Lidija Magajna

The Development of Early Numeracy in Europe

This article describes a limited longitudinal European study of young children’s early numeracy development within three testing cycles, onaverage, at the mid-point and towards the end of their fifth to sixth year and again at the mid-point of their sixth to seventh year. Assessment was carried out using the Utrecht Early Numeracy Test (ENT) (Van Luit, Van de Rijt and Pennings, 1994). The multilevel modelling method of analysis used for the study provided an extension of multiple regression to incorporate the hierarchical structure of the data collected, with boys and girls of different social-economic status, nested within different institutions within different countries. The results showed that the ENT was a useful tool for international comparison. The finding that differences between countrieswere negligible was surprising bearing in mind that the English pupils werein formal schooling throughout the testing cycle, the Belgian, German, Greek and Dutch children from the mid-point, and the Slovene children, not at all.

The development of numeracy in England and Slovenia

The Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) placed Slovene 9 year olds significantly above the international mean in mathematics and English 9 year olds significantly below. As the project to be described here shows, however, such findings can mask finer differences in numerical abilities and problem-solving which qualitative analysis can reveal. While performance in arithmetic tasks of English 6 year olds was superior to Slovene pre-schoolers of the same age, at 7 years Slovene pupils had caught up and between 8 and 11 years forged ahead. By contrast, Slovene pupils were not quite so successful at problem-solving tasks in comparison with the English sample. Possible improvements, in the first place, might be obtained by a careful synthesis of curricula and instructional strategies but is this too simple a solution? A major goal of this paper will be to provide insight into the limitations of large-scale international studies and research methodologies as well as advocate qualitative approaches which, if not challenging such studies certainly complement and enrich them by setting out to answer another set of research questions. This paper also raises important questions about cultural differences which influence the aims and philosophy of education both directly and indirectly.