Conference Agenda

There are disparities in achievement and opportunity across the board in areas of socio-economic disadvantage. The gaps in mathematics are particularly stark and this has significant negative implications for student choice in post-secondary education and subsequent access to further education and occupations, particularly within STEM-fields. This study uses Bronfenbrenner and Morris’s (2007) Process-Person-Context-Time (PPCT) as a theoretical framework to present a snapshot of some of the influential factors at play, and then to examine the initial results of a systematic literature review (SLR) that explores empirical attempts that have been made to address these issues.

The importance of education in relation to future earnings, health and wellbeing is well understood, and, according to the Salamanca Statement and Framework outlined by UNESCO (1994), it behoves governments and other stakeholders around the world to implement strategies that will improve the educational opportunities for disadvantaged children. However, in order to do so, it is essential to firstly ask what factors might influence these outcomes, and secondly, how can we best address them. In this introductory section the PPCT theoretical framework is used to present some of the myriad factors at play specifically within the field of mathematics education, providing a holistic base upon with to consider any strategies to address them. Using PPCT as a lens, the following key points have emerged:

Process: According to Ekmekci, Corkin, and Fan (2019), while students from socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds are particularly in need of effective pedagogy, they are more likely to “receive less effective instruction on average compared to their higher income peers” p. 58. Within such contexts, teacher’s pedagogic approaches tend to focus more on controlling behaviours (Megowan-Romanowicz, Middleton, Ganesh, & Joanou, 2013). These are examples of intrinsic didactical exclusion which reproduce structural disadvantage in societies, through mathematics.

Person: As noted by Ní Shuilleabhain, Cronin, and Prendergast (2020), students’ attitudes towards mathematics tend to be more negative in schools in areas of low Socio-Economic Status (SES), and pupils in such schools tend to have higher levels of mathematical anxiety and lower self-concept in mathematics.

Context: Low SES Neighbourhoods are often recognised as being less conducive to educational achievement, with less access to social capital via mentors or role models, and fewer resources (Dietrichson, Bøg, Filges, & Klint Jørgensen, 2017). Dotson and Foley (2016) highlight the challenges in hiring and retaining high quality mathematics teachers to schools in low SES areas, citing the “inherent difficulty” of working in such contexts. This can lead to a cycle of low expectations for students, and, given that “the development of student motivation flows at least partially through teacher motivations and motivation related behaviors” (Megowan-Romanowicz et al., 2013, p. 53), the influence of such low expectations can be damaging.

Time: The initial years in post-primary are understood as crucial for a student’s mathematical journey, with performance at this stage acting as a gatekeeper to higher-level mathematics courses and beyond that to STEM courses and careers. Unfortunately, it is precisely at this juncture that achievement gaps tend to widen for students from lower SES backgrounds (McKenna, Muething, Flower, Bryant, & Bryant, 2015).

This section has highlighted a few of the many reasons why achievement in mathematics is stratified along socio-economic lines. This study uses a SLR methodology to attempt to address the following research questions:

1. What types of empirical research have been undertaken aiming to address the mathematical achievement gap between low SES students and their more affluent peers?
2. What ‘best practices’ or ‘guidelines’ can be extrapolated from these studies to inform future work?

Despite attempts to address the well-documented issues in mathematics education with curriculum reform and associated professional development (PD) programmes, significant challenges remain in relation to the teaching and learning of mathematics in schools, particularly in areas of low socio-economic status (SES). In relation to recent curriculum reform in Ireland, research has highlighted teachers’ frustration with the new curriculum specification, a lack of faith in the teaching methodologies being promoted, and a demand for additional PD and support (Byrne & Prendergast, 2020). This lack of faith can mean that teachers often select, a la carte, the approaches they feel address their own concerns or align most with their own beliefs, leading to at best a hybridized version of practice (Cavanagh, 2006).

A wealth of research highlights the prevalence of what Corkin et al. (2015) refer to as “pedagogy of poverty”, noting that students from low SES backgrounds are at an increased risk of rigid, teacher-centric, formulaic pedagogical approaches, focusing on punctuality, and maintaining control. Factors influencing the approaches used include low teacher perception of student ability, which can often be related to, low teacher self-efficacy, out-of-field or inexperienced teachers, or lack of buy-in to reform practices, (Byrne & Prendergast, 2020; Ni Shuilleabhain et al., 2021; Yanisko, 2016). Given the domain-specific challenges of mathematics, and the additional challenge associated with educational disadvantage, there is a need for targeted intervention with schools that serve underrepresented cohorts.

PD is obviously central to such an intervention, but for it to be effective, the literature suggests that it must be a sustained, long running programme that acknowledges the iterative and reflective nature of development of teaching practices, and is deeply rooted in the context of the school (Desimone, 2011; Lieberman, 1995). It should jointly focus on a hands-on element and a co-creative, collaborative planning element within a community of practice. These separate but complimentary factors facilitate the iterative shift between knowledge building and practice through the reflective process (Valerio, 2021).

This paper describes a project that involves working with mathematics teachers in low SES schools in an effort to support them to make the most of curriculum reform and to ultimately help improve student engagement and attainment in the subject at lower secondary (ages ~12 – 15).

The theoretical framework underpinning this is expectancy-value theory (EVT), which posits that both one’s expectation for success (expectancy) and how one values a task (a combined measure of intrinsic, attainment, utility values and cost) directly influence the decision to undertake, and the level of persistence towards, the task (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000). The “task” in the context of this research, is conceptualised as faithful engagement with the new curriculum specification.

Based on the principals of EVT and the features of effective PD described by Desimone (2011) a series of PD interventions were co-planned and co-created, by the research team and participating teachers, with the aim of increasing task value and supporting growth in expectancy beliefs of the teachers. This was achieved by:

• Creating bespoke PD sessions in direct response to feedback of perceived needs and barriers of participants in relation to their practice and implementation of the intended revised curriculum, thus increasing perceived utility.
• Co-creative lesson planning, combined with in-school support in terms of planning time and co-teaching to reduce perceived cost of engagement.
• Focusing on best-practice informed strategies of context-rich problems and inquiry-based learning to increase student engagement, which in turn increases teacher attainment value.
• Giving teachers low-risk opportunities to experience reform practices, through observations, co-teaching and targeted workshops, scaffolds growth in expectancy and ability values.