This article was downloaded by: [The Aga Khan University]On: 10 October 2014, At: 02:15Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Higher Education Research &DevelopmentPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cher20

A systematic approach to embeddingacademic numeracy at universityLinda Galligan aa Department of Mathematics and Computing , University ofSouthern Queensland , Toowoomba , AustraliaPublished online: 26 Jun 2013.

To cite this article: Linda Galligan (2013) A systematic approach to embedding academicnumeracy at university, Higher Education Research & Development, 32:5, 734-747, DOI:10.1080/07294360.2013.777037

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2013.777037

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

A systematic approach to embedding academic numeracy atuniversity

Linda Galligan*

Department of Mathematics and Computing, University of Southern Queensland,Toowoomba, Australia

This paper argues that academic numeracy is an important, but undervalued andunder-researched, area in tertiary education. Academic numeracy is first definedin terms of students’ competence, confidence and critical awareness of their ownmathematical knowledge and the mathematics needed in context. Thedevelopment of academic numeracy is then discussed in terms of obuchenie(teaching/learning) and the metaknowledge around the mathematics in contextneeded by key staff. The paper presents a systematic approach to developacademic numeracy at the university, program, course and individual student andteacher level. Finally, it provides examples of how to embed academicnumeracy. This paper provides a framework for future studies in this under-researched area.

Keywords: academic numeracy; academic support; mathematics; service teaching;situated learning; teaching and learning

Introduction

Mathematics skills are necessary in many academic disciplines in university. Degreessuch as Engineering (Kent & Noss, 2001), Biology (Hurney et al., 2011) Nursing (Gal-ligan, 2011a) and Economics (Ballard & Johnson, 2004), in particular, have identifiedcertain mathematics skills students need to become experts in their discipline. There isconcern that these skills are insufficient for today’s quantitative culture (Watt, 2007).However, there has been little research around what is really needed in these disciplines(Coben, 2000; Condelli et al., 2006). While the mathematics may look similar, each dis-cipline has its own mathematics culture and characteristics. For staff in academicsupport or service programs, there is a crucial need to understand this metaknowledgearound the different mathematics skills. However, it is also important to have an insti-tutional structure around development of such knowledge.

The paper will first define this mathematics in context (i.e., academic numeracy) andoutline why this is an under-researched area. It will then propose a university-wideapproach to developing academic numeracy at the university, program, course, individ-ual student and teacher level.

Academic numeracy

This term has its origins with Yasukawa and Johnston (1994) and was modified byTaylor and Galligan (2002). The term ‘academic numeracy practices’ was also used

© 2013 HERDSA

*Email: linda.galligan@usq.edu.au

Higher Education Research & Development, 2013Vol. 32, No. 5, 734–747, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2013.777037

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

02:

15 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

by Prince and Archer (2007) to emphasise the socially-situated nature of the practice ofmathematics and statistics.

In the context of this paper, the concept of numeracy originated with Cockcroft’s(1982) reflection about the ‘at homeness’ with numbers in the demands of everydaylife, and an ‘appreciation and understanding of information which is presented in math-ematical terms, for instance in graphs, charts or tables’ (para. 39). The definition of aca-demic numeracy also encompasses ideas of integration with the cultural, social,personal and emotional (Maguire & O’Donoghue, 2002) and confidence and compe-tence (Coben et al., 2008). It also accommodates notions of location and time (FitzSi-mons, 2006) as central ideas. Thus, I propose that academic numeracy includes:

. mathematical competence in the particular context of the profession and the aca-demic reflection of the profession at the time

. critical awareness of the mathematics in the context and in students’ own math-ematical knowledge, involving both cognitive and metacognitive skills

. confidence – highlighting its deeply affective nature (Galligan, 2011a).

These three elements are critical in guiding an approach to assist students in becom-ing more numerate in the context of their degree.

Within this definition is the notion of both vertical (school-based) and horizontal(work-based) discourses (Bernstein, 1999). If students are to be numerate, they needto be able to take their knowledge from school and the workforce (if possible) and syn-thesise it into their university studies so that they are able to critically interpret andanalyse their own and others’ work. To develop this skill, students need to be able tolook back on school mathematics and reshape it to suit the purpose, to look forwardto mathematics used at work and to take a critical look at the relationships between vari-ables in context. Being academically numerate is a unique opportunity for students tosee mathematics in this new way – to incubate, reflect on and develop the mathematicslearned at school, which often becomes fossilised or unutilised in the workplace.

As shown in Figure 1, students may take the mathematics they know along manypathways. The mathematics journey may lead straight from school to work (or theother way, as the teacher may take the mathematics seen in the workplace and use itin school), without transformation (Pathway A). It may travel through the filter of uni-versity, vocational or other professional-development programs or manuals (indicatedby the blue oval areas) with little change (Pathway B shown with dotted lines in thefilter) or be changed by the person in the workforce (Pathway C with spirals andvarious possible pathways). In some instances, it may enter university from schoolor work (Pathway D) and become transformed (the spirals in the filter), but never beused in the workforce, or it may be transformed and then used in the workforce, orlead back into school. All of these options may be useful. Higher-order mathematicslearned at university or elsewhere may also have similar pathways. To maximise theuse of these pathways, dialogue on numeracy between work, university and school isessential. Importantly, these journeys are unique as it is the student who owns theunderstanding of the mathematics, who reconceptualises it, transforms it into some-thing to be used (or not) in the workplace. The numeracy journey may take thestudent to new understandings of mathematics, but it may not be a direct or obviousroute to the workplace (Pathway E).

The challenge to transform skills in mathematics between contexts has beenacknowledged (National Numeracy Review Panel, 2008). In developing academic

Higher Education Research & Development 735

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

02:

15 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

numeracy, students start with the mathematics that they learnt from school and work totransform this mathematics to suit the professional contexts into which they hope tomove. Unlearning, relearning and deeper layered learning may occur as part of thisprocess, influenced by metacognition and affect. In the process of assisting studentsto become academically numerate, curriculum developers, academic support orservice lecturers draw from the profession, imagine what mathematics is needed andcontextualise this in the imagined version of the workplace recreated in universitystudies. These contextual tools, for example, can be used to assist students todevelop their understanding of concepts that are to be used in the workplace. Indoing so, the curriculum thus becomes an incubator for deeper mathematics learningat whatever level, accelerating students’ capacity to think mathematically. For the suc-cessful students who study in mathematics-based programs (e.g., those who becomestatisticians, actuaries, meteorologists and physicists), deeper mathematics learningdoes occur, but for the majority of school or higher level students this may not necess-arily be the case. For these university students – those who are using mathematicsalmost incidentally – the mathematics learnt at school needs to be actively revitalisedif they are to begin developing academic numeracy.

Why academic numeracy is important

Broadly speaking, many Western countries are concerned about students’ level ofmathematics in general (Croft, 2001; Sanders, 2004) and in specific areas such as Bio-logical Sciences (Tariq, 2008) and Education (Hamlett, 2007). Participation inadvanced sciences and mathematics education has declined in the USA and there is‘grave concern about the viability of those disciplines to sustain economic growth

Figure 1. Pathway of mathematics discourses between school and the workforce.Source: Galligan, 2011a, p. 331.

736 L. Galligan

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

02:

15 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

and development’ (Watt, 2007, p. 38). There is a similar concern in many Australianuniversities about falling mathematics standards (Cousins & Roberts, 1995; Kemp,2005; MacGillivray, 2007; Skalicky, Adam, Brown, Caney, & Lejda, 2010).

Despite this concern around mathematics standards, there is surprisingly littleresearch in mathematics preparation (Wilson & MacGillivray, 2007) and academicnumeracy. Because of the nature of the mathematics involved, academic numeracyresearch is often related to adult numeracy. Both in Australia and worldwide, theissue of adult numeracy has fluctuated in terms of research and politics. ‘Ten yearsago Australia was at the forefront of adult literacy and numeracy teaching, learningand research. Now, we do not even have a national policy and we are going backwards’.(Australian Council for Adult Literacy, 2001, as cited in Coben, 2006).

Over the last decade, there has been some increased activity in literacy and numeracyresearch, particularly through the National Centre for Vocational Educational Research(NCVER) funding. While many reports from the NCVER research have referred to theimportance of numeracy in general, only one (Circelli, Curtis, & Perkins, 2011) referredto the university sector. This report suggests that the ‘focus on language, literacy andnumeracy is about to increase significantly’ at the university level (p. 12). In 2010, aNational Foundation Skills Strategy suggested that more funding be allocated to work-place and jobseeker numeracy (Black & Yasukawa, 2010) in order to contribute to econ-omic skills development as well as social inclusion (Skills Australia, 2010). At themoment, however, Black and Yasukawa (2010) report that ‘there are now no nationalfunding sources for research specifically in adult literacy and numeracy’ (p. 52).

In general, there does appear to be an acknowledgement of the necessity for anumerate society and this is also reflected at the university level. Australian universitiesnow have lists of graduate attributes, or capabilities, at the general and specific programlevel. Seven generic capabilities appear common in higher education (Oliver, 2011)with many having some reference to academic numeracy, often implicitly, throughstatements such as ‘academic, professional and digital literacy’ (University of SouthernQueensland [USQ], 2010). Graduate Employability Indicators (Oliver, 2011) are moreexplicit, with two of the 14 indicators being: ‘thinking critically and analytically’ and‘analysing quantitative problems’ (p. 10). Further evidence of academic numeracyskills can be found in a set of sample questions developed by the Australian Councilfor Educational Research (2003) that are supposed to test graduate student attributes.

A review of adults learning mathematics by Galligan and Taylor (2008) concludedthat while there have been inroads in numeracy, the area of academic numeracy remainscritically under-researched. This is also reflected internationally. Wedege, Benn, andMaaß (1999) suggest adults learning mathematics in general is an under-theorisedarea since it needs ‘to draw upon as many relevant disciplines as possible in order todevelop’. In Australia in 1990, Galbraith (as cited in Godden, 1993) thought thereason for this lack of theory was primarily a result of isolation and lack of connectionwith a research culture or partnerships.

Further, Godden and Pegg (1993) thought that problems in the tertiary preparatorymathematics area lay in evaluation methods, and concluded that because the programswere flexible and student-centered, there was a problem with evaluating in the tra-ditional manner. They called for evaluators to develop a new approach to evaluations.It is interesting to note that in a book on the evaluation of learning-support programs atuniversity, only one section referred to the evaluation of mathematics-based programs(Webb & McLean, 2002). Research appears difficult to undertake in this area with pol-itical, social and educational factors impacting on research practice.

Higher Education Research & Development 737

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

02:

15 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Teaching and learning issues

The scholarship of teaching and learning in Australian universities has moved from theperiphery to the centre of attention in the last 10 years. At the same time, ideas aboutwhat teaching and learning is have been the focus of research, and this includes notionsof enhancing the quality of student learning and improving pedagogic content knowl-edge. For example, Trigwell’s model of scholarship of teaching specifically includesthe student, particularly ‘how knowledge is used in action with students and whichelements of that knowledge lead to learning’ (Trigwell & Shale, 2004, p. 528).

Within this environment of learning, we need ‘deliberate, collaborative, meaning-making with students … making transparent how learning has been made possible’(Trigwell & Shale, 2004, p. 530). Thus, if intimate knowledge of how students learnis central to improving teaching and learning, then we need an in-depth approach toresearch. Trigwell and Shale continue: ‘In any real-time teaching situation, approaches,concerns … that arrive from moment to moment … will be a function of the teacher’sperceptions of the environment in which they are working … students’ reciprocalrelationships with the teacher make this situation more dynamic and fluid’ (p. 531).Thus, in education there is a central concern with the quality of that awareness as tea-chers attempt to find the essence of students’ meaning-making. In universities there isalso a central attribute that students develop as independent thinkers (Trigwell & Shale,2004). If universities want to enhance the quality of student learning within programsand courses, a method of development is needed that incorporates Trigwell’s model ofscholarship. This paper uses such a method in the context of academic numeracy.

In this article, I will use the term of obuchenie, a term first promoted by Vygotsky(1978) referring to both teaching and learning. This Russian term is usually translatedas teaching/learning and, sometimes, simply learning (Cole, 2009). But it is much more.While it does refer to the organisation of the environment by the teacher (hence theteaching component) it is really bidirectional, with both the student and the teacherchanged as a result of the activities organised (Cole & Valsiner, 2005). This approachto learning and development is influenced by Gestalt psychology. Using Cole’sexample, if a person learns that 2 + 3 = 5, that person is led to acquire, simultaneously,greater insight into the basic arithmetic operations as whole. This vision of obuchenie isparticularly powerful, considering the context of this article. Students are learning/relearning particular mathematics concepts and, if directed in the right way, the meta-phorical windows in students’ minds that have been partially open, stuck or firmlyboarded up can be opened up. In addition, the insight provided by the context providesnew windows of understanding for the academic support, or service, lecturer.

If the view of academic numeracy proposed here is accepted, then students’capacities to develop graduate attributes, such as academic, professional and digital lit-eracies, are enhanced. In addition, this view ensures academic staff in the support andservice areas work together v obuchayushchei srede (in this teaching/learning environ-ment) to foster deeper numeracy understanding. To guide the purposeful improvementof academic numeracy, as opposed to incidental development, a systematic university-wide approach is now proposed.

University-wide approach to academic numeracy

Universities have largely ignored academic numeracy, assuming students come to uni-versity with these skills. In mathematical-based programs such as Engineering, any skillshortage has been addressed by offering traditional school-level mathematics courses

738 L. Galligan

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

02:

15 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

within their program. Many other programs ignore the shortfall, bemoan the lack ofskills or offer various catch-up courses, using a deficit model of learning where suchdeficiencies are seen as the students’ fault. Few programs, outside Engineering andsome Science programs, ask for mathematics as a prerequisite and few actively aimto improve academic numeracy – yet graduate attributes and Graduate EmployabilityIndicators (Oliver, 2011) suggest they should. Students should leave university morecompetent, confident and critically aware of the mathematics in their program and intheir profession.

Literature in the area of academic numeracy is sparse. Taking a broader scopeof support there are some useful models (Keimig, 1983; Taylor & Galligan, 2002;Willison & O’Regan, 2007), which appear to include three facets. First is a uni-versity-wide approach focusing on systems, second is a program-level approachfocusing on teaching and learning, particularly, with graduate qualities in mind,and third is an evaluative approach at the course level. These approaches are depictedin Figure 2. However, a fourth facet, which is missing, is the input from students andteachers.

The next section will investigate these four facets of the model and detail some ofthe features of each.

University level

Because academic numeracy sections within universities tend to be isolated and have alack of connection with a research culture or partnerships, a systematic approach at uni-versity level of support and development is needed. A model, such as one proposed byKeimig (1983) and highlighted in Figure 2 (1) is useful as it allows academic numeracyto be addressed at a university level. Here, numeracy is explicitly promoted within acomprehensive learning system (Level IV) supported by various tailored servicesdepending on the community, such as context-specific numeracy courses (Level III),one-to-one support (Level II) and enabling programs (Level I). The system needs toinclude institutional goals, policies and standards and be linked to staff development

Figure 2. Model of embedding academic numeracy.Source: Galligan, 2011a, p. 321 and p. 326.

Higher Education Research & Development 739

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

02:

15 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

and support to help identify and design curricula and to assist in student support. If suchan approach is taken, then there need to be strong links between teaching and learningsupport, and other areas such as a mathematics department and/or an education facultyand any enabling programs, to ensure academic numeracy is addressed effectively atthe program, course and student level. If such a model is closely linked to academicsupport in language and literacy, there is a danger that numeracy becomes subsumedby the language and literacy component. Without that link, however, it risks havinglittle connection to important teaching and learning issues at the university level.

Program level

An overall design of the numeracy expected at program level provides for continuity, sothat each year level takes into account student autonomy and development (that is, froma high degree of structure or mastery of basic skills, to open inquiry and self-determinedguidelines). The varying depths of numeracy needed (Figure 2 [2]) are based on theWillison and O’Regan (2007) model for research. This design at program levelshould run parallel with the overall plan of developing graduate attributes. So, withinthe attribute in some programs of developing ‘academic, professional and digital lit-eracy’, for example, an aim for the sub-attribute of numeracy could be:

. Level 1: demonstrate competence in basic mathematics skills relevant to the dis-cipline and/or profession, apply mathematics skills in context, reflect on the levelof confidence to apply mathematics skills in context

. Level 2: demonstrate competence in relevant mathematics skills within context ofthe profession/discipline, select and apply the most appropriate tool in context,reflect on the level of confidence to apply the most appropriate tool in context

. Level 3: demonstrate competence in a range of mathematics skills across aca-demic and professional contexts, evaluate and select complex tools across arange of academic and professional contexts, reflect on the level of confidenceto evaluate and select complex tools across a range of academic and professionalcontexts.1

The disciplinary context, then, provides examples at each level in skills (e.g., arith-metic, graphing, algebra, statistics), with the expectation that students will be academi-cally numerate by the end of their degree, that is, they will have confidence, competenceand critical awareness of the mathematics used in their degree. What approach is takenrelates back to (1) at the university level, where services provided can be at any of thefour levels, for example, front-end or embedded in existing courses. It is at this programlevel that context becomes crucial. As Kent and Noss (2001) suggest:

…whenever people make use of mathematics, they attach new meanings, relevant to theirown context, even to the most basic of mathematical objects … [and] that it is only bytaking account of how mathematical knowledge is constructed in the ‘host’ domain,that we can engage with the difficulties that students have in this field. (p. 410)

In developing a systematic approach to academic numeracy within a discipline area, itis fundamental to gain an understanding of the mathematical conventions and expec-tations of both the discipline and the future profession, that is the metaknowledgearound the mathematics. This may be difficult for an academic support or service lec-turer who may have limited expertise in the discipline – what the lecturer perceives as

740 L. Galligan

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

02:

15 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

useful mathematical skills, may be illusions from a ‘mathematical’ view of Nursing,Business or Engineering. Deep understanding of the numeracy of the discipline is dif-ficult and the cooperation of those within the discipline is vital for effective curriculumdevelopment and numeracy advice.

The metaknowledge around the mathematics consists of three characteristics. Thefirst of these characteristics is the mathematics and related numeracy students bringwith them from school and/or work and life experiences, the mathematical and numer-acy skills particular to their degree, and the quantitative skills students need in the pro-fession for which they are aiming. The second is the different emphasis on certainaspects of those skills in the different degree programs. These may include where stu-dents get stuck, what triggers are used to promote learning, and states of uncertainty.Thirdly, there is a ‘multiplicity of subcultures’ within the university, ‘each with itsown discourse/literacy’ (Lawrence, 2005, p. 19), the personalities of learners and tea-chers and the learning experiences they bring with them, and the approach to learningand teaching.

The first of these characteristics can be found from audits, testing and interviews(Taylor, Galligan, & Van Vuuren, 1998). To some extent, the second characteristic(i.e., stuck points, triggers and uncertainty states) can also be gleaned from the samesources. However, to understand the culture, the learners and the approach, a moredetailed microgenetic method needs to be found, which builds a profile of numeracyjourneys of the students and the lecturers. This information is found at the course,student and lecturer level and can then help to develop curricula that embed academicnumeracy in that particular discipline.

Course level

In this context, ‘course’ may mean any of those mentioned in Level 1 of the model(Figure 2 [1]), that is, a specific course for credit, or program/s developed specificallyto improve academic numeracy. At this level, it is crucial that staff and students’ input,via evaluation, is sought, as the success and sustainability of the service is dependentupon staff and student satisfaction. This success and satisfaction is then fed back upto program and university level. An overall design and an evaluation design, instages, at the course level, such as the model developed by Taylor and Galligan(2002) and reproduced in Figure 2 (3), are needed. The design draws on evidencefrom students and staff (Figure 2 [4]) and is mindful of program-level objectives andgraduate qualities (Figure 2 [2]). Evaluation occurs at the pre-course design, andcourse design, development and delivery stage and, thus, becomes a necessary and inte-gral part of curriculum development.

International and national conference proceedings on adults learning mathematicsdetail many numeracy programs (see Taylor and Galligan [2005] for a summary),yet few go further than simply reporting on programs. In this approach, numeracycourses and programs are part of the overall design of academic numeracy withinand across disciplines.

Student and teacher level

From an obuchenie perspective, lecturers and students can gain deeper understandingof academic numeracy within a program or course. This understanding can be fedback into curriculum design. Well-designed single case studies developed within

Higher Education Research & Development 741

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

02:

15 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

each university discipline can be the source of this understanding and can, in turn,inform the development of a generic model of student understanding within that disci-pline. Valsiner’s (1997) human development theory utilises such a case-studyapproach, focusing on the developing person within a micro setting. This approachhelps to navigate and trace the numeracy journey of both students and teachers (Galli-gan, 2011b).

Embedding academic numeracy

The following is a list of nine approaches that incorporate the arguments in this paperand work completed by the author in the context of nursing numeracy (Galligan,2011a).

Curriculum designers aiming to embed academic numeracy need to develop, firstly,an understanding of what students know, secondly, an understanding of how to embednumeracy and, thirdly, an understanding of how to deliver such numeracy programs.

An understanding of what the students know can be gleaned by undertaking some orall of the following:

. Administer a pre-‘test’ framed around the definition of academic numeracy (i.e.,competence, confidence and critical awareness) (e.g., in Nursing see Galligan,2011b). Ensure students interact with the questions being asked, to give thema chance to show what they know, how well they know it and how confidentthey are, and to give the students a glimpse of why they need to know it. It isof little use to get students to learn much of the basic mathematics they havelearnt at school (yet again). They need to rethink it in light of a new contextand new potential contexts. The pre-test can provide the opportunity for studentsto look back and look around the mathematics learnt at school. The pre-test mustbe well constructed, be embedded in the professional context and be based onadult learning theories. It also needs to take a developmental approach (i.e.,the pre-test is a beginning phase of a numeracy journey). It may form part of sum-mative assessment, but should not be on cognitive skills, but on metacognition. Italso provides lecturers better understanding of what students know and how wellthey know it, instead of the usual pre-test, which just gives a frozen point-in-timeknowledge of a particular maths problem

. Identify from students and staff classic ‘stuck points’ in the curriculum and waysfor students to become ‘unstuck’ (from the literature, staff experience and stu-dents’ stories). Identify what is needed from an audit of students’ knowledgeand the material being used in the course, identify what numeracy skills aremost needed and identify the consequences in later parts of the program if stu-dents do not have the numeracy skills required

. Investigate the research already carried out. As there is limited research on math-ematics education at tertiary level, research from school level may be helpful.Difficulties highlighted in the mathematics-related literature at school, such asmultiplicative or fractional understanding, often emerge again in university.Often, student reflection on past learning is important, so unlearning/relearn-ing/deeper layered learning can occur in the context of metacognition and affect.

An understanding of how to embed the numeracy can be developed by thefollowing:

742 L. Galligan

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

02:

15 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

. Link to, or develop, existing learning materials such as Mathematics LearningObjects and embed them at appropriate points (multiple, if necessary) alongthe way within an existing course or within a Learning Management System.Build into the design of these Learning Objects notions of student numeracydevelopment, independent thinking, and self-scaffolding, context and erroranalysis, using the student voice. For example, in nursing, create a screencastof fractions and their relationship to a particular drug calculation. Have a parallelscreencast of a student making an error in such a drug calculation, then a discus-sion of the error and how understanding fractions can avoid the error

. Activate a sense of students’ developing academic numeracy, of becoming moreconfident and competent, and of thinking mathematically and metacognitively inthe context of their university disciplinary community. For example, in nursing,fractional understanding creates a checking mechanism for drug calculations andenhances a feeling of whether the answer is right or wrong

. Outline alternative approaches to solving a problem, or alternative ways to embednumeracy (Level I to IV in Figure 2 [1]). Ensure there is support for flexible waysof learning, whether it be face-to-face, online or distance learning. Embeddingexamples in context is essential, but developing a skill or transferring knowledgeand skills across contexts is also important (especially at the program level). Bealert for important, but hidden, issues that emerge through the student voice, suchas the importance of an awareness of university culture and expectations (e.g.,explicitly link to graduate attributes)

. Provide flexibility. Do not forget the students who already have the mathematicsskills are thinking mathematically and can transfer these skills to the context. Forexample, providing flexibility in the curriculum to fast track, or test out, is a strat-egy welcomed by these students.

An understanding of how to deliver such numeracy programs can be generated by:

. Staff development. This is needed if this approach is to be successful. Forexample, all staff need to know why students should do a reflective pre-testand why they need to make contextual connections with mathematics. Mathemat-ics support staff need to ensure their approach is not too ‘mathematical’. Disci-pline staff are often under-aware of the complexities of the mathematicalissues within the discipline

. A cooperative approach between staff. The mathematics experts and the contextexperts from the target discipline need to develop a mutual understanding of theapproach taken and the curricula being developed. For example, in a study ofembedding academic numeracy in nursing (Galligan, 2011b), nursing staff, aca-demic support staff and mathematics staff met regularly (and still meet) toexchange ideas, approaches and changes in curricula. Kent and Noss (2001)reflect on this approach:

… this kind of curriculum development work necessitates not only making connectionsbetween knowledge domains, but making contacts between people working in the differ-ent domains. A form of contact which service mathematics tends to rule out of hand byenforcing a separation of domains. (p. 402)

Understanding academic numeracy at the student level is essential as it gives deepunderstanding of the teaching and student obuchenie issues. More importantly,

Higher Education Research & Development 743

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

02:

15 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

however, this understanding needs to feed back into the other three layers of the model.While there has been some research of mathematics understanding at this student orcourse level (e.g., Gordon, 1998), the research often fails to feed back to theprogram or university level as the structure is not in place to address academic numer-acy at these levels.

Conclusion

Because of the nature of the work in academic numeracy support, it is difficult to under-take large-scale research into academic numeracy. It is hoped this paper will profile aframework for future research in this under-researched area.

If universities want to enhance the quality of student learning within programs andcourses, a method of course development is needed that incorporates Trigwell andShale’s (2004) model of scholarship. This method needs a number of features incorpor-ating the concept of obuchenie. It needs to capture the moment-to-moment concerns ofstudents and teachers, to consider the whole environment, to include the teacher in thelearning, and to lead to student independence. The approach proposed in this paper fordeveloping academic numeracy at the student, teacher and course level incorporatesthese features. Importantly, this approach also advocates a program and universitylevel, otherwise academic numeracy will remain at the periphery of research and anyinroads into improving academic numeracy will be piecemeal. It is at the programlevel that improvements in academic numeracy can be seen and it is here that academicnumeracy can be linked to graduate attributes. However, it is at university level whereacademic numeracy needs to be acknowledged. Like academic literacy, academicnumeracy is a university-wide issue and if it is to be seriously addressed, then a sys-tematic approach is essential.

Politically there has been little room for serious research in this numeracy transitionarea. Numeracy appears to be the Oliver Twist in the university story, with the fewresearchers in the area asking for more of the little that is leftover from facultyfunding. It still appears to be socially acceptable to admit being numerically challenged,even in a university community where the ‘hard’ quantitative analysis in many coursesis simply removed. Educationally it has been shown that, in the West at least, studentsbring a low level of mathematics skills to university. In Education faculties, studentsgraduate with lower levels of mathematics skills than are needed to teach mathematicsin schools (National Strategic Review of Mathematical Sciences Research in Australia,2006).

These political, social and educational factors impact on this area of research prac-tice. Yet more research into academic numeracy will have positive impacts in fourareas. The first is in adult education. We need to be a more numerate society, andhow adults engage in this learning is only beginning to be researched. The secondarea is in numeracy support at university. Research into teaching and learningsupport has only recently become more mainstream, yet numeracy continues to beon the fringes and is a hidden but vital part of graduate attributes. Thirdly, in Educationfaculties, as testing of student teachers’ mathematics skills becomes compulsory, thereis a need to understand how students become more numerate, not just more able to passa test.

The final area where such research can have an impact is in quality school nationalcurriculum development. Here, there is a need for developers to ask what mathematicsneeds to be understood and mastered by school students for both the workforce and for

744 L. Galligan

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

02:

15 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

university. It is unrealistic to expect students to enter university with all the academicnumeracy skills needed for their degree. It is also unrealistic to expect that they canlearn them without specific planning. This needs to be redressed if we are to ensurethat students do have the graduate attributes necessary for the quantitatively-richsociety of today and tomorrow.

Note1. These statements were developed in conjunction with Dr Sarah Hammer at USQ to become part

of an information flyer for academic staff: Thinking about different learning levels for yourcourse, available at www.usq.edu.au/ltsu/develop

ReferencesAustralian Council for Educational Research (ACER). (2003). Graduate skills assessment test.

Retrieved January 10, 2003, from http://www.acer.edu.au/unitest/gsa/documents/GSA_2003_Sample_Questions.pdf

Ballard, C.L., & Johnson, M.F. (2004). Basic math skills and performance in an introductoryeconomics class. Journal of Economic Education, 35(1), 3–23.

Bernstein, B. (1999). Vertical and horizontal discourse: An essay. British Journal of Sociologyof Education, 20(2), 157–173.

Black, S., & Yasukawa, K. (2010). Time for national renewal: Australian adult literacy andnumeracy as ‘foundation skills’. Literacy & Numeracy Studies, 18(2), 43–57.

Circelli, M., Curtis, D., & Perkins, K. (2011). Mapping adult literacy performance. Adelaide,SA: National Centre for Vocational Education Research.

Coben, D. (2000). Section 1: Perspectives on research on adults learning mathematics (introduc-tion). In D. Coben, J. O’Donoghue, & G.E. FitzSimons (Eds.), Perspectives on adults learn-ing mathematics: Research and practice (pp. 47–51). Dordrecht, the NL: Kluwer Academic.

Coben, D. (2006). Surfing the adult numeracy wave: What can we learn from each other in theUK and Australia? In M. Horne & B. Marr (Eds.), Connecting voices: Practitioners,researchers and learners in adult mathematics and numeracy. Proceedings of the 12thInternational Conference on Adults Learning Mathematics (ALM) (pp. 82–87).Melbourne, VIC: ACU National.

Coben, D., Hall, C., Hutton, B.M., Hall, D., Sabin, M., & Weeks, K. (2008). Numeracy fornursing: The case for a benchmark. In J. O’Donoghue (Ed.), The changing face of adultsmathematics education: Learning from the past, planning for the future. Proceedings ofALM-14, the 14th International Conference of Adults Learning Mathematics - AResearch Forum (ALM) (pp. 88–102). Limerick, Ireland: University of Limerick in associ-ation with ALM.

Cockcroft, W.H. (1982).Mathematics counts: Report of the committee of inquiry into the teach-ing of mathematics in schools under the charimanship of Dr W.H. Cockcroft. London: HerMajesty’s Stationery Office.

Cole, M. (2009). The perils of translation: A first step in reconsidering Vygotsky’s Theory ofDevelopment in relation to formal education (Editorial). Mind, Culture & Activity, 16(4),291–295.

Cole, M., & Valsiner, J. (2005). Actualizing potentials: Learning through psychology’s recur-rent crises. In D.B. Pillemer & P. White (Eds.), Develomental psychology and socialchange: Research history and policy (pp. 288–313). New York: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Condelli, R., Safford-Ramus, K., Sherman, R., Coben, D., Gal, I., & Hector-Mason, A. (2006).A review of the literature in adult numeracy: Research and conceptual issues. Washington,DC: American Institutes for Research.

Cousins, E., & Roberts, S. (1995). Perceived mathematical proficiencies in Level 1 subjects.Internal Report by Mathematics Learning Centre, University of Adelaide.

Higher Education Research & Development 745

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

02:

15 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Croft, T. (2001). A holistic view of mathematics support in higher education. Newsletter.Retrieved December 12, 2007, from http://ltsn.mathstore.ac.uk/workshops/maths-support/croft.pdf

FitzSimons, G. E. (2006). Numeracy. Retrieved January 12, 2010, from http://www.statvoks.no/emma/index_numeracy_gail_middle.htm

Galligan, L. (2011a). Developing a model of embedding academic numeracy in university pro-grams: A case study from nursing (Unpublished doctoral thesis). Queensland University ofTechnlogy.

Galligan, L. (2011b). Measuring academic numeracy: Beyond competence testing. In J. Clark,B. Kissane, J. Mousley, T. Spencer, & S. Thornton (Eds.), Mathematics: traditions and[new] practices. Proceedings of the 34th Annual Conference of the MathematicsEducation Research Group of Australasia and the Australian Association of MathematicsTeachers (pp. 288–296). Adelaide: AAMT and MERGA.

Galligan, L., & Taylor, J.A. (2008). Adults returning to study mathematics. In H. Forgasz, A.Barkatsas, A. Bishop, C.B.S. Keast, W. Seah, & P. Sullivan (Eds.), Research in mathematicseducation in Australasia 2004–2007 (pp. 99–118). Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Sense.

Godden, G. (1993). A guide to tertiary bridging mathematics research to mid-1992, including anannotated bibliography. In Proceedings of the 5th Australian Bridging MathematicsNetwork Conference (Vol. 1, pp. 67–91). Sydney, NSW: University of Sydney.

Godden, G., & Pegg, J. (1993). Identified problems impeding effective evaluation of TertiaryBridging Mathematics Programs. In B. Atweh (Ed.), Contexts in mathematics education.Proceedings of the 17th Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education ResearchGroup of Australasia (pp. 297–302). Brisbane, QLD: MERGA.

Gordon, S. (1998). Understanding students learning statistics: An activity theory approach(Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Sydney).

Hamlett, B. (2007). Mathematics content knowledge of pre-service primary teachers:Developing confidence and competence. In D. Kuchemann (Ed.), Proceedings of theBritish Society for Research into Learning Mathemtatics (pp. 43–48). London: BSRLM.

Hurney, C.A., Brown, J., Griscom, H.P., Kancler, E., Wigtil, C.J., & Sundre, D. (2011). Closingthe loop: Involving faculty in the assessment of scientific and quantitative reasoning skills ofbiology majors. Journal of College Science Teaching, 40(6), 18–23.

Keimig, R.T. (1983). ASHE-ERIC higher education research report no. 4. Raising academicstandards: A guide to learning improvement. Washington DC: Association for the Studyof Higher Education.

Kemp, M. (2005). Developing critical numeracy at the tertiary level (PhD Thesis. MurdochUniversity).

Kent, P., & Noss, R. (2001). Finding a role for technology in service mathematics for engineersand scientists. In D. Holton (Ed.), The teaching and learning of mathematics at universitylevel: An ICMI study (pp. 395–405). Hingham, MA: Kluwer Academic.

Lawrence, J. (2005). Re-conceptualising attrition and retention: Integrating theoretical, researchand student perspectives. Studies in Learning, Evaluation, Innovation and Development,2(3), 16–33.

MacGillivray, H. (2007). Report from the 2007 symposium on learning support in mathematicsand statistics in higher education. Brisbane: Queensland University of Technology.

Maguire, T., & O’Donoghue, J. (2002). A grounded approach to practitioner training in Ireland:Some findings from a national survey of practitioners in adult basic education. In L.Ø.Johansen & T. Wedege (Eds.), Numeracy for empowerment and democracy?Proceedings of the 8th International Conference of Adult Learning Mathematics - AResearch Forum (Vol. 8, pp. 120–132). Roskilde, Denmark: Roskilde University, Centrefor Research in Learning Mathematics & Sevenage, UK: Avanti Books.

National Numeracy Review Panel. (2008). National numeracy review report. Canberra:Department of Education Science and Training.

National Strategic Review of Mathematical Sciences Research in Australia. (2006).Mathematics and statistics: Critical skills for Australia’s future. Parkville, Victoria:Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Melbourne.

Oliver, B. (2011). Assuring graduate capabilities: Evidence levels of achievement for graduateemployability. Retrieved November 2, 2011, from http://boliver.ning.com/

746 L. Galligan

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

02:

15 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Prince, R., & Archer, A. (2007, October). A new literacies approach to academic numeracy prac-tices in higher education. Literacy and Numeracy Studies, 16(1), 63–75.

Sanders, T. (2004, October). No time to waste: the vital role of college and university leaders inimproving science and mathematics education. Paper presented at the InvitationalConference on Teacher Preparation and Institutions of Higher Education: Mathematicsand Science Content Knowledge, Washington, D.C. Retrieved November 2, 2011, fromhttp://www.teacherssupportnetwork.net/corporate/TedSanders.pdf

Skalicky, J., Adam, A., Brown, N., Caney, A., & Lejda, A. (2010). Tertiary numeracy enquiry.Hobart, TAS: Centre for the Advancement of Learning and Teaching, University ofTasmania.

Skills Australia. (2010). Australian workforce futures: A national workforce development strat-egy. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.

Tariq, V.N. (2008). Defining the problem: Mathematical errors and misconceptions exhibited byfirst-year bioscience undergraduates. International Journal of Mathematical Education inScience and Technology, 39(7), 889–904.

Taylor, J.A., & Galligan, L. (2002). Overcoming beliefs, attitudes and past experiences: The useof video for adult tertiary students studying mathematics in isolation. Australian SeniorMathematics Journal, 16(1), 20–33.

Taylor, J.A., & Galligan, L. (2005). Research into research on adults in Bridging Mathematics:The past, the present and the future. In M. Horne & B. Marr (Eds.), Connecting voices:Practitioners, researchers and learners in adult mathematics and numeracy. 12thInternational Conference of Adults Learning Mathematics (ALM) (pp. 11–19).Melbourne, VIC: ALM.

Taylor, J.A., Galligan, L., & Van Vuuren, P. (1998). Perceived mathematical proficienciesrequired for first-year study at the University of Southern Queensland. Toowoomba:University of Southern Queensland.

Trigwell, K., & Shale, S. (2004). Student learning and the scholarship of university teaching.Studies in Higher Education, 29(4), 523–536.

USQ. (2010). The qualities of a USQ graduate. Retrieved 12 May, 2010, from http://policy.usq.edu.au/portal/custom/detail/the-qualities-of-a-usq-graduate/

Valsiner, J. (1997). Culture and the development of children’s actions: A theory of human devel-opment (2nd ed.). Chichester, UK: John Wiley.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Watt, H. (2007). A trickle from the pipeline: Why girls under-participate in maths. Professional

Educator, 6(3), 36–40.Webb, J., &McLean, P. (2002). Academic skills advising: Evaluating for program improvement

and accountability. Melbourne: Victorian Language and Learning Network.Wedege, T., Benn, R., &Maaß, B. (1999). Adults learning mathematics as a community of prac-

tice and research. In M.v. Groenestijn & D. Coben (Eds.),Mathematics as a part of lifelonglearning. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference of Adults Learning Maths – AResearch Forum (ALM) (pp. 54–63). Utrecht, the Netherlands: University of London inassociation with ALM.

Willison, J., & O’Regan, K. (2007). Commonly known, commonly not known, totallyunknown: A framework for students becoming researchers. Higher Education Research& Development, 26(4), 393–410.

Wilson, T., & MacGillivray, H. (2007). Counting on the basics: Mathematical skills among ter-tiary entrants. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science & Technolog, 38(1), 19–41.

Yasukawa, K., & Johnston, B. (1994). A numeracy manifesto for engineers, primary teachers,historians … a civil society: Can we call it theory? Proceedings of the Australian BridgingMathematics Network Conference (pp. 191–199). Sydney University.

Higher Education Research & Development 747

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

02:

15 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014