matics scheme’ (Millet and Johnson, cited in Maclellan, 2001, p. 76).
The recommendations for teachers in the Foundation Stage (QCA, 2000) and for
primary teachers (QCA,1999) are not reflected in our research findings. Currently
teachers are unsure how they might put recommendations about children’s written
methods – particularly for children between the ages of 3 and 7 years – into practice.
This is comparable to Zevenbergen’s (2002) concerns.Studies that relate to mathematical literacy
We had been thrilled to trace the development of young children’s early literacy in our
own classrooms for many years. A growing body of literature had supported our teach-
ing and our understanding of children’s development. Some of these studies explored
children’s writing and reading from a teaching perspective, linking theory and practice;
for example, Holdaway’s The Foundations of Literacy(1979), Cambourne’s The Whole
Story (1988), Smith’s Writing and the Writer (1982) and Hall’s The Emergence of Literacy
(1987). Others such as Bissex’s (1980) mother–child study explored a child’s natural
development in the home. Whilst there are too many to mention here, an earlier and
very influential book that stands out for many teachers is Clay’s What did I Write?(1975)
in which she documented the development in ‘understanding written codes’. Bringing
the subject up to date is Barratt-Pugh and Rohl’s book Literacy Learning in the Early Years
(2000) which includes chapters from different authors on the socio-cultural aspects of
literacy learning and critical literacies. It was this powerful range of texts that pro-
vided the foundation for us to consider an additional ‘literacy’ – of mathematics.
When in 1990 we began to explore children’s development of their mathematical
literacy, there was very little published on this aspect of teaching and learning, com-
pared with the wealth of books and articles on children’s early writing. Only one text
explored this question in depth. In his study, Children and Number: Difficulties in
Learning Mathematics, Hughes (1986) highlighted the gap that exists between chil-
dren’s early marks and drawing at home and the abstract symbolism and language
of school mathematics: this difficulty had earlier been noted by Ginsburg (1977) and
Allardice (1977). In an experiment that is now familiar to many teachers as ‘the tins
game’, Hughes demonstrated the way in which 3- and 4-year-olds could represent
numerals in personal ways which they could later ‘read’. He also included a small
number of graphical responses of addition and subtraction calculations from chil-
dren of 5–8 years. Hughes’s research appears to have influenced the writers of offi-
cial curriculum documents in England (see for example QCA, 1999; 2000). However,
as our study shows, Hughes’s influence on teaching has sadly been sparse.
Whitin, Mills and O’Keefe argue that a ‘true mathematical literacy must originate not
from a methodology, but from a theory of learning: one that views mathematics not as
a series of formulas, calculations, or even problem-solving techniques, but as a way of
knowing and learning about the world’ (Whitin, Mills and O’Keefe, 1990, p. 170).
In 1995 in a chapter entitled ‘Emergent mathematics or how to help young children
become confident mathematicians’, Whitebread discussed Hughes’s work, asserting
‘what is clear is that children cannot be encouraged to use new strategies very effec-Who takes notice of children’s own ‘written’ mathematics? 98657part 1b.qxd 04/07/2006 18:05 Page 9