ࡱ>  bjbjUqUq 677~}p'l    * 8$,* "126L(tttSSS0000000$T2 t40 SOSSS0m tt0mmmS 8t t0mS0mvmO,  0t* 0* x /0 00"1/L5L50m* * USING RIGHTS-BASED FRAMEWORKS FOR RETHINKING TEACHER-DIRECTED PEDAGOGIES OF MATHEMATICS Fiona Walls James Cook University < HYPERLINK "mailto:Fiona.Walls@jcu.edu.au" Fiona.Walls(at)jcu.edu.au> This paper uses postmodern perspectives to demonstrate how, within the growing global discourse of human rights, accepted pedagogies of mathematics conflict with principles embodied in international conventions and declarations concerning childrens rights, particularly their right to participation in all matters affecting their lives. It examines the ways in which discourses of mathematics education produce and sustain teacher-directed approaches to mathematical learning, and considers how such pedagogies compromise participation for young learners. It contemplates reframed educational discourse in which a participant-determined pedagogy of mathematics might more appropriately reflect the discourse of enhanced empowerment for children in the mathematics classroom. Recent trends in mathematics education reflect a growing belief that mathematical achievement can be enhanced by reframing the sociomathematical norms that characterise traditional classroom practice. As learning theories such as social constructivism have become increasingly accepted in mathematics education, there has been a shifting emphasis from teacher as transmitter of mathematical knowledge, to teacher as facilitator of students development of mathematical understandings. Accordingly, context, relevance, meaningfulness, authenticity, richness and openness of mathematical learning tasks have been increasingly considered as vital elements in inclusion and motivation of learners and in catering for diverse needs. In spite of such changes in the discourse of mathematics education, fundamental relationships between teacher (adult) and learner (child) have persisted. Policy makers continue to assert that it is the teacher in a position of control who makes the difference in student achievement (Thrupp et al, 2003). There remains an unchallenged acceptance of traditional pedagogies in which the teacher, within the guidelines of a state-mandated curriculum, selects and manages students learning tasks. This view is reinforced in a recent mathematics curriculum support document for teachers, (NZ Ministry of Education, 1997) which states that As the professional with expertise in both learning theory and curriculum, the teacher plays a pivotal roleby planning programmes where students thinking and learning are of prime importance (p. 21). A critique of teacher-directed pedagogies of mathematics may be timely given recent calls for rights-based democratic access through democratic mathematics education, for example Malloy, (2002) who suggests that The idea of children having democratic access to powerful mathematics ideas is a human right and democratic education is collective in its goals and individual in its opportunities for student participation (p.18). Skovsmose & Valero (2002) argue that mathematics education becomes powerful in a cultural sense when it supports peoples empowerment in relation to their life conditions. (p. 394). Democratic education advocates empowerment through participation. At present, the majority of the worlds children have little agency in determining the path and nature of their mathematical learning within educational institutions (Apple & Beane, 1999; Gates & Vistro-Yu, 2002). The classroom itself may be regarded as a significant element of the life conditions of our children, and creating conditions of empowerment within the mathematics classroom must concern those who seek to democratize mathematics education. Using statements gathered from teachers and students (Walls, 2003), and from teaching resource materials, this paper examines how discourses of mathematics education that produce and sustain teacher-directed task-oriented approaches to mathematics education run counter to the democratic principles of participation found in the discourse of childrens rights. The paper raises issues about childrens autonomy, entitlement to control their learning environment, and spontaneous determination of their own educational journeying, and considers the alternative discourses of rights-based participant-determined mathematical learning. Dominant Pedagogies of Mathematics: Teacher as Director Perhaps more noticeably than those of many other school subject areas, pedagogies of mathematics are characterized by a clearly delineated binary relationship between teacher and learner in which the teacher plays a dominant managerial role in the selection, assignation, and administration of mathematical tasks. Foucault (1977) refers to such modes of institutional organisation as techniques or apparatus of management. Within teacher-directed, task-driven pedagogies of mathematics, mathematical tasks are used for a variety of purposes including the introduction of new concepts, practice of previously learned skills, identification and grouping of children according to performance, or as a method of behaviour management. Mathematical tasks, variously referred to as questions, activities, problems, exercises, lessons, examples, learning experiences, units, programmes of work, projects, or investigations, appear in many forms including oral questions, quizzes, worksheets, textbook work, investigations, homework or test items. Teacher-directed pedagogies of mathematics are characterized by their compulsory nature. As a compulsory and core subject area in the education systems of most countries, mathematics education claims a significant proportion of childrens schooling. Within teacher-directed mathematics programmes, teacher-selected tasks are themselves compulsory, and routinely exclude learners from the processes of task selection, design, and implementation. During an ethnographic study in which ten children were tracked across three years of their middle primary schooling in New Zealand (Walls, 2003) the children were asked what they usually did at maths time. Typical responses from the children in the study spoke of the compulsory and teacher-determined nature of everyday tasks in their mathematical learning. Jared: The teacher says, Go and get your maths books out. And she writes stuff on the board for maths. (Late Year 3) Georgina: We get into our [teacher-selected] groups and do the worksheet. (Mid Year 4) Mitchell: You have to sit down and do some times tables or pluses or take away. (Late Year 5) Over the three years of observation, mathematical learning experiences in the childrens classrooms were found to consist almost exclusively of teacher-directed tasks including tests, small group instruction, and solo seat-bound activities based upon adult-devised worksheets, textbooks or questions on the board. Teacher-directed pedagogies of mathematics appear to resist change. Brown (2001) describes how shifting expectations of what constitutes effective mathematics have produced an opposition between transmission (the old) and discovery (the new) conceptions of teaching mathematics, creating conflict for teachers between two seemingly distinct models. But although the nature and management of mathematical tasks may differ between these teaching approaches, the teacher-directed task-bound culture of mathematics classrooms within which teachers and learners are similarly produced and positioned, remains intact. The following video transcript of teacher/pupil interaction during a mathematics learning session in Jareds Year 5 classroom illustrates how the construction of the teacher as director was maintained within changing mathematics educational discourse. Mr Waters: First of all this morning were going to put up the title. (Writes Problem Solving on the board). Underline it and miss a line. See if youve got your brains into gear. (Writes on the board: (1) 2, 4, 6, 8, (, (, () A nice easy one to start off with. What youre going to do is complete the number pattern. (Writes: (2) 3, 6, 9, (, (, (). Fill in the numbers and continue it on. Maths is patterning, thats all it is. Complete the whole number pattern. (Writes: (3) 5, 25, 45, 65, (, (, (). Theyre going to get harder and harder. (Looking at a childs book) Make sure you have the most important piece and that is the comma between, if you dont, your numbers will represent something else. You must set them out properly. In this lesson, the learning experience was presented as problem solving, but through his use of the task-oriented expressions youre going to, you must, make sure, the teacher positioned himself as the taskmaster whose role it was to allocate work and manage learners, emphasising the compulsory nature of the task, and the expectation that all children were to follow the same procedures. Teacher-directed pedagogies such as this were found in every classroom observed; teachers in the study displayed an unquestioning belief in and acceptance of their responsibility as selector and director of tasks, as evidenced by the following typical comments: Mr Loch: At the moment Im finding its taking time for some kids to settle down, settle into a routinekids just dont complete work and theyre not used to actually getting through something. Finishing it off. Thats something Im very tough on. I like things to be completed. (Jessicas teacher, interview early Year 3) Mrs Joiner: (Writing about Rochelle) She needs only a few reminders to complete set [mathematics] tasks. (Progress report for parents, early Year 3) Mr Solomon: Georgina, I had to separate out from the others, for about four or five weeks I think it was. I gave her a desk over there by herself. (Points to corner of classroom) She was just far too distracted and didnt finish or get on with her [mathematics] work. (Interview, mid Year 3) Ms Torrance: I think he [Dominic] would prefer working in a group I would prefer him to work on his own. Independent [mathematics] tasks, hes not the best; hes very chatty. (Interview, mid Year 3) In the classroom, teachers direction often took the form of reinforcing protocols. Ms Summers: (To Peter) Youve finished! Doesnt it feel good when youve done it? (Classroom observation, late Year 3) Ms Torrance: (To the class) We have some amazing speedsters who have got on their rollerblades and got their two sheets done already. (Dominics teacher, classroom observation, late Year 4) Ms Sierra: (To a group) Youre supposed to do your own work I dont want you talking, I want you to concentrate. (Liams teacher, classroom observation, early Year 4) Teacher/learner interactions in mathematics classrooms have been described by Doyle (1988) as a process in which teachers affect tasks, and thus students learning, by defining and structuring the work that students do, that is, by setting specifications for products and explaining processes that can be used to accomplish work (p.169). The pedagogical tradition of teachers structuring of mathematical learning through a series of carefully selected and closely managed discrete tasks, may be regarded as an entrenched cultural feature of the mathematics classroom, regulated by a prevailing epistemological view of mathematics as a discipline comprised of specialised procedures based upon a body of universal principles which may be arranged in hierarchies of increasing complexity. In this view, mathematical truths can best be conveyed to the learner through a process of initiation in which the novice (child) is assigned increasingly difficult tasks by the expert (teacher) who has, through a similar process, acquired the same knowledge and skills. Task selection and management is thus regarded as the defining role of an effective mathematics teacher. In recent times, greater focus has been placed on teachers selection and management of mathematical tasks the promoting and guiding mathematical discussion, seen as a vital component of the learning process. Greater emphasis on meaningful contexts and of thinking and working mathematically is reflected in official curricula of many countries advocating pedagogical approaches based upon open-ended mathematical tasks, problem solving, and even problem posing. Examples of recent attempts to provide students with mathematical tasks that are relevant and authentic can be found in the Rich Tasks for New Times approach of Queensland, and Realistic Mathematics Education of the Netherlands. But such innovations have continued to support the view that it is teacher direction that is central to the mathematical learning process. Carpenter et al (1997) for example, describe the teachers role in cognitively guided instruction of childrens mathematical learning as follows: Almost every minute, a teacher makes a decision about what to teach, how to teach, who to call on, how fast the lesson should move, how to respond to a child, and so on because of the intimate knowledge of students that teachers have, no one else can make these immediate decisions about what to do in the classroom. (p. 95). Similarly, Ernest (2001), in describing a critical mathematics, says Obviously teachers must decide what activities and projects would be best suited to their pupils, how often these kinds of activities can be done (p. 289) and provides teachers with a list of suitable topics. Although recent pedagogical shifts in mathematics education have strongly encouraged teachers to select or design tasks for interest or relevance, and increasingly expect or even compel children to participate by sharing their thinking as they undertake these tasks, it is seldom considered essential that children are consulted about the context, content or efficacy of such tasks. Irrespective of how open or closed the tasks may be, teacher-directed task-oriented pedagogies subtly or otherwise construct mathematical learning as a form of compulsory labour divided into discrete units of work which must be at least attempted and preferably completed by the learners, and by which learners performances might be judged by the teacher. Efforts to confer greater autonomy on young learners within educational institutions such as the learning-through-play philosophy of early childhood education, the child-centred learning movement of the 1970s, and inquiry-based learning of the 1980s and 1990s appear to have had little significant impact on teacher/learner relationships within mathematics education. Recent international moves toward more expansive and connected mathematics have been offset by demands for greater specificity of learning outcomes. Numeracy enhancement projects in Australia, New Zealand, and the UK for example, support teacher-directed pedagogies through increasingly refined assessment tasks, enabling teachers to better identify childrens mathematical learning stages, diagnose their weaknesses and strengths, and prescribe appropriate learning tasks. Such programmes operate in the belief that through intensive training including the use of effective tools of detection, teachers will be better equipped to make the most significant decisions about what mathematics their pupils will learn, when they will learn it, and how that learning will take place. Such approaches continue to suppress opportunities for learners to select learning contexts or to direct their own learning, and overlook significant learning factors such as childrens friendships, understandings of the world, sensitivities, fascinations, passions, and aversions. Learner-determined mathematics education? Considering alternatives Alternative modes of childrens learning are not difficult to find. Observations of the kinds of informal acquisition of knowledge and skills that occur outside of school settings, such as children learning to dive into the river with village wantok (Efate, Vanuatu), or ride their skateboards in the street with a bunch of mates (Townsville, Australia), offer compelling models of learning that are neither teacher-directed nor task-dependent, rather they are participant or learner-determined. Children appear to flourish within such self-selected and self-directed experiential learning situations, in which learning takes the form of socially valued playing around. Within a self-selected social group, children as learners are supported to learn at their own pace, in their own time, and in a place of their choosing. They can start and stop whenever they like, they are enabled to discover and innovate, and they gain intrinsic satisfaction from their growing accomplishments. Learners challenge each other to take risks, monitor each others progress, share strategies, and provide encouragement. Mistakes are accepted as a natural and even humorous part of learning. Above all, such learning is embodied; it engages the whole child the cognitive, affective, motor-sensory and social self. Such observations invite us to ponder how teacher-directed pedagogies of mathematics might play a significant role in widely recognised disaffection, marginalization and alienation in young learners experiences of school mathematics, and to consider the merits of enhancing childrens participation in their own mathematical learning. Support for a participant-determined pedagogy can be found in Pollard (1997) who describes how teachers might provide for a negotiated curriculum, arguing that rather than reflect the judgments of the teacher alone, it builds on the interests and enthusiasms of the class and noting that, Children rarely fail to rise to the occasion if they are treated seriously. The motivational benefits of such an exercise are considerable (p. 182). The childrens thoughtful responses when asked during the research study how maths time could be better for them, confirm Pollards assertions, while illustrating how teacher-directed pedagogies both defined and constrained mathematical learning for the children. Researcher: If you were the maths teacher what sorts of things would you have at maths time? Jared: Easy workPlaying games. (Late Year 3) Jessica: Id like it if we did it together (Late Year 4) Georgina: Have more time, like we have half an hour on maths and we dont hardly have any time to do it. (Georgina, Mid Year 5) Jessica: Long enough for me to get stuck into it and start enjoying it. And then once Ive started getting a bit bored, I think I want to finish this. (Mid Year 5) Dominic: Just playing a bit more games. (Late Year 5) Liam: I wouldnt really do it [maths work] Id just play the games. (Late Year 5) Peter: Um, probably more maths games andmore drawing things. (Mid Year 5) Between the discourse of enhanced achievement through teacher-directed pedagogies of mathematics and the discourse of learner participation, efforts to increase learners ownership can be discerned. The New Zealand Ministry Education (1997) for example encourages allowing students to have some control over their own learning and assessment by involving them in planning learning and assessment activities (p. 21). Hiebert et al, (1997) advocate learners adjustment or shaping of mathematical the teacher-selected tasks while continuing to support the teachers primary role in task selection. They advise teachers to select tasks with goals in mind, and state that although the selection of tasks does not require wildly creative or clever ideas, it does require careful thought about the mathematics landscape and about the way in which a series of tasks might lead students across a landscape (p. 163). Community participation in negotiated curriculum content has also been suggested within the discourse of ethnomathematics as an effective approach for culturally distinct and traditionally marginalised groups (e.g. Lipka, 1994). Writers such as Apple & Beane (1999), Cotton (2001), Skovsmose & Valero (2002) and Gates & Vistro-Yu (2003) examine intersecting discourses of democratic process and mathematics education, exposing the dilemma that has challenged mathematics educators in recent times: valuing learners right to freedom and independence on the one hand, and increased accountability for learners progress by means of tighter control of the learning process, on the other. At the root of the dilemma lies educators reluctance to entertain the notion that young learners have a legitimate role in determining what they learn and how. Davis (1996) captures this when stating that a mathematical task should impose liberating constraints which are intended to strike a balance between complete freedom (which would seem to negate the need for schools in the first place) and no freedom at all (p. 97). Discussion Childrens limited opportunities for participation within teacher-directed pedagogies of mathematics can be viewed as a human rights issue. The United Nations Charter of Universal Rights of 1947 identifies the rights of each human individual in terms of needs, including the need to belong, to feel safe, to be accepted and respected, and to be fully included in making decisions affecting their lives. These rights have been expressed specifically for children through the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) of 1990, now ratified by 191 countries. The CRC upholds childrens rights to participation. Article 12 confers the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, and Article 13 states the child shall have the right to freedom of expression (UNICEF, 2002, pp. 63-64). In their statement to the UN General Assemblys Special Session on Children in 2002, representatives from the Childrens Forum issued a vision statement of a world in which childrens rights are protected. It states, We see the active participation of children: raised awareness and respect among people of all ages about every childs right to full and meaningful participation, in the spirit of the CRC, and children actively involved in decision-making at all levels and in planning, implementing, monitoring and evaluating all matters affecting the rights of the child (UNICEF, 2002, p.11). Such statements imply that the rights of children to participate as self-determining citizens in all areas that affect their lives must include participation in making decisions about their own education. Teacher-directed, task-driven mathematical learning cultures fail to recognize these principles. The exclusion of children in determining curriculum may be considered not only an abuse of childrens rights to participate, but also as an instrument of cultural hegemony, as can be clearly seen throughout the island nations of the Pacific region where mathematics curricula closely adhere to colonisers imported models. The manner in which teachers select and set tasks for learners, manage learners engagement with the tasks, and use such tasks to determine what learners know and can do, says much about traditional relationships between adults and children. Feelings of disempowerment are captured in this childs telling statement: Dominic: Like, when I just get back from school I have to do, like, about four questions of (maths) homework and that really pisses me off. (Interview, late Year 4) A changing relationship between the teacher and learner of mathematics is suggested by rights-based discourse. As Neyland (2004) argues, a postmodern ethical orientation to mathematics education will shift the focus away from procedural compliance and onto the direct ethical relationship between teachers and their students (p. 69). From a postmodern view, it is within discursive formations that such relationships are produced and maintained. Reframing the teacher/student relationship is therefore both contingent upon and made possible by changing educational discourse. A compelling vision of child-inclusive schools is provided by the UNICEF (2003) report on the state of the worlds children. It describes international efforts to establish child-friendly cultures of schooling, particularly in developing countries. One of the listed characteristics of a child-friendly school is: it involves children in active participatory learning (p. 89). It argues that a human rights approach is needed in efforts to improve conditions for children, in which people are recognized as key actors in their own development, rather than passive recipients of commodities and services, and where participation is both a means and a goal (p. 93). In focusing upon a discourse of participant-determined pedagogy, we might shift our gaze from child as educational product to child as growing and valued member of a local community, and child as global citizen. Within such discourse, a rights-based, participant-determined pedagogy of mathematics might embrace some of the following principles: Children have the right to negotiate, with help from parents and teachers and within national guidelines, a meaningful and relevant mathematics curriculum. Children have the right to engage in flexible mathematical learning situations collaboratively shaped with help from teachers, in an ongoing process. Children have the right to engage in mathematical learning situations whose broad goals (rather than specific outcomes) are mutually recognized by children and teachers as part of a multicultural mathematical landscape. Children have the right to engage in mathematical learning situations in their own time, at their own pace, and in a manner of their choosing. Children have the right to choose with whom to engage in mathematical learning situations, seeking support, information and assistance from a variety of sources, not just teacher or textbook. Children have the right to personal techniques of working mathematically. Children have the right to assess their own mathematical learning when and as they choose, supported by - rather than restricted to - collaboratively constructed assessment criteria. Children have the right to mathematical learning opportunities and assessment methods that operate to enhance the well-being of all children. Conclusion Moser et Al (2001) state that the definition, interpretation and implementation of rights are dynamic processes that are inherently political in their nature (p. 11). UNICEFs advocacy of child-friendly learning environments in which childrens rights as global citizens are taken into account in line with the principles of the CRC, compels us to re-examine current pedagogies of mathematics from a rights-based and therefore essentially political, perspective. The almost universal practice of teacher-directed task management in mathematics education must be reconsidered within the discourse of childrens rights to participation. Although some writers (e.g. Dowling, 2001; Vithal, 2003) caution that the aims of participative mathematics education - emancipation and empowerment of children may be little more than myth since even the most well-intentioned intervention may serve to reinforce rather than redress existing inequalities, within international discourse that both increasingly recognizes the vulnerabilities of children and their need for greater protection, and values the contribution children can make to the development of local and global communities, the right of children to substantial involvement in determining their own learning has significant implications both as a growing ethical expectation and as a legal requirement of education. Osler & Starkey (2001) stress that if schools are to ensure the greater participation of young people in decision making in line with the Convention on the Rights of the Child, schools must not only provide structures for participation, but also equip children with the skills to participate (p. 100). As one of the most politicized of school learning areas, mathematics education must take a leading role in acknowledging the participatory principles of the CRC and considering its implications for classroom practice. References Apple, M. & Beane, J. (1999). Democratic schools: Lessons from the chalk face. Buckingham, UK. Open University Press. Brown, T. (2001). Mathematics education and language: Interpreting hermeneutics and post-structuralism. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Carpenter, T., Fennema, E., Loef Franke, M., Levi, L., & Empson, S. (1999). Childrens mathematics: Cognitively guided instruction. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Cotton, T. (2001). Mathematics teaching in the real world. In P. Gates, (Ed.). Issues in mathematics teaching (pp. 23 37). London: RoutledgeFalmer. Dowling, P. (2001). Mathematics education in late modernity: Beyond myths and fragmentation. Sociocultural research on mathematics education pp. 19-36). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Doyle, W. (1988). Work in mathematics classes: The context of students thinking during instruction. Educational Psychologist, 23(2) 167-180, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Davis, B. (1996). Teaching mathematics: toward a sound alternative. New York: Garland. Ernest, P. (2001). Critical mathematics education. In P. Gates (Ed.), Issues in mathematics teaching (pp. 277 293). London: RoutledgeFalmer. Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. London: Allan Lane. Gates, P. & Vistro-Yu, C. (2003). Is mathematics for all? In A. Bishop, M. Clements, C. Keitel, J. Kilpatrick & F. Leung, (Eds.), Second international handbook of mathematics education. (pp. 31-73). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Heibert, J., Carpenter, T., Fennema, E., Fuson, K., Wearne, D., Murray, H., Olivier, A., & Human, P. (1997). Making sense: Teaching and learning mathematics with understanding. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Lipka, J. (1994). Culturally negotiated schooling: Toward a Yupik mathematics. Journal of American Indian Education, 33(3), 44-48. Malloy, C. (2002). Democratic access to mathematics through democratic education: An introduction. In L. English (Ed.), A handbook of international research in mathematics education (pp. 17-26). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Ministry of Education, (1997). Developing mathematics programmes. Wellington: Learning Media. Moser, C. & Norton A., with Conway, T., Ferguson, C., Vizard, P. (2001). To claim their rights: Livelihood security, human rights and sustainable development. Background Concept Paper, Workshop on Human Rights, Assets and Livelihood Security, and Sustainable Development. London: UK. 19-20 June, 2001. Neyland, J. (2004). Toward a postmodern ethics of mathematics education. In M. Walshaw (Ed.), Mathematics education within the postmodern (pp. 55-73). Greenwich, Ct: Information Age Publishing. Osler, A. & Starkey, H. (2001). Legal perspectives on values, culture and education: Human rights, responsibilities and values in education. In J. Cairns, D. Lawton & R. Gardner, (Eds.), Values, culture and education: World Yearbook of Education 2001 (pp. 85-103). London: Kogan Page Limited. Pollard, A. (1997). Reflective teaching in the primary school: A handbook for the classroom (Third Edition). London: Cassell. Skovsmose, O. & Valero, P. (2002) Democratic access to powerful mathematical ideas. In L. English (Ed.), A handbook of international research in mathematics education (pp. 383 408). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Thrupp, M., Mansell, H., Hawksworth, L.& Harold, B. (2003). Schools can make a difference but do teachers, heads and governors really agree? Oxford Review of Education, 29, 4, 471-484. UNICEF, (2003). The state of the worlds children 2004. New York: The United Nations Childrens Fund. UNICEF, (2002). A world fit for children. UNICEF Pacific, Suva. Vithal, R. (2003). In search of a pedagogy of conflict and dialogue for mathematics education. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Walls, F. (2003). Sociomathematical worlds: The social world of childrens mathematical learning in the middle primary years. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand.  Wantok literally means one talk, referring to those related by a kinship and/or village spoken language      PAGE 2  PAGE 10 X{|,Z   &(24<>GIZ\wyLNO|hr""_"g"y""""""""""[#r#s#u#v#x#y#z#|## jCJ CJmH sH mH sH mH sH 60J!jU jU:CJOJQJ^JPXdz c&NO|}""% $`^```% p`^p`` `^``~# $$$$$$C$^$%% %B%Q%%%''((()*.***k+l+++++H,T,----//43<3A3H3I3W355666M7N7O7Z7y779999999:: :<<V=k=%B&BBCCCEEH&HWJXJMM j0J.U0J'CJnH tH 0J'CJCJaJ5mH sH CJ j6T% %''({)*k+l+++:,,--426O7O;<@+ADFWJ `^``% p`^p`` $`^`` ($^`a$WJXJJJKKDLzLLMMQ UUZI]^^._/_tadne ff~gh & F & F p`^p``MNNNNSSSSUUUUVV6[Z[^^^^_"_._/_!b/bbbcc4dJd{ddddddddDfXfWgdgeg{giiWkakbk{kmmq*rdrrrr-sdsssssttt4uLuuuuuv9vzvvvvBw{wwwxx|yyz2zzz{|mH sH 0J/CJaJCJ6^hhii`jkjqqRrrsttzuuevvwxyyQz{A|f}}~ & F||<}z}}M~~W+,?~  mHnHu jUmH sH  j0J.U6),~$a$-4__.)()()()()() 00hPP&P P. A!n"n#$%8$DyK Fiona.Walls@jcu.edu.auyK <mailto:Fiona.Walls@jcu.edu.au0 i>@> Normal$a$CJ_HaJmH sH tH <A@< Default Paragraph FontBOB MES Author Name :CJaJ^O^ MES Paper Title$$$a$:CJ$_HaJ mH sH tH VO"V MES Author affiliation6:CJ]aJDO2D MES_Author email :CJaJROBR MES Abstract $$hh]^CJaJNOBN MES Normal$q`qa$CJ_HaJmH sH tH BOBB MES Heading1 x5CJ \aJOAB MES Bullet pointv & F>Tq_Tf^`PBP MES Heading 2$xa$56CJ \]aJJAJ MES Heading 3$$x` 6:CJ DBD MES Figure Text$$ha$aJPOAP MES Reference list$e^e`CJROAR MES Transcript quotes0^`0CJROAR MES Quotation"77xx]7^7`CJPP MERGA_Heading1$$$xa$ CJaJtH JJ MERGA_Author2$$$a$6CJaJtH FF MERGA_Author3$$$a$ CJaJtH BB MERGA_Author1 $$$a$aJtH .U@.  Hyperlink >*B*phVV MERGA_Abstract "$$hh]^aJtH JO1J MERGA_Abstract CharCJ_HmH sH tH :OQR: MERGA_SmallText $`VORV MERGA_NormalText%$q`qa$CJ_HmH sH tH NOaN MERGA_NormalText CharCJ_HmH sH tH 8Obq8 MERGA_SmallText Char^R@^ Body Text Indent 2($`^``a$aJmH sH tH FAF MERGA_Reference)$e^e`8Or8 MERGA_Reference CharFOF MES Normal CharCJ_HaJmH sH tH 8O8 MES Quotation CharCJ6@6  Footnote Text-CJaJ8&@8 Footnote ReferenceH*\O\ MES Transcript quotes CharCJ_HaJmH sH tH %>~or~~ Xdzc&NO|}! !##${%&k'l''':(())4.2O3O78<+=DBWFXFFFGGDHzHHIIM QQVIYZZ.[/[t]`na bb~cddee`fkfmmRnnoppzqqerrstuuQvwAxfyyz{{,||~}}}}}}}~~~0000000000000000%000$00(00$00000%00000000000000000000000000000000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000000000000000000000000000@-0 0@0@0@0@0@0@0 0 &&&)#M|CFIK%WJhDGHJLE{~X ")!!8@0(  B S  ?~M^I N ^ d >%>(>->EEMMMMMMmmnoo orrssttttzzzzzz||~}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}~~~WXX$$(:(((E3O3[/[`fkfmm-oooppqqrrzsstu4vQvawwyyzzW{{|,|||0}}}~}}}}}}}}}}}}}~~~~ErnestC:\Documents and Settings\PErnest\My Documents\RESEARCH\POMENEWS\Pome 20\Fiona Walls - Using right-based frameworks for rethinking teacher-directed pedagogies ofmathematics.doc| b9T&)<3YO0ʈ?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMOPQRSTUWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnoprstuvwxz{|}~Root Entry Fp>Data N1TableVL5WordDocument6SummaryInformation(qDocumentSummaryInformation8yCompObjjObjectPoolp>p>  FMicrosoft Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q