Subtraction Assignment 18
-
Upload
blandford-st-mary-primary-school -
Category
Documents
-
view
214 -
download
0
description
Transcript of Subtraction Assignment 18
Addressing Difficulties with Subtraction
Aims of Research
When I first took the role of mathematics subject leader I implemented an action plan to
improve the quality of provision for calculation. Calculation refers to approaches used to
find the answers to problems in each of the four operations of addition, subtraction,
multiplication and division. As part of the action plan staff identified key learning objectives
and written methods associated with calculation from The Primary Framework (2006) and
‘Guidance Paper: Calculation’ (DCSF 2006). We matched the objectives and written methods
to different year groups and I produced ‘calculation pyramids’ that showed the progression
for each operation from Foundation to Year 6 (see Appendix 1 for Subtraction Pyramid). The
exercise helped staff to recognise the development in calculation and the resource was used in
most classes.
However, SATs analysis (see Appendix 2 for analysis of SATs results) indicated that a
significant proportion of children continued to experience difficulties with calculation,
suggesting that calculation was an area that needed to be improved. Alongside this a Year 6
test showed significant weaknesses within subtraction (see Appendix 3 for Year 6 test
analysis). Amongst the children who found it most difficult were those who generally had
lower levels of attainment, including those with special educational needs (SEN). This
reinforced the aim identified in the School’s Development Plan (SDP) which was to improve
the attainment of ‘school action’ SEN children (children who receive extra provision as stated
in a Provision Map). As part of the SDP staff needed to develop strategies to support these
children. As a result this assignment aims to focus on addressing difficulties with
subtraction; especially those experienced by children with lower levels of attainment.
Review of Literature
There has been much debate over the ‘correct’ (Brown, 2010) way to teach mathematics and
about what children need to learn or understand. In the Primary Framework (2006: p.66) it
states that mathematics ‘is a combination of concepts, facts, properties, rules, patterns and
processes.’ It also states that there should be ‘lessons where the emphasis is on technique and
[lessons where] children are steered to discover the rules, patterns or properties of numbers or
1
shapes.’ Such an approach covers two teaching positions: procedural, the ‘accurate use of
calculating procedures’; and conceptual, the ‘possession of number sense which underlies the
ability to apply [calculation] procedures sensibly.’(Brown in Thompson, 2010: p.3). The
Primary Framework’s (2006) ‘emphasis on technique’ can be interpreted as a procedural
position and within the strategy there are calculating objectives that call for the use of
‘efficient written methods’ (The Primary Framework, 2006: p.80). Written methods vary
from informal methods such as an empty number line that can support children’s
understanding to formal or standard written algorithms. Many (Anghileri, 2006; Brown,
2010; Thompson, 2010) argue that the teaching of formal written algorithms is limiting and
that a conceptual position is required, developing children’s relational understanding where
learners’ knowledge ‘extends from how to do a calculation to why the procedure works’
(Skemp 1976, in Anghileri, 2006 p.8). The Primary Framework also holds conceptual
position though as learners are required to ‘understand the underlying ideas’ of calculation
and, by year 6, they should be have a variety of mental, written and calculator methods and
be able to ‘decide which method is appropriate’ (The Primary Framework, 2006, p.67). This
would appear to suggest that a combination of procedural and conceptual understanding is
needed in order to achieve success.
In the next section I will consider how young children begin to develop an understanding of
subtraction. The Ofsted Report ‘Good practice in primary mathematics: evidence from 20
successful schools’ (2011) identifies that to achieve a successful foundation in the four
operations there needs to be ‘a clear emphasis on practical, hands-on activities in the Early
Years Foundation Stage and Key Stage 1, with a high profile given to developing
mathematical language and mental mathematics’. Anghileri (2006) has shown that concrete
and practical experiences are at the heart of children’s early development in subtraction and
other operations. Children manipulate collections of objects and are taught how to refine the
language that they use, such as take away, subtract and difference. Counting experience is
also vital as it ‘help[s] children to associate the concrete models with some abstract number
patterns’ (Anghileri, 2006: p.50). A similar stance to early number work is taken in the
‘Development Matters in the Early Years Foundation Stage’ (EYFS) non-statutory guidance
material, and like the Primary Framework, the EYFS guidance is used in the school where I
work.
2
Anghileri (2006) also argues that children need plenty of experience before moving onto the
use of symbols such as ‘–‘ as then they may see its use as a particular ‘ritual’ and can
misinterpret its meaning. For example, ‘-‘ can be interpreted as ‘taking away’, subtracting a
specified number (subtrahend) from an initial quantity (minuend) or ‘finding the difference’,
comparing how much greater or smaller two quantities are from one another.
Progression from these early practical experiences can be described in terms of subtraction
structures. Carpenter and Moser (1983, cited in Thompson, 2010) (see Appendix 4, Levels
for Mental Subtraction) identified levels of progression for mental subtraction beginning with
‘count out’ where the child counts out a number of objects, removes the amount to be
subtracted and counts the objects remaining. Next children ‘count back from’, and this
usually requires children to maintain two counts at the same time. For example, to calculate
9 – 3 start at nine and count back three ‘steps’: 9 – 8, 7, 6. Here one of the counts is
backwards (8, 7, 6) while the other is a mental count forwards (1, 2, 3) to keep track. With
the same calculation 9 – 3, a ‘count up’ strategy could be used where children count forwards
from three to nine: ‘four, five, six, seven, eight, nine’. Whilst doing so they keep a finger tally
of how much they have counted up; in this case six.
During children’s primary education they continue to develop mental and written strategies.
Reports such as the Cockcroft Report (1982, in Thompson, 2010) have argued and identified
reasons for the teaching of mental strategies. For example, it supports progression through to
written methods and develops children’s ‘number sense’ where they have an improved
knowledge of and facility with numbers and operations (MacIellan, 2001 in Thompson,
2010). However, the levels of progression for mental subtraction are not clear (Thompson,
2010), children’s understanding can be underestimated and ‘children themselves may not
realise the methods they are using’ (Anghileri, 2006: p.57). Thompson identified other
strategies used in mental methods:
Split method - partitioning numbers to carry out the subtraction, usually into tens and ones
Jump method – starting at one number and subtracting chunks of the second number
Split/jump method – a combination of the above
Compensation – subtracting more than is necessary and then adjusting, useful when
subtracting near multiples of ten or hundred
(Thompson, 2010 p.167)
3
Beishuizen (2010) has identified how split or decomposition strategies can lead to
difficulties. For example, with the calculation 56 – 28, the calculation is split into 50 – 20
and 6 – 8 and the calculations are carried out separately. Subtracting the ones/units causes a
conflict. Many children try to solve this by subtracting the small number from the larger. So
6 – 8 is often misinterpreted as 6 from 8, giving 2. This can be an over generalisation of the
commutative law where children believe they can swap the numbers around and still get the
same answer (Lawton, 2005). Ryan and William’s (2007) suggest another reason for the
mistake is that children’s first experience of subtraction is to take the smaller from the larger
and they may have been taught this explicitly.
A jump or sequential strategy provides a ‘less vulnerable and more efficient computation
procedure’ (Beishuizen, 2010: p.176). The empty number line (ENL) is often used to support
these mental calculation strategies. The learner starts with the first number and shows jumps
on the number line as chunks are subtracted, for example, 56 – 28 becomes 56 – 10 – 10 – 8
(see Figure 1a below). Klein et al. (1998 cited in Beishuizen, 2010) identified how the ENL
supports informal strategies, leads to a higher level of mental activation, is a natural and
transparent model for operations and is flexible. For example, the ENL allows the learner to
split the ones/units in complements to (new) decadal tens and to use compensation methods
(see Figures 1b and 1c respectively).
Figure 1a
-8 -10 -10
28 36 46 56
Figure 1b
-2 -6 -20
28 30 36 56
4
Figure 1c
-30+2
26 28 56
The ENL features in the ‘Guidance Paper: Calculation’ (DCSF 2006) that was used by the
school where I work. In the guidance paper the ENL is used in the first in three stages of
written approaches to calculation: the ENL; partitioning; and expanded layout leading to
column (or standard) methods. These were to be used for ‘building up to using an efficient
method for subtraction of two-digit and three-digit whole numbers by the end of Year 4’
(Guidance Paper: Calculation DCSF 2006: p.8). However, Thompson and Beishuizen
explain how there has been a misunderstanding in the purpose of the ENL. It was ‘never
envisaged as a link between mental and written strategies, but rather as a tool to support
mental calculation’ (Thompson, 2010: p.189).
Thompson explores other areas of difficulty outlined in the Guidance Paper (DCSF 2006).
One such area is the empty number line. The claim that it is used for ‘counting back’ is not
always true. Counting back is ‘reciting backwards as many number names as you are
subtracting (the subtrahend), and then giving the last number that you said as your answer to
the subtraction’ (Thompson, 2010: p.194). Thompson argues that no counting back happens
in the calculation in Figure 2. However, a similar example was used by Beishuizen (2010)
and was considered good practice.
Figure 2
Guidance Paper – Calculation: The Empty Number Line
5
74 – 27 = 47 worked by counting back:
Another potentially problematic area is partitioning. Of the two examples in Figure 3 the first
is similar to the ENL but in a horizontal format, and the second example is used to partition
both minuend and the subtrahend. However, Thompson argues that there is no logical
progression from the ENL to partitioning. The ENL cannot be used to partition both numbers,
as they are in the second example, when the tens and ones/units numbers are treated
separately.
Figure 3
Guidance Paper – Calculation: Partitioning
74 – 27 = 74 – 20 – 7 = 54 – 7 = 4774 – 27 = 70 + 4 – 20 – 7 = 60 + 14 – 20 – 7 = 40 + 7
Other problems are suggested in the progression from expanded layout to compact methods.
Here a decomposition or column written method is used (see Figure 4) and the guidance
suggests that children will exchange between the split minuend numbers when necessary.
Initially children are to use the expanded layout where numbers are split into hundreds, tens
and ones. However, Thompson (2010) argues that the use of the addition symbol when
children are expecting to subtract is confusing and children are expected to begin with the
lowest value digit which goes against children’s previous experience. Thompson states that
the method is not a ‘natural’ form of progression for children, especially with the compact
method because this step ‘involves a major shift in the way the digits in the numbers are
interpreted: a shift from treating them as quantities to treating them as digits in columns’
(Thompson, 2010: p.218).
Figure 4
Guidance Paper – Calculation: Expanded layout, leading to compact written method
Example 563 – 271
6
Nevertheless, it is assumed that children will need to use some form of standard written
procedure when dealing with larger numbers (Haylock, 2006). Haylock identifies how
decomposition as shown above is preferable to other standard written methods such as ‘equal
additions’ because ‘it is much easier to understand, in the manipulation of concrete materials,
the manipulations of the symbols and the corresponding language’ (Haylock, 2006: p.59).
However, others such as Hart (1989 cited in Thompson, 2010) have found that children found
it difficult to make connections between the manipulation of practical apparatus and their
written methods.
Thompson identifies advantages to the counting up or complementary addition method (see
Figure 5). Here children record on the ENL or in columns how they jump from the
subtrahend to the minuend. Because children can reduce the number of steps they take as
their mental strategies improve Thompson (2010) argues that it has built-in progression.
Furthermore, it leads to a more formal written notation.
Figure 5
Guidance Paper – Calculation: The Counting-up method
Example 74 – 27
Now that the problematic nature of progression has been identified I will turn to specific
difficulties that might be encountered by less able pupils.
It is a general consensus that ‘children should be encouraged to use any method that they are
confident fits the requirement’ (Anghileri, 2006: p.115). Unfortunately, research has shown
how less able children find it difficult to move away from concrete counting methods
7
(Lawton, 2005). They can struggle to develop more flexible abstract approaches and fail to
understand written calculations because of poor place value knowledge.
Another difficulty faced by children is recognising the requirement and interpreting the
objective of ‘real life’ questions. Haylock has shown how different structures of subtraction:
partitioning, reduction, comparison and inverse-of-addition can meet ‘a daunting range of
situations’ (Haylock 2006, p.33). For example, if a child was asked how much taller a girl of
167cm is than a boy of 159cm, this requires the subtraction 167 – 159, and a comparison
structure could be used.
Nevertheless evidence has shown that mathematical understanding is ‘developed out of
problem-solving rather than learned separately and then applied’ (Hughes, 1986; Beishuizen,
1995: in Anghileri 2006: p.52). Furthermore, real activities and experience help to motivate
children and give a familiar situation making mathematics more accessible.
Ethics
The next sections consider the outcomes of the research events in different Year groups.
Permission to use children’s work has been granted from parents/guardians and to preserve
children’s anonymity any names have been removed or substituted by letters.
Current Position
Before I collected data on subtraction, myself and the teaching staff discussed the broader
question of how to improve children’s attainment in mathematics; especially the lower
attaining children. We analysed the results of Year 6 National Curriculum tests but they were
inconclusive as evidence suggested both division and subtraction as areas of weakness. For
this reason it was agreed that any intervention should begin by establishing the baseline more
clearly, so the first tests, for Year 3 and 4, contained questions on all four operations. The
questions were designed so that they were of a suitable level and would expose different
types of mistakes readily.
It was soon evident that we should focus on subtraction as tests indicated a more significant
weakness in this area (see Appendix 5a for Y3 Y4 Tests). For example, Figure 6 shows a
8
typical response by children. In Year 3, where only seven out of twenty one children
correctly answered the question.
Figure 6
I then administered a test for Year 5 children, this time looking only at subtraction (see
Appendix 5b for Y5 Test). I also undertook a range of research activities with groups of
lower attaining children from Years 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. In Years 1 and 2 groups of children
were given tasks, enabling myself to make observations and engage in discussion with the
children to assess their understanding (see Appendix 6 for Year 1 and Year 2 tasks and
assessment). Informal discussions were carried out with children in Years 3, 4 and 5
reflecting upon how to answer different test questions (see Appendix 7a, 7b and 7c for Year
3, Year 4 and Year 5 discussions). Such discussions were enlightening and support Ryan and
Williams (2010) argument for quality discussion as they helped to unpick the errors and
misconceptions children had.
9
Lower attaining Year 1 children performed well at counting down in ones from numbers of
twenty or below. However, they did find this considerably more challenging than counting
up in ones. When working independently most children were able to subtract numbers up to
twenty, achieving the Assessing Pupil Progress (APP) Level 1 statement to ‘understand
subtraction as ‘taking away’ objects from a set and finding how many are left’ (Crown
Copyright 2009). To do this most used a ‘count out’ strategy (Carpenter and Moser, 1983
cited in Anghileri, 2006). Some average and higher attaining children had progressed onto the
‘count back from’ method, using their fingers. Children found it difficult to explain their
methods. For example, child A, who counted back, stated, “I just did it with my fingers.”
Only the higher attaining children could count back in numbers above twenty and cross the
tens boundary. Furthermore, a significant proportion of Year 1 children were still developing
their understanding of symbolizing relations (Anghileri, 2006) and were unsure of how to use
the ‘ – ‘ symbol. Figure 7 shows how child B initially wrote ‘ + ‘ symbol and they reverted
to addition when the question was subtraction.
Figure 7
In the first assessment activity most Year 2 children used a ‘count out’ strategy (see
Appendix 6) and chose to use counting resources such as unifix cubes to support them in
answering questions. When counting out, typically average attaining children were surprised
by the appearance of apparently small numbers such as 37. This indicated a lack of
opportunity for creating a visual image for two digit numbers greater than thirty. The class
teacher noted how some average ability children had previously used a ‘count back from’
strategy but they did not do so when using counting resources such as unifix cubes. This
reflects Carpenter and Moser’s (1982, cited in Maclellan, 1997) argument that some counting
aids encourage the count out strategy. This was confirmed in a subsequent activity (see
10
Appendix 6) when the children used a different counting aid, fingers, and then used the
‘count back from’ strategy.
Lower attaining Year 2 children were restricted by their lack of place value knowledge as
they were unsure of numbers greater than twenty. When counting back both the average and
lower ability children found it difficult to cross the tens boundary with numbers greater than
twenty. For example, when counting back from 35 they counted 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 39, 38
and so on. Whilst most average ability children quickly identified that the counting was
incorrect the less able children did not and needed extra support.
Throughout Key Stage 2 (KS2) tests and discussions (Appendices 3, 5a, 5b, 7a, 7b, 7c)
showed that lower attaining children experienced similar difficulties with mental strategies.
A number of SEN children had not progressed beyond using the ‘count out’ strategy. For
example, Figure 8 shows how a Year 6 child drew objects to support their counting. This
indicates that the child has not had sufficient experience at counting or using concrete
materials such as a bead string to support their visualisation of abstract number patterns
(Anghileri, 2006).
Figure 8
Nevertheless, most lower attaining KS2 children had progressed to using a ‘count back from’
strategy. They tended to apply a ‘jump’ method when subtracting a single digit number and a
‘split’ method (Thompson, 2010) when subtracting a two digit number. Poor place value
knowledge hampered some children’s counting back using the jump method because of
11
difficulties crossing the tens or hundreds boundary (see Appendix 7a, Year 3 discussions,
question 1).
When subtracting two digit numbers using the ‘split’ method (Thompson, 2010) the lower
attaining children made a variety of mistakes. By far the most common error of children of
all abilities was to swap the ones around if the subtrahend was greater than the minuend or
the ‘taking the smaller from the larger bug’, see Figure 9.
Figure 9
This mistake was most prevalent in Year 3; for the calculation 82 – 29 nineteen out of twenty
five children used a split method incorrectly and only those children who used the less
vulnerable sequential or jump strategy answer correctly (Beishuizen, 2010). Children using
the split strategy tried to follow the procedure but did not understand the principles of
decomposition and over-generalised the commutative law which does not apply to
subtraction (Lawton, 2005). Sometimes use of the split strategy led to quite complicated
procedures that began to resemble what the DCSF (2006) describe as partitioning, but did not
provide a correct solution, see Figure 10.
Figure 10
12
Some ‘split method’ errors were due to carelessness, such as adding the numbers instead of
subtracting them, see Figure 11a. Other children continued to subtract numbers when the
answers from subtracting the tens and the ones needed to be recombined, see Figure 11b.
Figure 11a
Figure 11b
13
In upper KS2 many children, including lower attaining pupils, used a compact written
method or decomposition for more complex subtraction questions. Most lower and average
attaining children displayed poor procedural understanding. They did not understand how to
exchange and made the mistake of swapping numbers so that they were taking the smaller
from the larger, see Figure 12. In Year 5 only five children answered the question ‘782 – 367’
correctly.
Figure 12
Surprisingly, some older children were unfamiliar with the column layout. For example, at
first a Year 5 pupil could not answer a question presented in the vertical format, see Figure
14
13, but after a short discussion with myself he exclaimed “Oh, so it’s eighty nine take away
fifty six!” and proceeded to answer the question correctly.
Figure 13
89 -56
With larger numbers many upper KS2 children also ‘lost sense of what they were doing and
the reasonableness of their result’ (Anghileri, 2006: p.114). For example, when discussing the
question 305 – 297, Child A, a Year 5 pupil, was surprised by the correct answer and
remarked, “so the answer’s just eight!” Using decomposition had resulted in that child seeing
the digits as individual quantities rather than whole numbers. Despite such difficulties the
decomposition method was popular because children perceived it as being the most efficient
method. For example, a Year 4 child who answered the question 309 – 198 incorrectly using
the compact decomposition method stated that it was, “the best method because I don’t have
to write as much.”
In the test a small number of lower attaining Year 4 children used a counting up or
complementary addition method. This method had been taught two weeks before the test but
when they were given similar questions a fortnight later they had reverted to using a ‘count
back from’ method with partitioning. This confirms Fischbein’s argument that because the
‘difference by building up’ interpretation is more demanding we tend, consequently to view
subtraction as ‘making fewer’ (1993 cited in Cockburn and Littler, 2008).
Lower attaining children’s ability to solve ‘real life’ problems or contextualised mathematics
varied considerably. Sometimes the context helped them to understand the process involved
but when it was more complex or unfamiliar they struggled. Ryan and Williams (2007)
explain how such questions are like a game with rules but many children misunderstand them
because they do not have a ‘feel’ for such games. Thus the ‘pedagogy needs to make the rules
of the game explicit’ (Ryan and Williams, 2007: p.19). Lower attaining Year 5 children
found questions which suggested a comparison structure especially difficult because they
could not ascertain what they were required to do. Interestingly, some children did not
necessarily interpret the comparison structure as a subtraction question. For example, Figure
11 shows how a Year 5 pupil has used an arrow instead of a + or – symbol for recording the
15
calculation. This supports Thompson’s research (2010) that children in England normally
interpret subtraction as ‘taking away’.
Figure 14
As well as identifying pupils’ current position I carried out a planning scrutiny, focussing
upon subtraction (see Appendix 8 for example). Most teachers used the planning tool
provided in the ‘Abacus’ scheme, modifying it to meet the needs of the class. Teachers
usually planned for children to use the ‘Abacus’ work or text books. These modelled
different jottings to support children’s calculation but did not feature the ENL, helping to
explain why there was very little evidence of its use. In KS2 there was a lack of visual
representation of calculations, and an emphasis on using complementary addition for mental
calculations and decomposition method for written calculations.
The evidence provided a baseline for the ‘bookend’ evidence. It showed that children did
develop more sophisticated mental and written strategies as they progressed through the
school but many children, especially lower attaining children, had a poor procedural and
conceptual understanding of subtraction.
Action Taken
I considered the findings from the literature review and the evidence gathered at my school to
identify the change of teaching practice that was needed to achieve the intended outcome of
addressing difficulties with subtraction; especially for lower attaining children. The teaching
practice should: give children more regular practice with counting; provide concrete
examples to support visualisation; provide children with a clearer path of progression;
develop a more secure understanding of mental strategies and written methods; provide
16
children with a better understanding of the properties of subtraction and develop a clearer
understanding of the structure of different subtraction word problems.
In order to develop teaching practice I coached staff using the GROW model (Brockbank and
McGill, 2006). With staff I shared the goal (G) of addressing difficulties with subtraction; the
reality (R) that was exposed by tests and other forms of assessment; considered options (O)
for individual teachers and the class they taught and identified how teachers were willing (W)
to carry out the actions. I provided ‘expert coaching’ where I had the expertise in the skill
being developed (Ofsted, 2010). Initially staff meetings were used to develop teachers’
subject knowledge and pedagogy. Extra support was given where it was most needed: Years
2, 3 and 4. For teachers of those classes I led demonstration lessons, supported colleagues
with their planning and helped to identify the ‘next steps’ for children. The degree and style
of support varied from teacher to teacher depending on the colleagues’ and the class’
requirements.
Analysis and impact of action taken
At the first staff meeting I presented an activity where staff analysed subtraction calculations,
methods and objectives. Staff sorted them into appropriate year groups and identified
difficulties that children experienced with them (see Appendix 9 for example). I used the
opportunity to engage in informal discussions with staff, analysing their perceptions of the
subject area and assessing their subject knowledge. Some members of staff felt insecure with
certain subtraction procedures and this was an area I would address in subsequent meetings.
Together we identified that a number of different methods were being taught for subtraction
and that some methods, most noticeably the ENL, were hardly used. Teachers evaluated the
Abacus scheme textbooks (2007) and found that the expanded written method was introduced
in Year 3 and, like the Guidance Paper, used confusing addition symbols when children are
expecting to subtract, see Figure 15a (Thompson, 2010). We agreed to remove the addition
symbol and leave a gap between the partitioned numbers instead. Unclear jottings were used
to support mental methods instead of the ENL, see Figure 15b. We agreed to use the ENL to
support mental methods and revisit subtraction as counting back/ taking away as KS2
children were not having sufficient experience at working with subtraction as ‘making fewer’
17
(Fischbein, 1993 cited in Cockburn and Littler, 2008). At the next meeting we agreed to
bring evidence of children using the ENL.
Figure 15a
Figure 15b
When teachers shared evidence of children using the ENL we identified how most of the KS2
children were able to use a ‘count back from’ strategy successfully. The method allowed for
differentiation as the counting back ranged from younger lower attaining children using a
jump method, counting back in ones to older children partitioning the subtrahend into
thousands, hundreds, tens and ones, see Figure 16. We also noticed how some children had
split the ones so that they could jump to a multiple of ten.
Figure 16
18
After referring to Carpenter and Moser’s ‘Levels for Mental Subtraction’ (1984 cited in
Thompson, 2010) we recognised that KS2 classes should also develop the ‘count up’ method
for subtraction using the ENL. We progressed onto an interesting discussion where we
identified how this method related to comparison and complementary addition structure
questions (see Appendix 10 for Staff meeting notes).
To promote teaching practice that would develop conceptual understanding (Cockburn and
Littler, 2008) I shared Haylock and Cockburn’s (1989) connective model of learning
mathematics, see Figure 17. It suggests that different mathematical elements need to be
experienced and connected to create full understanding. We agreed that our teaching should
include the different elements as it provided a useful model for mathematics teaching (see
Appendix 10, staff meeting notes). We also agreed to make contextualised questions more
accessible to lower attaining children by providing examples that were close to the child’s
experience and interests (Cockburn and Littler, 2008).
Figure 17
19
After the two staff meetings, I met informally with the Year 2, 3 and 4 teachers to discuss
further options available in the development of their teaching practice. One teacher had
recently changed year group and another wanted to be shown how to use new methods and
resources so I led demonstration lessons. This helped to develop my own and the teachers’
awareness of the needs of the class. However, to make a greater impact upon teaching
practice we moved onto using a ‘self reflection-joint experimentation-feedback’ approach,
see Figure 18, based on a model by Showers, Joyce and Bennet (1988). We continued to look
at how the children progressed and identify next steps. Once this approach was embedded I
found that the teachers or ‘coachees’ acquired the desired skills, took ownership of the
lessons and were putting assimilation into practice, modifying their own practices
accordingly (Rhodes, Stokes, Hampton, 2004). They were enthusiastic about the lessons and
enjoyed discussing the outcomes which were often enlightening (see Appendix 11 for Lesson
Plans and Assessment).
Figure 18
20
Teachers’ feedback and assessment (see Appendix 13) showed that children’s attainment was
improving. For example, activities helped lower attaining Year 2 children to understand the
‘logical structure of numbers’ (Anghileri, 2006: p11) with most independently counting back
from any two digit number, crossing the tens boundary. Year 3 children had a more secure
understanding of mental strategies and most lower attaining children used an ENL
successfully. Similarly, in Year 4 children developed a more secure understanding of mental
methods with all children being able to use the ENL to subtract a two digit number from
another two digit number. In Year 5 lower attaining children had progressed onto subtracting
three and four digit numbers. Use of the ENL helped children to become more efficient and
effective, and teachers were able to identify and work with children’s misunderstandings.
Furthermore, children were using it for other operations. For example, Figure 19 shows how
an ENL has been applied by a lower attaining Year 4 pupil for division.
Figure 19
21
Such work helped children to compare, relate and understand the effect of different
operations. Other activities made explicit links between operations and Figure 20 shows how
children have demonstrated an understanding of the inverse relationship between addition
and subtraction by exploring a concrete example. This understanding helps children to
develop more flexible approaches (Anghileri, 2006) and have an awareness of different
methods (Askew in Thompson, 2010).
Figure 20
In Years 4 and 5 the decomposition method was taught in the expanded or compact form. To
address the ‘taking the smaller from the larger number bug’ teaching strategies made explicit
reference to the ‘bug’ as ‘awareness of the nature and impact of intuitions is a first step
towards resisting them’ (Fischbein 1987 cited Cockburn and Littler, 2008: p.67). Indeed
evidence showed that most children used the method more successfully and knew how and
22
when to exchange. However, some lower attaining children still found decomposition
difficult especially if there was a zero in the middle of the minuend and they were required to
exchange, see Figure 21.
Figure 21
Haylock (2010) describes this as a ‘slight problem’ that is ‘easily understood if related
strongly to concrete materials and the appropriate language of exchange’. All children used
the recommended concrete base ten materials and interactive websites (see Figure 22) to
develop their understanding. However, they found it difficult to make connections between
the practical apparatus and their written methods which echoes research by Hart (1989; cited
in Thompson, 2010).
Figure 22 – Interactive programme using Dienes apparatus
I took such findings into consideration when producing a revised subtraction calculation
pyramid (see Appendix 12). In order to provide a clearer path of progression the use of the
23
ENL was extended into Year 3 and decomposition delayed until Year 4. Previously children
had been introduced to the decomposition algorithm earlier without necessarily exchanging
and this led to overgeneralisations (Ryan &William, 2007). It is also intended that, like
successful schools identified by Ofsted (2011), the new pyramid with omitted and reduced
methods will be less confusing for lower attaining pupils and allow higher attaining pupils to
move more swiftly onto more efficient methods used in higher Year groups.
An area that continued to be a weakness was lower attaining children’s understanding of
comparison or complementary addition structured questions. This supports Anghileri’s (2006:
p.61) argument that ‘some expressions will be more difficult to verbalize than others’. More
work needs to be done in providing concrete examples and pictures/images for the children to
use. Figure 23 shows how one Teaching Assistant (TA) supported a lower attaining Year 5
pupil by drawing a picture of the problem. Support such as this needs to be used more
readily by teachers and TAs.
Figure 23
24
Conclusion
From research carried out it was clear that lower attaining children were experiencing
difficulties with subtraction. There were weaknesses in both their procedural and conceptual
understanding, and this led to a range of difficulties with mental and written methods.
As a result of action taken most problems were resolved. For example, younger lower
attaining children improved their counting skills and afterwards many were able to count
down from a two digit number and cross the tens boundary. When subtracting smaller
numbers most children had progressed onto using a ‘count down from’ strategy.
Throughout the school the greatest success was the use of the empty number line (ENL) to
support mental calculation. Teachers found it easier to identify children’s misunderstandings
and children developed more secure mental methods. Children also displayed better ‘number
sense’ or feel for number as they built upon skills they had already acquired, linking new
information to their existing knowledge (Anghileri, 2006). The ENL also helped teachers to
progress children onto using more challenging numbers; to use different subtraction strategies
successfully such as ‘count back’ and complementary addition; and to develop children’s
conceptual understanding of subtraction and other operations.
Older lower attaining children had improved their ability at using a standard written method
but some children continued to find decomposition difficult; swapping numbers around to
‘take the smaller from the larger’, and not properly understanding when or how to exchange.
I believe the teaching of procedural skills has improved but it needs to continue to build on
pupils’ knowledge of place value, using practical equipment and concrete activities.
The study also provided a means for me to develop my own and other teachers’ subject
knowledge and together we improved the mathematics curriculum. All teachers have
participated enthusiastically, gained confidence at teaching subtraction and improved their
ability at teaching mental and written methods. Already teaching staff are looking forward to
building upon the progress made by lower attaining children so they continue to develop their
conceptual and procedural understanding of mathematics.
25
Reference List
Anghileri, J. (2006) Teaching Number Sense London: Continuum International Publishing
Group
Askew, M. (2010) ‘It ain’t (just) what you do: Effective Teachers of Numeracy’ in
Thompson, I. (ed) Issues in Teaching Numeracy in Primary Schools Maidenhead: Open
University Press
Askew, M., Brown, M., Rhodes, V., Johnson, D. & Wiliam, D. (1997) Effective Teachers of
Numeracy London: King’s College London
Beishuizen, M. (2010) ‘The Empty Number Line’ in Thompson, I. (ed) Issues in Teaching
Numeracy Primary Schools Maidenhead: Open University Press
Brockbank, A. & McGill, I. (2006) Facilitating Reflective Learning Through Mentoring and
Coaching London: Kogan Page
Brown, M. (2010) ‘Swings and roundabouts’ in Thompson, I. (ed) Issues in Teaching
Numeracy in Primary Schools Maidenhead: Open University Press
Cockburn, A. & Littler, G (2008) Mathematical Misconceptions London: SAGE Publications
DCSF (Department for Children, Schools and Families), Crown Copyright (2006) Primary
Framework for literacy and mathematic, Primary National Strategy
DCSF (Department for Children, Schools and Families) (2006) Primary Framework for
Literacy and Mathematics – Guidance Paper – Calculation http://national-
strategies.standards.dcsf.gov.uk/ (accessed March 2010)
Early Education: The British Association for Early Childhood Education. Crown Copyright
(2012) Development Matters in the Early Years Foundation Stage: Non-statutory Guidance
26
Haylock, D. (2006) Mathematics Explained for Primary Teachers (3rd Edition) London, Sage
Publications Ltd
Lawton, F. (2005) ‘Number’ in Hansen, A, (ed) Children’s Errors in Mathematics Exeter:
Learning Matters
Maclellan, E. (1997) ‘The importance of counting’ in Thompson, I. (ed) Teaching and
Learning Early Number Buckingham: Open University Press
Mertens, R. & Kirkby, D. (2007) Abacus Evolve Framework Edition, Year 3, Textbook 3
Oxford: Ginn, Harcourt Ltd.
Ofsted (The Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills), (2011) Good
practice in primary mathematics: evidence from 20 successful schools Manchester: Crown
Copyright
Ofsted (The Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills), (2010) Good
professional development in schools Manchester: Crown Copyright
Rhodes, C., Stokes, M. & Hampton, G. (2004) A practical guide to mentoring, coaching and
peer-networking: teacher professional development in schools and colleges London
Routledge Falmer
Ryan, J & Williams, J. (2007) Children’s Mathematics 4 – 15 Maidenhead: Open University
Press
Ryan, J. & Williams, J. (2010) ‘Children’s mathematical understanding as a work in
progress: learning from errors and misconceptions’ in Thompson, I. (ed) Issues in Teaching
Numeracy in Primary Schools Maidenhead: Open University Press
Showers, B., Joyce, B., and Bennet, B. (1987) Synthesis of Research on Staff Development: A
framework for Future Study and a State-of-the-Art Analysis Educational Leadership
November 1987 p77-87
27
Thompson, I. (2010) ‘Getting Your Head Around Mental Calculation’ in Thompson, I. (ed)
Issues in Teaching Numeracy in Primary Schools Maidenhead: Open University Press
Thompson, I. (2010) ‘Written Calculation: Addition and Subtraction’ in Thompson, I. (ed)
Issues in Teaching Numeracy in Primary Schools Maidenhead: Open University Press,
Maidenhead
28