We have entered once again the season of panic about maths and science. Maths seems to cause particular distress. For several years, the Leaving Cert results have triggered lots of fearful commentary about how Ireland will be left behind in the information age because our maths results are so bad, writes Breda O'Brien.
In response, the Minister for Education has proposed a bonus points scheme for third-level courses that rely heavily on maths. A new maths syllabus is to be rolled out in second-level schools. There are murmurs about increasing the use of information communications technology in teaching.
Why all the worry? Some would emphasise the crucial role of mathematics in scientific development. Ideally, for it to progress, Ireland should be producing a plentiful supply of well-qualified people in this discipline. Unlike other subjects that are dismissed as airy-fairy, maths is seen as influencing the health of the economy.
Other employers have more prosaic concerns. Allegedly, young people can't add or subtract, much less multiply, and they are driving their elders mad with their lack of skills. There are other arguments, such as those who declare that maths is a symbolic system, and the ability to understand and interpret these symbols is important if you want to function as a citizen.
It's not just about being able to decipher the intricacies of the single transferable vote, but developing the ability to identify patterns and to apply problem-solving skills. In other words, to be rounded human beings, people need to be able to think mathematically.
There are also a tiny number of people who mutter half-apologetically that maths can be fun and challenging, but they tend to get shouted down by the guardians of the economy.
Maths suffers from the double whammy of being seen as indispensable, and at the same time, incredibly complex and difficult. In particular, many girls get a feeling of blind panic when confronted with a page of mathematical symbols. Ironically though, in international studies, girls have been shown to function better in tests and exams than boys.
There is relatively new and fascinating work in neuroscience that shows that babies are born with an intuitive inclination to understand the world through numbers, and build on this inclination throughout childhood. There is an interesting analogy with language. Noam Chomsky was a pioneer in work that showed that the brain is biologically primed to acquire language, but it needs the catalyst of experience to develop this skill. Far from being blank slates, babies come "hard-wired" to learn language. Perhaps surprisingly, there are no equivalent brain structures for literacy. As Steven Pinker put it: "Children are wired for sound, but print is an optional extra that must be painstakingly bolted on."
It seems to be the same for maths. There are brain structures that support numeracy, but what might be called "mathematical literacy", the ability to use mathematics to think through certain problems, is not so straightforward. Learning more abstract concepts involves vast and dispersed areas of the brain.
Even learning relatively simple things by varying methods uses very different parts of the brain. For example, a child who knows the answer to 15 plus 10 because she has learned it off uses different parts of the brain to a child who understands why 15 plus 10 makes 25, and can apply the rule involved to other situations. Children who use a strategy to solve this simple question seem to retain the information longer than those who merely use rote learning.
And that, I suspect, is where it all goes awry early on. At a very young age, children get lost in maths, and begin to substitute "learning off" how to do things for any real understanding.
The home and early education are crucial factors in preventing this early slide into confusion. In 2000, the government instituted a scheme called "Babies love books" that recognises that very early experiences with books pave the way for literacy and a love of reading. A special pack of board and picture books was distributed to parents at a baby's nine-month check up, with guidelines as to how to bring reading alive. I am not aware of similar initiatives with regard to maths, but one would seem to be a very good idea.
Further, if Mary Hanafin is really serious about improving mathematical literacy, she should start with early childhood education for disadvantaged kids, and class sizes of 15-20 for all infants' classes. Yes, Bertie did jump in before the election with 4,000 extra primary teachers, but we still have a long, long way to go. According to John Carr of the INTO, we have the second highest class sizes in Europe and England, the only place that is worse, compensates by having vast numbers of classroom assistants.
Small class sizes should be the norm. This year, more than 100,000 primary pupils were taught in classrooms of 30 pupils or more. In a huge class group, the child who begins to drift is very quickly lost, and more quickly in maths than in almost any other subject. Teachers do not have the time and resources to help every child master every step, and once key steps are missed, the maths lesson becomes a nightmare. Most of the damage is done long before second level.
Technology obviously can play a valuable role, but most schools do not have anywhere near enough computers, much less technical back-up. Being the teacher with responsibility for computers in a school is a recipe for early retirement due to stress. Ongoing funding for technical support would mean more than vague promises.
Nor will any in-depth change come about without intensive teacher professional development. Such development yields the best results when it is school-based, ongoing, and allows teachers to reflect on real situations and "test-drive" new approaches in a supportive atmosphere in collaboration with colleagues. A one- or two-day workshop just does not cut it.
In short, if we want to radically improve mathematical literacy, we have to radically increase investment in education. Not as easy as bonus points for courses, but a lot more likely to yield results.