66 p76-84 Venkat FINAL


76                  Pythagoras 66, December, 2007, pp. 76-84 

Mathematical Literacy – mathematics and/or literacy: what is 
being sought? 

 
Hamsa Venkat 

 
Marang Centre for Mathematics and Science Education, University of the Witwatersrand 

Email: hamsa.venkatakrishnan@wits.ac.za 
 
 
Introduction 
Mathematical Literacy was introduced as an 
alternative option to Mathematics in the Further 
Education and Training (FET) phase (Grades 10-
12, learners generally aged 15-18) in South Africa 
in January 2006. As a new subject in the FET 
phase, and with aims that differ somewhat from the 
notion of mathematical literacy that figured within 
the Mathematical Literacy / Mathematics / Mathe-
matical Sciences (MLMMS) learning area in the 
General Education and Training (GET) phase, 
teachers are faced with implementing a subject 
which does not have established aims, 
understandings and practices associated with it. In 
this paper I use empirical data to present two 
agendas – mathematics and literacy – that two 
teachers I collaborate with are drawing upon in 
different ways, according to their interpretations of 
putting policy into practice. These empirical data 
are located within a trajectory of research in 
mathematics education in South Africa that has 
pointed to problems when attempts have been 
made to link mathematics with other agendas – the 
need for relevance being a prime example. Many 
of these critiques have raised the issue of the 
‘displacement’ of mathematics when other agendas 
are brought into the arena.  

In contrast, I will argue here that the empirical 
data from Mathematical Literacy lessons point to 
ways in which ‘tweaking’ the flow of questions 
and activities can allow for a productive 
integration of mathematical and literacy-oriented 
agendas, with each agenda working to bolster, 
rather than distract from, the other. The Mathe-
matical Literacy curriculum statement defines the 
subject in the following terms: 

Mathematical Literacy provides learners 
with an awareness and understanding of 
the role that mathematics plays in the 
modern world. Mathematical Literacy is 
a subject driven by life-related 
applications of mathematics. It enables 
learners to develop the ability and 
confidence to think numerically and 
spatially in order to interpret and 

critically analyse everyday situations and 
to solve problems. (Department of 
Education, 2003a: 9) 
This definition, with its emphasis on enabling 

learners to act in ways that involve awareness of 
the roles and uses of mathematics, and an 
inclination and ability to think mathematically and 
use mathematics in real-life, shares much in 
common with contemporary notions of ‘literacy’. 
Gee’s (2001) discourse-based definition of literacy 
relates to “the mastery of or fluent control over a 
Secondary discourse”. ‘Secondary’ discourses are 
“ways of being in the world” that are purposively 
promoted or pursued, often within the school 
context. They differ from ‘primary’ discourses, 
Gee’s term for discourses that are naturally 
acquired through a person’s initial ways of 
understanding and interacting in the world. This 
definition of literacy emphasises behaviour and 
identity, and whilst knowledge is implicated within 
both the Mathematical Literacy definition and 
Gee’s definition of literacy, both notions of literacy 
emphatically involve more than acquisition of 
content. Walsh (1991) also places emphasis on 
understanding and interpreting the world within 
her description of literacy as: 

A creative activity through which 
learners can begin to analyse and 
interpret their own lived experiences, 
make connections between these 
experiences and those of others, and, in 
the process, extend both consciousness 
and understanding. (1991: 6) 
The links between the curricular definition of 

Mathematical Literacy and these broader 
understandings of how literacy is comprised are 
unsurprising, given the overt acknowledgement of 
Gee’s notion of literacy within the Organisation for 
Economic Cooperation and Development / PISA 
notion of mathematical literacy (Organisation for 
Economic Cooperation and Development, 2003), 
which in turn has been acknowledged as an 
important source of ideas about how the 
Mathematical Literacy subject area has been 
constituted in South Africa (Department of 



Hamsa Venkat 
 

 77 

Education, 2007). The sense that Mathematical 
Literacy involves acquiring the mathematically 
literate discourses required for constructive and 
critical participation in, and interpretation of, the 
practices related to the future life roles of learners 
− a self-managing person, a contributing worker, a 
participating citizen (Department of Education, 
2003a: 10) − is therefore foregrounded in the 
definition and preamble to the curriculum 
specification within this document. This agenda 
differs in important ways from the agenda driving 
Mathematics as a subject in the FET phase. 
Mathematics is defined in its FET curriculum 
statement as follows: 

Mathematics enables creative and logical 
reasoning about problems in the physical 
and social world and in the context of 
Mathematics itself. It is a distinctly 
human activity practised by all cultures. 
Knowledge in the mathematical sciences 
is constructed through the establishment 
of descriptive, numerical and symbolic 
relationships. Mathematics is based on 
observing patterns; with rigorous logical 
thinking, this leads to theories of abstract 
relations. Mathematical problem solving 
enables us to understand the world and 
make use of that understanding in our 
daily lives. Mathematics is developed 
and contested over time through both 
language and symbols by social 
interaction and is thus open to change. 
(Department of Education, 2003b: 9) 

Whilst the notion of mathematics as a subject with 
applications in real-life is mentioned, emphasis is 
laid on abstract rather than concrete concepts, on 
intra-mathematical connections rather than mathe-
matics-real-world connections, on rigour and logic 
rather than interpretation and critique, and on 
knowledge itself, as well as applications of 
knowledge.  

I am not suggesting here that mathematics 
curricula do not require literacy in Walsh’s sense 
of analysing and interpreting situations. I am 
however pointing to the extensive body of 
evidence that suggests that mathematical learning 
is often restricted to the acquisition of content with 
little room for sense-making and interpretation of 
problems (Mukhopadhyay & Greer, 2001; 
Schoenfeld, 1985). Many critiques have argued for 
a more literate agenda within mathematics, such as  
Kilpatrick, Swafford, & Findell (2001), in order to 
facilitate flexible conceptual understanding and the 
willingness to make sense of situations alongside 
procedural fluency. In this paper, the mathematical 

agenda refers therefore to the more restricted (but 
widely prevalent) emphasis on mathematical 
content and procedures. 

Critiques of the Mathematical Literacy 
curriculum statement, for example, AMESA 
(2003), have pointed out that the curriculum 
specification (detailed largely in terms of 
mathematical content) conflicts with, and runs the 
risk of derailing, the broader literacy-focused 
agenda in which acquisition of content forms just 
one part. Thus, within the Mathematical Literacy 
curricular documentation there are tensions 
between whether Mathematical Literacy should 
focus more on furthering a mathematical agenda in 
terms of extending the learning and understanding 
of mathematical content, or a literacy agenda that 
suggests the need to develop learners’ willingness 
and ability to use mathematical thinking to analyse, 
interpret and solve problems in increasingly 
complex contexts. In spite of this conflict between 
the tone of the policy texts and the nature of the 
curriculum specification, the overall signals tend to 
state that the two agendas – developing 
mathematics and developing literacy – need to be 
balanced and can, and should, be integrated: 

The challenge for you as the teacher is to 
use situations or contexts to reveal the 
underlying mathematics while 
simultaneously using the mathematics to 
make sense of the situations or contexts, 
and in so doing develop in your students 
the habits or attributes of a 
mathematically literate person. 
(Department of Education, 2006: 4) 
This debate on whether a mathematical agenda 

can and should be brought together with the 
literacy agenda forms the focus of this paper. I 
consider the ways in which the introduction of 
Mathematical Literacy in the FET phase, with aims 
that differ from those associated with Mathematics, 
might provide openings for the linking of the 
‘mathematical’ and ‘literacy’ agendas. 

In order to consider this question, I detail some 
of the positions that have been taken up in previous 
South African debates on whether mathematics can 
be linked with other agendas. A key antecedent 
with associated literature was the attempt to shift 
towards a more ‘relevant’ Mathematics curriculum 
within Curriculum 2005 in the General Education 
and Training phase. Much of this writing (though 
not all) pointed to the incommensurability of the 
‘mathematics’ and ‘relevance’ agendas, providing 
examples of the ‘hollow’ use of ‘relevant’ 
problems. However, this debate was located within 
a curriculum that was firmly rooted in a 



Mathematical Literacy – mathematics and/or literacy: what is being sought? 
 

 78 

mathematical agenda, so part of my aim is to 
consider the ways in which Mathematical Literacy 
teaching may change the terms of this debate. 

In the body of this paper I present two excerpts 
of Mathematical Literacy teaching drawn from 
research exploring the implementation of 
Mathematical Literacy in schools, in which I have 
been involved through the Marang Centre at Wits 
University. The first excerpt shows a teacher 
foregrounding a more mathematical agenda; the 
second shows a teacher foregrounding a  
more literacy-focused agenda, but with the 
mathematical features somewhat backgrounded. 
This format may suggest that my aim is to add 
evidence into the ‘incommensurability’ claim 
mentioned earlier within the contours of 
Mathematical Literacy. This is not the case. In the 
analysis that follows the two excerpts, I provide 
evidence, from teachers’ comments and from other 
classroom observations, to argue that these 
excerpts are better interpreted as ‘near misses’ 
rather than ‘incommensurability’ in terms of 
integrating the mathematical and literacy-based 
agendas, and that the contrasts of foreground 
reflect differing understandings about what 
Mathematical Literacy is about. Greeno (1998) 
developed the notion of ‘attunements’ – “regular 
patterns of an individual’s participation” – to 
environmental ‘affordances’ and constraints, which 
reflect historical routines of practice based on these 
understandings to explore interactions in teaching 
and learning environments.  

The two excerpts in this study detail contrasting 
‘attunements’ relating to what should be aimed for 
in Mathematical Literacy, with understandings that 
draw upon educators’ priorities – or deficiencies – 
in the context of their prior experiences of 
Mathematics teaching. A ‘near miss’ perspective, 
rather than simply highlighting an absence of 
mathematics, allows me to highlight what is 
achieved in class in relation to teacher’s aims. I 
also identify gaps in terms of what might be 
possible with better integration of the two agendas.  

Both educators whose teaching is presented in 
this paper saw the need for mathematics and 
literacy to be developed, and during the course of 
2006, I observed some lessons in which integration 
of the two goals was closer to being attained and 
others in which one or the other agenda took 
precedence. I conclude that educators should aim 
to improve awareness of the twin agendas at work, 
and improve the flow of questions and activities. In 
this way, both of the approaches presented in the 
excerpts can better achieve the kinds of integration 

suggested in the definition of Mathematical 
Literacy and in other related policy documents.  

 
Integrating agendas – historical 
antecedents 
Questions were asked regarding the role and 
function of mathematical knowledge and skills in 
relation to their integration with other agendas, in 
the context of a shift to a more ‘relevant’ 
Curriculum 2005. In that debate, some argued that 
the mathematics and relevance agendas were 
focused on fundamentally different goals, and 
hence, could not be reconciled – the 
‘incommensurability’ claim (Davis, 2003). Others, 
while tentatively supporting the shift to 
Mathematics teaching and learning that highlighted 
the links between mathematics and the real world, 
pointed out the dangers of either agenda taking 
precedence (Sethole, 2003), or more pessimistic-
ally, of the mathematics becoming ‘lost’ (Adler, 
Pournara, & Graven, 2000) – an issue that is 
considered later in this paper in relation to the 
literacy agenda.  

Whilst not related directly to the introduction of 
Curriculum 2005, Barnes’ (2005) research on 
Realistic Mathematics Education (RME) advocated 
the use of a relevant, experientially real context as 
a starting point for the process of mathematisation, 
and highlighted their role in helping learners make 
sense of a situation. Although RME is closest to 
the literacy agenda within Mathematical Literacy, 
it needs to be remembered that this approach is 
firmly focused on a mathematical agenda in which 
contexts are viewed largely as vehicles for 
progressive mathematisation. This differs from the 
emphasis of the Mathematical Literacy policy 
documents on inculcating attitudes and behaviours 
that quip learners for participation in future life 
roles. 

The South African literature thus provides a 
mixed message regarding the useful integration of 
mathematics with other agendas, and alerts the 
reader to the mathematical emphasis of previous 
efforts. 

 
Research outline and data sources 
The two excerpts of teaching presented in the 
following section were drawn from a longitudinal 
study of policy implementation in one inner-city 
Johannesburg school in which three Mathematics 
educators taught the three Grade 10 Mathematical 
Literacy classes. The research involved weekly 
observations in all three classes during the course 
of 2006. Field notes were taken during each 
observation, records were kept of informal 



Hamsa Venkat 
 

 79 

conversations with the educators, and copies of 
tasks and materials given to learners were 
collected. Semi-structured interviews were 
conducted with these educators in the fourth 
semester; these were tape-recorded and 
transcribed. Additional comments are incorporated 
from a focus group interview that was conducted in 
the fourth semester which included the two main 
teachers. 

The excerpts presented in this paper, both taken 
from lessons that took place in October 2006, 
present examples of the foregrounding of a 
mathematical agenda by one educator, and an 
emphasis on literacy – over mathematical thinking 
– by the other. Whilst neither excerpt can be 
described as ‘typical’ of the educators’ teaching, 
their differing agendas were more evident in their 
reflections on the policy. Their understandings of 
and priorities in implementing Mathematical 
Literacy are considered in relation to an analysis of 
their different approaches to implementation. 
Pseudonyms are used throughout. 

 
Excerpt 1 

Charles Naughton, an educator with 25 years’ 
teaching experience in Mathematics and Science at 
FET level, had been at the school for nine years. 
He had decided to do a lesson on the use of 
percentages, because learners had struggled to 
understand the topic in the previous lesson. His 
class consisted of 24 learners, 12 male and 12 
female, all black. Charles had, at several points in 
the course of the year, taken time to go back over 
aspects of relatively basic mathematics that had 
emerged as problematic within lessons. For 
example, I observed lessons on understanding 
concepts related to decimals, and a lesson working 
on the meaning of ‘per’ across a range of problems 
(for example, kilometres per hour). 

As learners entered, Charles wrote a title on the 
board: ‘All the ways of using percentages’. He 
then said to the class ‘Make up an example of 
turning a fraction into a percentage, an everyday 
example’. Faced with silence, he added ‘Look 
around the class. Think of something that might be 
different here’. A boy responded ‘boys and girls’. 
Charles, standing at the board, nodded and said 
‘Yes’. He asked the class how many girls were in 
the group. Learners began looking around and 
counting. Initially, the answers called out most 
insistently were 11 girls, 12 boys, and he wrote on 
the board: 

G = 11 
B = 12 

A girl then called out that there were actually 
12 girls in the group. Charles responded: ‘No, 
that’s too easy. Let’s say that there are 10 girls and 
12 boys.’ 

Changing the numbers written on the board 
accordingly, he then went on to ask the class what 
fraction of the class were girls and what fraction 
were boys, and, following their answers, wrote 
down on the board: 

Fraction of G = 
22

10
 

Fraction of B = 
22

12
 

He then asked, “How do we change these to a 
percentage? For example, if the proportion stayed 
the same, but the numbers changed, what 
percentage would be girls?” After 30 seconds, a 
learner who was using a calculator volunteered an 
answer. Charles wrote the learner’s method and 
answer on the board: 

G = 
22

10
x 

1

100
 

     = 45,4 
     = 45% 
 

Excerpt 2 
Freddy Dube is the Head of Mathematics, and 
elected to teach Mathematical Literacy in Grade 
10. He attended provincial Mathematical Literacy 
training in 2005 and 2006, and has completed an 
Honours course which included Mathematical 
Literacy modules. He has taught Mathematics for 
nearly 10 years, across Grades 8-12. His class 
consisted of 26 learners, 14 boys and 12 girls, all 
black. Across the year, Freddy had drawn from a 
range of different resources to provide or design 
‘real-life’ problems. For example, he used 
newspaper articles about the effects of heavy 
rainfall on South African dam levels, bank 
pamphlets about loan repayment rates, and a 
Mathematical Literacy textbook to work out floor 
areas on house plans. 

Freddy settled the class to silence and then 
switched on the overhead projector. He showed the 
class a transparency (Appendix 1) detailing Body 
Mass Index (BMI) information – which he had 
photocopied from the Teacher Guide (Department 
of Education: 2006, 25) – and then wrote on the 
board: 

BMI = body mass (kg) 
   height2 (m2) 

BMI = body mass (kg)   x 10 000 
   height2 (cm2) 



Mathematical Literacy – mathematics and/or literacy: what is being sought? 
 

 80 

Freddy explained that BMI is commonly used 
to judge whether a person is over- or underweight, 
and then went through the text and figures on adult 
BMI on the transparency. He added that there were 
separate BMI graphs for boys and girls. 

Twenty minutes into the lesson, he gave out a 
worksheet with the transparency information on 
one side (Appendix 1), while on the other side 
were the two BMI formulae which he had written 
on the board, together with examples of how to use 
them and some tasks that he had devised (Figure 
1). Asking the class to focus on the first task 
(calculate your teacher’s BMI), he wrote his own 
weight and height on the board as follows: 

Mass = 67kg 
Height = 1,7m 
Freddy then asked the class to calculate his 

BMI using the first formula on the worksheet. Not 
all learners in the class had a calculator, but most 
could observe one being used at their table. The 
class began to calculate his BMI, and after looking 
over individuals’ work, Freddy wrote on the board: 

BMI = 67kg 
           (1,7m)2  

He asked the class for answers. ‘39,4’ was the 
first response, and he wrote ‘ = 39,4 kg/m2’ 

underneath. He then asked the class what advice 
they would give him based on this figure. 
Individual learners began scanning the information 
given on the BMI ranges. Some started laughing, 
saying, “Sir, you’re obese”. Others called out “Use 
Bio-slim” and “Not eating”. Their laughter was 
due in part to the fact that Freddy is very slim. At 
this point, Freddy commented, ‘Well, you can’t 
always tell about someone’s BMI just by looking 
at them’, and noted too that there were categories 
of people that fall outside BMI scales, such as 
pregnant women. As the class began their own 
discussions around this, he asked them to work in 
groups and calculate each of their BMIs. As they 
did this, one learner pointed out that the answer 
given for Freddy’s BMI was incorrect. He asked 
the class to recalculate, and as they worked, Freddy 
suggested that those working with scientific 
calculators could use the exponent key, and those 
without would have to do the multiplication 
manually. He wrote on the board: 

(1,7m) 2  = 1,7m x 1,7m  = 2,89 m2  

BMI  = 67 kg 
     2,89 m2  

  = 23,2 kg/m2  
Answers were contributed by the learners at 

 

  

 Task 1 
1) Determine whether your ML teacher is overweight or not. 
2) What advice can you give him/her? 
3) Determine whether your group members are overweight or not, including 

yourself. 
4) What advice can you give them if they are overweight? 

 
Task 2 (data collection) 
1) Collect weight and height of at least 15 adults/ young adults. 
2) You can start collecting data from school 

 
Figure 1. Worksheet with formulae and classroom tasks. 

 



Hamsa Venkat 
 

 81 

each stage underlined above, and Freddy 
concluded that he fell within the ‘healthy weight 
range’. He then asked the class to proceed with the 
subsequent tasks on the worksheet.  

 
Analysis 
Both excerpts provide examples of teacher 
decision-making within the flow of classroom 
activity. Stein, Smith, Henningsen and Silver 
(2000) have stressed that looking at tasks alone is 
insufficient, since the nature and demand of tasks 
are frequently altered significantly during 
implementation: 

As mathematical tasks are enacted in 
classroom settings, they become 
intertwined with the goals, intentions, 
actions, and interactions of teachers and 
students. (2000: 24) 
While Stein et al. were concerned with changes 

in the demands of tasks, my interest is in how the 
actions and interactions detailed above reveal the 
goals and intentions of the two teachers. Both 
excerpts share a largely educator-led format, in 
which learner contributions were both expected 
and encouraged – this latter feature was reflected 
across almost all the lessons I observed with both 
teachers throughout the year. In addition, the pace 
in both excerpts was unhurried, an aspect that both 
educators found possible within their Mathematical 
Literacy teaching, in contrast to the content-laden, 
time-restricted pressures that constrain their 
Mathematics teaching. 

Both educators try to set up their task in terms 
of a situated problem. In Charles’ case, learners are 
asked to calculate percentages based on a feature in 
their classroom, and are cued further to include the 
concept of ‘difference’. Freddy’s task is located in 
the context of BMI, with relevant information 
presented in text, graphs and equations. It is 
interesting to note that Charles begins by 
highlighting ‘percentages’ on the board, and then 
suggests a context within which percentage can 
‘occur’, whereas Freddy first introduces the BMI 
concept, followed by the use of graphs and 
equations within this context. This contrast in 
‘attunements’ – to mathematics in Charles’ case, 
and to an emphasis on interpreting answers in the 
context of the situated problem in Freddy’s case – 
persists across the excerpts and more widely across 
their teaching. 

 
Charles – Excerpt 1 

Charles’ decision-making within the lesson flow 
(Excerpt 1) suggests that his aim is to focus on 
checking, revising and teaching the procedure for 

turning a fraction into a percentage. Thus, when 
‘real-life’ provides him with equal numbers of 
boys and girls in his class – a scenario which opens 
up the possibility for learners to guess, remember 
or understand that this would be equivalent to 50% 
– without recourse to the procedure – he rejects 
these data in favour of ‘made-up’, unequal 
numbers producing fractions that require the 
procedure if they are to be converted into 
percentages. The procedure is asked for, carried 
out and checked, and passing mention is made of 
proportionality as a rather contrived motivation for 
why percentage might be useful to work out, 
although this is not dwelt upon. Charles’ concern 
with a mathematical agenda, with mathematical 
concepts and connections, has been voiced 
frequently during the course of the year: 

I keep on wanting to help them achieve 
the actual mathematics. 
This point came across in his reference to a task 

involving cell phone tariffs during the focus group 
interview, where he felt that the ‘realistic’ 
complexity of the numbers involved in the call 
rates tended to obscure the mathematics: 

I’ve also felt all the way along that using 
numbers like 28,76 cents per call or 
something was not necessary at this early 
stage. We should still be keeping things 
simple so they see how it works rather 
than get confused with those actual 
numbers, you know, like on the price of a 
cell phone call. 
The literacy agenda here is not being dismissed 

but it is being deferred because it is considered too 
complex for the present, and a distraction that 
prevents learners from seeing the underlying 
(mathematical) structure of the situation. 
 

Freddy – Excerpt 2 
Freddy’s awareness and use of ideas from a wide 
range of sources, including the policy documents, 
is evidenced when he draws from an exemplar unit 
in the Mathematical Literacy Teacher Guide 
document (Department of Education, 2006). In his 
opening exercise, Freddy draws attention to the 
text and context of BMI, going through the 
contents of the overhead, and at times adding 
further explanation. The formulae written on the 
board are introduced, but not worked through – he 
writes down his height and weight and asks the 
class to use the formulas to work out and interpret 
his BMI. When an answer is provided, Freddy’s 
attention shifts directly into asking the class to 
interpret and understand this answer in context – 
an activity that most learners participate in actively 



Mathematical Literacy – mathematics and/or literacy: what is being sought? 
 

 82 

and succeed in doing. However, neither the 
structure nor the calculation procedure is 
interrogated at this stage. This suggests either an 
assumption that the answer offered is correct, or an 
‘attunement’ which is much more focused on 
encouraging learners to interpret answers in 
relation to the information that is provided on the 
worksheet. When asked on other occasions about 
his views on Mathematical Literacy, Freddy has 
stressed the importance of interpreting and 
understanding the context: 

In Maths Literacy, we try by all means 
when we are teaching, we try to involve 
some real life situations so that learners 
can see the meaning of Maths Literacy. 
And we should actually – it does not 
actually force them to remember the 
rules and laws that they've learnt from 
their previous grades, such as grade 
nine. They just come up with their own 
ways of solving problems. 
It is interesting to note here that learners in the 

class do pick up on the fact that the answer they 
have got doesn’t connect well with ‘reality’ – 
Freddy’s size does not indicate obesity – and offer 
an alternative answer. A need to make sense of the 
situation, to make the mathematics connect to the 
context, is clearly present within the classroom in 
spite of initial lack of attention to the mathematical 
aspects. 
 

General discussion 
Several avenues are available in both of these 
excerpts to ‘add in’ and integrate the backgrounded 
agenda. The question in this paper addresses the 
way in which a more integrated approach might 
affect both the educator’s existing agenda and the 
backgrounded agenda. 

In Charles’ case, the initial answer of equal 
numbers of girls and boys could have been 
followed up. Charles’ assumption that someone in 
the class would have been able to understand that 
12/24 was equivalent to 50% was undoubtedly 
true, but what were the alternatives? A lesson with 
10 girls and 12 boys could have been the situation 
in a previous lesson, for example, and the relevant 
gender fractions of the class could have been 
compared. The question could have been asked, 
“Today, 50% of the class is made up of girls. What 
percentage of yesterday’s class were girls?” This 
would have opened up avenues for comparing 
12/24 with 10/22, for comparing 10/22 with 11/22, 
and for comparing 11/22 with 12/24. In terms of 
sense-making, this opens up opportunities to 
reason and understand that 10/22 must be less than 

50%, to estimate that the answer is probably only a 
little less than 50%, and also opens up a motivation 
for why the concepts and procedures related to 
percentages might be useful in this context as a 
tool of comparison. The procedure can then be 
checked, revised and taught, as occurred within the 
lesson. Such questions are not significantly 
different from those posed by Charles, but they are 
guided by the twin aims of promoting 
mathematical learning and a sense of literacy in 
terms of making sense of the situation.  

Similarly, in Freddy’s case, if some of his 
alertness to the need to understand the meaning 
and consequences of numbers in the context of 
BMI had been focused on encouraging the class to 
either understand the structure of the formula, 
and/or to estimate the likely answer before 
calculating and to checking the answer given, 
sense-making would have been better supported. 
Furthermore, some discussion about the structure 
and procedures associated with the BMI formula 
could have promoted a linkage to concepts relating 
to concentrations and density – and ratio and 
proportion, which are likely to feature in other 
Mathematical Literacy lessons. It would also have 
allowed for discussion about the historical 
development and use of the BMI concept and its 
implications. Once again, these possible adjust-
ments do not represent major changes to the flow 
of the lesson in both cases. More importantly, the 
broadening of the scope of questions, whilst 
allowing an alternative agenda to figure, works 
also to support the educator’s foregrounded 
agenda. 

 
Conclusions 
In discussing the differences between literacy and 
language, Gee (2001) emphasises that literacy 
involves more than a mastery of the language’s 
grammar – its associated rules, procedures and 
syntax. By way of parallel, Mathematics education 
is replete with evidence suggesting that an 
emphasis on the rules, procedures and syntax is 
predominant in a range of countries (Schoenfeld, 
1985), and has led to widespread concerns about 
learners’ ability to use and apply mathematics to 
make sense of situations (Smith, 2004; Steen, 
2001). Much of the South African literature related 
to debates around relevance suggests that linking 
mathematics with other agendas is problematic. 
Adler et al. (2000) present a number of vignettes 
with varying degrees of linking, and conclude that 
whilst integration remains desirable, the aims and 
conditions of mathematics teaching make it 
difficult, if not impossible to achieve: 



Hamsa Venkat 
 

 83 

This all suggests that the promises of the 
new curriculum might be unfounded and 
that what might be desirable at the level 
of policy and advocacy might not be 
feasible at a practical or a theoretical 
level. (2000: 12) 
Adler et al.’s suggestions for supporting 

teachers in acquiring the requisite skills for more 
relevant Mathematics teaching include “more 
realistic time frames” and the increased use of 
“integrated mathematical tasks”. The Mathematical 
Literacy policy documents advocate the common 
use of such tasks, and the comments of both 
teachers indicates that a less congested curriculum 
has provided them with more time and space than 
was available in their Mathematics teaching.  

In this paper I have attempted to use the 
empirical data to demonstrate that the mathematics 
and literacy agendas are not incompatible. I would 
argue that the excerpts point to a need for 
improved awareness of the different ways of 
thinking about the agendas that underlie 
Mathematical Literacy – and Mathematics – 
teaching. This awareness can then be followed up 
with practical solutions for extending teaching 
repertoires to integrate mathematics and literacy 
agendas in ways that support rather than detract 
from either agenda in isolation. The evidence 
presented here further suggests that the 
implementation of Mathematical Literacy in South 
Africa may provide fertile ground for locating a 
mathematical agenda within the broader notions of 
sense-making and interpreting the world that 
constitute the notions of literacy considered in this 
article. 

 
References 
Adler, J., Pournara, C. & Graven, M. (2000). 

Integration within and across mathematics. 
Pythagoras, 53, 2-13. 

AMESA. (2003). AMESA submission to the 
Department of Education on the National 
Curriculum Statement Grades 10-12 (Schools) 
and in particular on the Mathematics and 
Mathematical Literacy subject statements. 
Diepriver: AMESA. 

Barnes, H. (2005). The theory of RME as a 
theoretical framework for teaching low attainers 
in mathematics. Pythagoras, 61, 42-57. 

Davis, Z. (2003). Free associations: From canned 
laughter to relevant mathematics to the 
tamagochi. Pythagoras, 58, 2-6. 

Department of Education. (2003a). National 
Curriculum Statement Grades 10-12 (General): 
Mathematical Literacy. Pretoria: Government 
Printer. 

Department of Education. (2003b). National 
Curriculum Statement Grades 10-12 (General): 
Mathematics. Pretoria: Government Printer. 

Department of Education. (2006). National 
Curriculum Statement Grades 10-12, Teacher 
Guide, Mathematical Literacy. Pretoria: 
Government Printer. 

Department of Education. (2007). National 
Curriculum Statement Grades 10-12 (General): 
Subject Assessment Guidelines, Mathematical 
Literacy. Pretoria: Government Printer. 

Gee, J. P. (2001). Literacy, discourse, and 
linguistics: Introduction and What is Literacy? 
In E. Cushman, E. R. Kintgen, B. M. Kroll & 
M. Rose (Eds.), Literacy - A critical 
sourcebook (pp 525-544). Boston: Bedford St 
Martins. 

Greeno, J. (1998). The situativity of knowing, 
learning and research. American Psychologist, 
55(1), 5-26. 

Kilpatrick, J., Swafford, J. & Findell, B. (2001). 
Adding it up: helping children learn mathe-
matics. Washington, DC: National Academy 
Press.  

Mukhopadhyay, S. & Greer, B. (2001). Modeling 
with purpose: mathematics as a critical tool. In 
B. Atweh, H. Forgasz & B. Nebres (Eds.), 
Sociocultural Research on Mathematics 
education: An international perspective. 
Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum 
Associates.  

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and 
Development (OECD). (2003). The PISA 2003 
Assessment Framework − Mathematics, Read-
ing, Science and problem-solving knowledge 
and skills. Paris: OECD. 

Schoenfeld, A.H. (1985). Mathematical Problem 
Solving. New York: Academic Press. 

Sethole, G. (2003). Meaningful contexts and dead 
mock reality: Experiences in black and white 
Mathematics classrooms. Paper presentation, 
Conference of the Learner’s Perspective Study, 
international research team, December 1-3. 
University of Melbourne. 

Smith, A. (2004). Making Mathematics Count: The 
report of Professor Adrian Smith's Inquiry into 
Post-14 mathematics education. London: 
Department for Education and Science. 



Mathematical Literacy – mathematics and/or literacy: what is being sought? 
 

 84 

Steen, L.A. (2001). The case for quantitative 
literacy. In National Council on Education and 
the Disciplines & L. A. Steen (Eds.), 
Mathematics and Democracy (pp 1-22). 
Washington D.C.: The Mathematical 
Association of America. 

Stein, M.K., Smith, M.S., Henningsen, M.A. & 
Silver, E.A. (2000). Implementing standards-
based instruction: a casebook for professional 
development. New York: Teachers College 
Press. 

Walsh, C.E. (1991). Literacy as Praxis: A 
framework and an introduction. In C.E. Walsh 
(Ed.), Literacy as Praxis: Culture, language 
and pedagogy (pp 1-22). New Jersey: Ablex 
Publishing Corporation. 

 

 

Appendix 1. Overhead transparency detailing Body Mass Index (BMI) information 
(photocopied by Freddy from the Teacher Guide, Department of Education: 
2006, 25).