7. Methodological approaches for transforming classroom practice? Critical Action Research (Kemmis , 2009): • Technical Action Research – known end, aim to improve outcomes, others are objects of research, one-way relationship. • Practical Action Research – ends are open to question, others treated as subjects with a voice, practitioner-led. • Critical Action Research – decisions taken collectively, joint reflection on character, conduct and consequences of practice:“People involved in critical action research aim to change their social world collectively, by thinking about it differently, acting differently, and relating to one another differently – by constructing other architectures to enable and constrain their practice in ways that are more sustainable, less unsustainable.” (p.471)

8. Methodological approaches for transforming classroom practice? Skovsmose & Borba’s (2004, p.214) ‘critical model’ of P.A.R.: • Rests upon the assumption that the Current Situation (CS) needs to be changed for the better by addressing “possibilities that can be imagined and alternatives that can be realised”. • Pedagogical Imagination – develop critical understanding of CS, acknowledge should not be taken as given, explore alternatives. • Practical organisation – cooperation between researcher and practitioners/others to organise AS (bearing in mind constraints). • Explorative reasoning – analysing the AS in order to better understand the CS and feasibility of the IS. Imagined Situation (IS): the alternative vision Arranged Situation (AS): put some aspect of IS into practice.

9. Discussion (10 mins) Prompt questions: • Why has mathematics classroom practice changed so little despite a growing consensus amongst the mathematics education community that it is in need of change? • What is the potential of Critical/Participatory Action Research for transforming mathematics classsroom practice (for the better)? • What are the challenges faced by those wishing to adopt such methodologies?

10. Methodological implications of the ‘Teaching Mathematics for Social Justice’ research project Overview of TMSJ Research Group: • Adopted critical model of participatory action research. • Five ‘teacher researchers’ (TRs) involved over 14 months. • Seven meetings – planning/evaluating classroom ideas. • External stimulus from initial conceptualisation of TMSJ (drawing on Boaler, 2009; Gutstein, 2006; Skovsmose, 2011):adopt collaborative, discursive, problem-solving pedagogies; recognize learners’ real-life experiences; promote mathematical inquiries that develop learners’ understanding of own situations; foster learners’ agency; develop a critical understanding of nature of mathematics. • Data generated from three interviews with each teacher researcher and their evaluations/presentations to others.

11. Methodological implications of the ‘Teaching Mathematics for Social Justice’ research project In what ways was it participatory? • TRs opted in – inclusion criteria included commitment to TMSJ and willingness to commit time. • I shared/presented aims/methodology of research to TRs. • TRs’ presented (selected) research literature to each other. • TRs decided ideas/activities to try out in classrooms. • TRs decided how to collect student-level data (follow up survey of students’ responses by TRs after each lesson). • Data generated from TRs’ own accounts (making use of student feedback and research journals). • My initial findings presented back to TRs for validation. • TRs encouraged to disseminate findings in professional journals.

12. Methodological implications of the ‘Teaching Mathematics for Social Justice’ research project In what ways was it critical? • Based on critical mathematics education framework. • My role included providing external stimulus and facilitating critical reflection/discussion of TRs’ practice. • Findings highlighted TRs’ changing epostemologies of mathematics – began to see value-laden nature of subject. • Growing interest amongst TRs in developing agency. TRs gained more control over direction/development of their own practice. • Evidence of increased engagement/understanding of students, particularly low-attaining and alienated students. • Collaborative and mutually supportive nature of research group enabled TRs to overcome constraints and take risks. • TRs began to challenge previous assumptions/discourses about ability, attainment, inequity and disadvantage.

13. Discussion (10 mins) Prompt questions: • To what extent might the TMSJ research project be considered participatory/critical? • What criticisms of the findings might be voiced by advocates of more traditional research methodologies?

14. Challenges in carrying out larger-scale follow-up research studies Some thoughts and dilemmas (to prompt discussion – 10 mins): • Over 100 former ITE students were invited to participate in the TMSJ research project – only 5 accepted the invitation, all of whom were committed to the broad aims of the project.How might a follow-up project involve/draw in a wider range of teachers? Would this conflict with its participatory nature? • I strived to maintain a fine balance between providing external stimulus and establishing collaborative relationships with TRs. How might this balance be maintained to ensure the research is both critical and participatory. • Students were given a voice in this research project through the follow-up surveys (a characteristic of Practical Action Research). How might students participate in ‘joint reflection on character, conduct and consequences of practice’? (Kemis, 2009) Does this need to happen before the research can be considered critical?

15. References • Boaler, J. (2009). The elephant in the classroom: helping children learn and love maths. London: Souvenir Press. • Bishop, A. (1998). Research, effectiveness, and the practitioners’ world. In: A. Sierpinska & J. Kilpatrick, eds. Mathematics education as a research domain: A search for identity. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 33-45. • Brydon‐Miller, M. & Maguire, P. (2009). Participatory action research: contributions to the development of practitioner inquiry in education. Educational Action Research, Vol 17 (1), pp. 79-93. • Grootenboer, P. (2013). The praxis of mathematics teaching: developing mathematical identities. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, Vol. 21 (2), pp. 321-342 • Gutstein, E. (2006). Reading and writing the world with mathematics: Toward a pedagogy for social justice. New York: Routledge. • Jaworski, B. (2006). Theory and practice in mathematics teaching development: Critical inquiry as a mode of learning in teaching. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, Vol. 9, pp. 187-211.

16. References (continued) • Kemmis, S. (2009). Action research as a practice‐based practice. Educational Action Research, Vol. 17 (3), pp. 463-474. • Leat, D., Lofthouse, R. & Reid, A. (2014). Teachers' views: Perspectives on research engagement. London: Research and Teacher Education: The BERA-RSA Inquiry. • Skovsmose, O. (2011). An invitation to critical mathematics education. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. • Skovsmose, O. & Borba, M. (2004). Research methodology and critical mathematics education. In: P. Valero & R. Zevenbergen, eds. Researching the socio-political dimensions of mathematics education. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 207-226 • Thomas, G. (2004). Introduction: Evidence and practice. In: G. Thomas & R. Pring, eds. Evidence-based practice in education. Maidenhead: Open University Press, pp. 1-18. • Valero, P. (2004). Socio-political perspectives on mathematics education. In: P. Valero & R. Zevenbergen, eds. Researching the socio-political dimensions of mathematics education. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 5-23.

17. Findings from the TMSJ research project: • Wright, P. (2016). Social justice in the mathematics classroom. London Review of Education, Vol. 14 (2), pp. 104-118.Open access - available from London Review of Education

18. Teaching Mathematics for Social Justice:Meaningful projects for the secondary mathematics classroom http://www.atm.org.uk/shop/Teaching-Mathematics-for-Social-Justice/act099