Teaching and Learning Issues in Mathematics in the Context of Nepal

Abstract

In this paper, we discussed major issues of mathematics teaching and learning in Nepal. The issues coming from theories such as social and radical constructivism suggest that teachers are not trained to use such approach in teaching mathematics, and there is a lack of teaching aids and materials and technological tools. The issues related to social aspects are gender issues, language issues, social justice issues, and issues related to the achievement gap. The cultural issues are related to the diversity of language and ethnicity. The issues related to political aspects are equity and access, economic status, pedagogical choice, and professional organizations and unions. The issues related to technology include the technological skills, use of technology, and affordance. Finally, we suggest that all the stakeholders should pay attention to resolving these issues by improving the curriculum, training teachers, resourcing the classroom with locally made and new technological tools. 

Keywords

• Teaching and Learning Issues in Mathematics,Social Issues in Mathematics Education,Cultural Issues in Mathematics Education,Political Issues in Mathematics Education

References

1. Anastasiadou, S. (2008). The effects of representational systems on the learning of statistics between Greek primary school students and immigrants. In J. F. Matos, P. Valero & K. Yasukawa (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth International Mathematics Education and Society Conference (pp. 167 – 176). Lisbon: Centro de Investigaçãoem Educação, Universidade de Lisbon & Department of Education, Learning and Philosophy, Aalborg University.
2. Bal, B. K., & Mishra, M. (2012). E-Proceedings of national conference on use of ICT in rural Nepal: Influences of technology. Online accessed on November 12, 2016 from: http://ltk.org.np/downloads/e-proceedings_ltk_conf_ICT_use_rural_Nepal_March_22_23_2012.pdf
3. Belbase, S. (2014). Radical versus social constructivism: An epistemological-pedagogical dilemma. International Journal of Contemporary Educational Research, 1(2), 98-112.
4. Belbase, S. (2016). Construction of mathematical ‘self’ as an eigenbehavior. In R. K. Dhakal, B. P. Pant, K. D. Khadka, & A. Manandhar (Eds.), Program and abstracts: First International Conference on Transformative Education Research and Sustainable Development (pp. 145 – 146). Dhulikhel, Nepal: Kathmandu University School of Education.
5. Bhatta, S. D. (2008). Tackling the problems of quality and disparity in Nepal’s school education: The OLPC model. Studies in Nepali History and Society, 13(1), 17-48.
6. Board of Studies New South Wales. (2007). Mathematics life skill course. Sydney, Australia: The Author.
7. Burton, L. (1999). Learning mathematics: From hierarchies to network. Routledge, Falmers.
8. Cheung, A., & Slavin, R. E. (2011). The effectiveness of education technology for enhancing mathematics achievement: A meta-analysis. Retrieved on February, 8th, 2013, from http://www.bestevidence.org/mathematics/tech/tech.html

9. Chimomo, J. (2005). Quantity verses quality in education: Case studies in Malawai. International Review in Education, 51, 155-72.
10. Croninger, B. (1991). The social context of schooling: What research and theory can tell us. Intercultural Development Research Association Newsletter, 18 (5), 10 14.
11. Curriculum Development Center (CDC). (2007). National curriculum framework for school education in Nepal. Sanothimi, Bhaktapur, Nepal: CDC.
12. Curriculum Development Center (CDC). (2011). Primary education curriculum. Sanothimi, Bhaktapur, Nepal: CDC.
13. Davis, K. A., Phyak, P., & Bui, T. T. N. (2012). Multicultural education as community engagement: Policies and planning in a transnational era. International Journal of Multicultural Education, 14(3), 1-25.
14. de Beer, M. (2010). Recommendations for collaboration for culturally-relevant teaching and development in Higher Education. In South African Qualifications Authority SAQA (Comp.) Towards a map of NQF-related research: Abstracts and summaries for the NQF Research Conference (pp. 30), South Africa: SAQA.
15. Epstein, M. H., Polloway, E. A., Foley, R. M., & Patton, J. R. (1990). Comparison of performance on academic probes by students with mild retardation, learning disabilities, and behaviour disorders. Special Services in the Schools, 6 (1-2), 121-134.
16. Ernest, P. (1991). The philosophy of mathematics. New York: Routledge, Falmer.
17. Fatma A. T., Elizabeth B. & Thomasenia L. A. (2011). Critical pedagogy for critical mathematics education. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 42(1), 65-74.
18. Forster, P. A., & Taylor, P. C. (2000). A multiple-perspective analysis of learning in the presence of technology. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 42(1), 35-59.
19. Fraser, N. (1995). From redistribution to recognition: Dilemmas of justice in a post-socialist society. New Left Review, July-August, 68-93.
20. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed (30th ed.). New York, NY: Continuum.
21. Garegae, K. M. (2015). Issues and concerns about the integration of ICT into the teaching and learning of mathematics in Africa: Botswana case. S.J. Cho (Ed.), Selected Regular Lectures from the 12th International Congress on Mathematical Education, p.187 Botswana. New York, NY: Springer.
22. Gates, P. (2006). The place of equity and social justice in the history of PME. In A. Gutiérrez & P. Boero (Eds.), Handbook of research on the Psychology of Mathematics Education: Past, present and future. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers, (pp. 367-402).
23. Geiger, V., Faragher, R., & Goos, M. (2010). CAS-enabled technologies as ‘agents provocateurs’ in teaching and learning mathematical modelling in secondary school classrooms. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 22(2), 48-68.
24. Geiger, V., Faragher, R., Redmond, T., & Lowe, J. (2008). CAS-enabled devices as provocative agents in the process of mathematical modeling. In M. Goos, R. Brown, & K. Makar (Eds.), Navigating currents and charting directions (Proceedings of the 30th Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, Vol. 1, pp. 219–226). Brisbane, Australia: Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia.
25. Giroux, H. (1992). Border crossings: Cultural workers and politics of education. New York, NY: Routledge.
26. Heid, M. K, Thomas, M. O. J., & Zbiek, R. M. (2013). How might Computer Algebra Systems change the role of algebra in the school curriculum. In A.J. Bishop, M.A. Clements, C. Keitel, J. Kilpatrick, & F.K.S. Leung (Eds.), Third International Handbook of Mathematics Education (pp. 597-641). New York: Springer.
27. Holmes, D. R. (1990). Education through radio in Nepal: Changes within and beyond the classroom. Himalayan Research Bulletin, 10 (2), 24 – 29.
28. Karmacharya, R. (2015). Integration of technology in Nepali classrooms: Lessons learned and future directions. Washington DC: World Bank BBL.
29. Kathmandu Post. (Dec. 22, 2014). Eighteen teachers’ associations to form single umbrella body. Post Report, Kathmandu. Accessed from: http://kathmandupost.ekantipur.com/news/2014-12-22/18-teachers-associations-to-form-single-umbrella-body.html
30. Kazima, M., & Mussa, C. (2011), Equity and equality issues in mathematics education in Malawi Schools. In B. Atweh et al. (Eds.), Mapping equity and quality in mathematics education (pp. 163-176). New York, NY: Springer. DOI 10.1007/978-90-481-9803-0_12. Kendal, M., & Stacey, K. (2002). Teachers in transition: Moving towards CAS-supported classrooms. ZDM, The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 34(5), 196-203 Koirala, B. N., & Acharya, S. (2005). Girls in science and technology education: A study on access and performance of girls in Nepal. Kathmandu, Nepal: UNESCO Office Kathmandu.
31. Koirala, H. P. (1991). A comparison of problems faced by mathematics teacher educators in developing and developed countries: A case study of Nepal and England. Tribhuvan University Journal (XIV), 15-25.
32. Kroma, S. (1996). Polarizing science education in developing countries through Indigenous Knowledge. http://www.3(3) Kroma.htm
33. Lamb, S. (1997). Completing school in Australia: Trends in 1990s. Melbourne: Australian Council of Research.
34. Leo, C. (1990). Reflexive thinking in mathematics: Formal and informal aspects. In A. Diez, J. Echeverria, A. Ibarra (Eds.), Structures in mathematical theories (383-389). San Sebastian International Symposium.
35. Lim, C. S., & Pateman, N. A. (2013). The politics of equity and access in teaching and learning mathematics. M. A. (Ken) Clements et al. (Eds.), Third International Handbook of Mathematics Education. New York: Springer.
36. Luitel, B. C. (2009). Culture, worldview and transformative philosophy of mathematics education in Nepal: A cultural-philosophical inquiry. Doctoral dissertation, Curtin University of Technology, Perth, Australia.
37. Mathema, K. B., Bista, M. B. (2006). Study on student performance in SLC: Main report. Kathmandu, Nepal: Ministry of Education and Sports, Government of Nepal.
38. Metsämuuronen, J., & Kafle, B. R. (2013). Where are we now? Student achievement in Mathematics, Nepali and Social Studies in 2011. Kathmandu, Nepal: Government of Nepal, Ministry of Education.
39. Ministry of Education (MOE). (2015). Report on national assessment of student achievement (NASA) 2013. Bhaktapur, Nepal: The Author.
40. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A new framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.
41. Nakawa, N. (2013). Current situations in pre-primary and primary mathematics education in Kathmandu, Nepal. Tokyo Future University Research Summary (東京未来大学研究紀要), 6, 31-39.
42. Olstad, R. G., Foster, C. D., & Wyman, R. M. (1983). Multicultural education for pre-service teachers. Integrated Education, 21, 137-139.
43. Orton, A. (1996). Learning mathematics: issues, theory and classroom practice. London: Cassell.
44. Panta, B. P., Dhakal, R. K. (2015). Current status of SERU-ICT in teacher education curricula in Nepal. Paper presented in Regional Seminar of UNESCO RDTC Network, School of Information Technology in Education, South China Normal University (Nov. 11-13). http://www.unescobkk.org/fileadmin/user_upload/ict/Workshops/RDTC_15ch/Nepal.pdf
45. Panthi, R. K. (2016). Socially just pedagogy in mathematics classroom. In R. K. Dhakal, B. P. Pant, K. D. Khadka, & A. Manandhar (Eds.), Program and abstracts: First International Conference on Transformative Education Research and Sustainable Development (p.140). Dhulikhel, Nepal: Kathmandu University School of Education.
46. Pierce, R., & Ball, L. (2009). Perceptions that may affect teachers’ intention to use technology in secondary mathematics classes. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 71(3), 299-317.
47. Powell, A., Farrar, E., & Cohen, D. (1985). The shopping mall high school: Winners and losers in the educational marketplace. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
48. Pun, M. B. (2012). Connecting the villages of rural Nepal to the Internet through Nepal Wireless Project – experience, challenges faced and road ahead. A talk given at the National Conference on Use of ICT in Rural Nepal: Influences of Technology. Accessed on November 12, 2016 from: http://ltk.org.np/downloads/Mahabir_Pun_Talk.pdf
49. Restivo, S. (1988). The social construction of mathematics. Zentralblatt fur didaktik der Mathematik, 20(1), 15-19.
50. Ruthven, K. (2012). Constituting digital tools and materials as classroom resources. In G. Gueudet, B. Pepin, & L. Trouche (Eds.), From Text to ‘Lived’ Resources: Mathematics Curriculum Materials and Teacher Development (pp. 83-104). New York: Springer.
51. Scada, W. G. (1992). Race, ethnicity, social class, language and achievement in mathematics. In Grouws, D.A. (Eds.). Handbooks of research in mathematics teaching and learning: A project of the National Council of Teacher of Mathematics. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.
52. Schoenfeld, A. (2011). How do we think. A theory of goal-oriented decision making and its educational implications. New York, NY: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. Shrestha, K. N. (2008). Teacher development and management at secondary education in Nepal. Journal of Education and Research, 1(1), 41-50.
53. Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22.
54. Stacey, K., Kendal, M., & Pierce, R. (2002). Teaching with CAS in a time of transition. The International Journal of Computer Algebra in Mathematics Education, 9, 113-127.
55. Subedi, D. (2010). Multicultural classroom issues in the Nepalese context. Journal of Education and Research, 2, 17-25
56. Thomas, M. O. J., & Palmer, J. (2014). Teaching with digital technology: Obstacles and opportunities. In A. Clark-Wilson, N. Sinclair, & O. Robutti (Eds.), The mathematics teacher in the digital era (pp. 71-89). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
57. Trigueros, M., & Lozano, D. (2012). Teachers teaching mathematics with Encyclomedia. In G. Gueudet, B. Pepin, & L. Trouche (Eds.), From text to ‘lived’ resources: Mathematics curriculum materials and teacher development (pp. 247-264). New York: Springer. UNESCO Kathmandu Office. (2008). Developing culturally contextualized mathematics resource materials: Capturing local practices of Tamang and Gopali communities. Kathmandu, Nepal: UNESCO.
58. UNESCO Kathmandu Office. (2011). Multilingual education in Nepal: Hearsay and reality? Kathmandu, Nepal: The Author.
59. UNESCO Kathmandu Office. (2015). Education for all: National review report 2001 – 2015. Kathmandu, Nepal: UNESCO.
60. von Glasersfeld, E. (1990). An exposition of constructivism: Why some like it radical. In R. B. Davis, C. A. Maher, & N. Noddings (Eds.), Constructivist views on the teaching and learning of mathematics (pp. 19-29). Reston, VA: NCTM.
61. von Glasersfeld, E. (1995). Radical constructivism: A way of knowing and learning. New York, NY: Routledge Falmer.
62. von Glasersfeld, E. (2001). Radical constructivism and teaching. Perspectives, 31(2),191-204. http://www.univie.ac.at/constructivism/EvG/papers/244.2.pdf
63. Wagley, M. P., & Jha, A. (2013). Country report: Nepal, education in general and ICT in particular. A report presented in the UNESCO, RDTC Seminar, Penang, Malaysia. kusoede.edu.np/pluginfile.php/1188/mod.../Country%20Report%20Malaysia.pdf
64. Weinberg, D., & Gavelek, J. (1987). A social constructivist theory of instruction and the development of mathematical cognition. Proceedings of PME11, Montreal, Quebec, 3, 346-252.
65. Zbiek, R. M., & Hollebrands, K. (2008). A research-informed view of the process of incorporating mathematics technology into classroom practice by inservice and prospective teachers. In M. K. Heid & G. W. Blume (Eds.), Research on technology and the teaching and learning of mathematics: Volume 1. Research syntheses (pp. 287–344). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.