DOI: 10.

2478/dcse-2020-0021

Discourse and Communication for Sustainable Education,

vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 106ñ120, 2020

A Sustainable Way of
Teaching Basic Mathematics

Anita Summer
University Teacher College, Vienna/Krems, Austria

Abstract
Quality primary education is one of the 17 UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
Undoubtedly, mathematics plays a key role in overcoming future challenges, and
mathematical competence and problem-solving skills could help provide appropriate
solutions to current and future social, environmental and economic challenges. The
following paper deals with Sustainability in Basic Mathematics Education as a great
number of students experience anxiety in learning mathematics. The literature-based
research text explores the following question: How should a sustainable primary
education in mathematics be implemented and which concrete pedagogical initiatives
need to be taken? The present article addresses why some students encounter challenges
in learning mathematics at the beginning of their education in school. Moreover, it
demonstrates how competent teaching could decrease studentsí difficulties and in learning
mathematics.
Key words: sustainability, basic education in mathematics, primary school, didactics,
teacher training, arithmetic difficulties, dyscalculia.

The Role of Mathematics in Sustainable Education

Preparing individuals for future challenges must start in primary school by giving
them a solid foundation in mathematical skills and developing problem-solving and
critical thinking skills in pupils. An innovative approach is needed to help pupils encounter
everyday problems as well as to empower them to find novel and sustainable solutions
for key challenges of the current world (Akinmola, 2014; Guseva et al., 2012; Gerretson
et al., 2010).
To meet the demanding challenges of the future, society needs each and every one
of us. At the summit of the United Nations (2015), the ìAgenda 2030 for Sustainable
Developmentî was adopted. All 193 member states of the United Nations committed
themselves to working towards the implementation of Agenda 2030 with its 17 Sustain-
able Development Goals (SDGs) at national, regional and international level by 2030.
Education is an essential prerequisite for fulfilling the entire Agenda 2030. Consequently,
education plays a key role in creating an equitable, peaceful, and sustainable society.
The international community has set itself the goal ìto ensure inclusive, equal and high-
quality education and to promote opportunities for lifelong learning for allî (BMBWF,
 A Sustainable Way of Teaching Basic Mathematics 107

2019). Goal Four demands high quality education: By 2030, it is expected that all female
and male students complete free and high quality primary and secondary education on
an equal footing, leading to useful and effective learning outcomes (Bka, 2015; BMBWF,
2019; SalÓte & Pipere, 2016).
This implies a clear mandate for teachers as well as for teacher education because
ìall entrepreneurs of the future are in school today, the nature of their value-oriented
education and their willingness to participate is shaped by todayís learningî (Lindner,
2019, p. 124).
The field of mathematics in particular plays a key role in meeting future challenges.
Thanks to mathematics, ìperceived correlationsî can be turned into statistically validated
correlations, or hypotheses could be rejected. Due to its universal acceptance, mathematics
has the possibility to scientifically substantiate the debate on sustainable development
and global sustainability and to structure complex processes in an understandable way.
Mathematical competence and problem-solving skills form an essential basis for mastering
future challenges.
Since decisions are made based on data in the contemporary era, it is important for
learners to develop and strengthen skills in mathematics. These skills are essential for
education and training and significantly affect future employability and career choices.
Employers seek employees who are proficient in mathematics, because of their problem-
solving skills. In addition to economic benefits, mathematics is also deemed as a tool to
promote social values and democratic principles, such as equality and justice. On the
one hand, democracy demands a means of communication and discussing principles in
a rational way, and mathematics with its close relationship with rationality helps achieve
democracy. On the other hand, democracy demands operational procedures for its concrete
implementation, and mathematics also facilitates this (Safford-Ramus et al., 2016).
However, a great number of pupils find mathematics a highly challenging subject.
At the beginning of their education in school mathematics is deemed as subject requiring
a multitude of drills which is difficult for most of pupils to understand. This fact is
supported by numerous studies: ìFear of mathematics is dominant compared to other
subjects and joy is relatively seldom experienced. Overall, an unfavorable pattern is
emerging for mathematics from an emotional perspectiveî (Gˆtz, 2012, p. 2). The connec-
tion between fear of failure in mathematics and low achievement is confirmed especially
for girls (Weber & Petermann, 2016).
Adults often do not understand why some children find it difficult to take their
ìfirst stepsî into mathematics or arithmetic. These children already fail in the basic
range of numbers and therefore hardly gain a sustainable understanding of mathematics.
Statements such as ìwhy donít you understand this, itís quite logical. Strive harder, you
can do itî (Selter, 2012, p. 1) are not only pedagogically useless, but also show that the
difficulties and hurdles of the subject are not understood by adults.
It is difficult for children to make up for basic insights, and, as a result, learners
often carry out procedures that they do not understand and give up on understanding
content and exploring correlations. ìThey sometimes use formulas and algorithms that
they do not understand and if they do not remember, they are not able to find solutions
in other waysî (Sch¸tky et al., 2017, p. IV). These children are deprived of a lot of
interesting and necessary knowledge of mathematics and possibilities to apply problem-
solving strategies as well as many career aspirations associated with this. In line with
the ìSDG fourî or all SDGs, it must therefore be the goal of teachers to support children
 108 Anita Summer

in acquiring sustainable basic mathematical skills following the childrenís train of

thoughts and to accompany them in the acquisition of the first basic mathematical
concepts, which comes with as much understanding as possible.
This article aims to answer the following research question on the basis of a literature
analysis: How should a sustainable mathematical primary education be implemented
and which concrete pedagogical initiatives need to be taken? It is shown how children
with numeracy difficulties think. It will be presented that what seems so difficult to
them in their initial mathematics lessons; and, above all, that these children are by no
means stupid or unwilling, but use quite reasonable ways and structures of thinking.
Furthermore, it will be demonstrated that didactic practices that have been in use for
years can encourage the development of useless patterns of thought and explanation. In
order to prevent possible arithmetic difficulties, a literature-driven approach is presented
to show how initial mathematical instruction needs to be implemented in kindergarten
and school. This requires a sound knowledge of possible hurdles and difficulties that
may arise in mathematical lessons. However, it is by no means the authorís intention to
give ìrecipesî; at best, the ideas should be understood as possible alternatives for action,
which have to be individually adapted to the learning process of each child. This paper
does not claim that arithmetic difficulties or dyscalculia (i.e., a condition that affects
the ability to acquire arithmetical skills) can be prevented in every single case, because
dyscalculia is based on multi-causal factors. The teacher has no influence on many of
them. Nonetheless, the aim of sustainable education in mathematics should certainly be
to develop a deeper understanding of children with dyscalculia and to become aware of
the pedagogical responsibility concerning the first mathematics lessons in order to make
a significant contribution to fulfill the ìSDG fourî goals.

Mathematics as a Living Science

Mathematics is seen as a living science of patterns and structures. Teaching is not
based on fixed structures, but on individual and social processes. Only these processes
lead to mathematical knowledge. They are based on self-directed learning, and making
mistakes is inevitable. Lessons should be drawn from these mistakes in the discussion
with other learners, which is essential for learning. In line with the new concept of
mathematics, currently learning is no longer understood as building a wall according to
a given plan, strictly avoiding gaps, but as the continuous creating a net of elements of
knowledge and skillsî (M¸ller & Wittmann, 2016, p. 158). A child has ìunderstoodî
a mathematical concept or procedure when he/she has made connections with ideas
that have already existed in his/her mind. The more numerous and stronger these con-
nections are to already established nets, the more deeply the new content is anchored. It
is therefore essential to establish links between different presentations, ideas and
applications (Gerster & Schulz, 2004).
While just a few decades ago the emphasis in lessons was on rapid and time-saving
calculation procedures, a shift of paradigm has taken place, prompted by the omnipresent
pocket calculator on the mobile phone. Today it is essential for training in the concept
of numbers and to promote and train mental arithmetic, rough calculations and a relational
mode of thinking (Hefendehl-Hebereker & Schwank, 2015). This constitutes a significant
contribution for applying mathematics in everyday situations and thus to achieving
ìSDG fourî.
 A Sustainable Way of Teaching Basic Mathematics 109

The following chapter will show which steps children usually take when developing
their first mathematical concepts in order to finally be able to classify the missing
competences or misinterpretations in children with dyscalculia.

Basics in the Range of Numbers up to Ten

Counting is often the childrenís first contact with the world of numbers and forms
the transition between the implicit quantitative knowledge that children have already
acquired in their environment and the explicit quantitative knowledge that is taught in
school (Walter, 2014). The normal development of informal skills of arithmetic takes
place from birth to kindergarten age and beyond. During this time, children reach various
ìmilestonesî that can be divided into three levels of competence and reflect the increasing
understanding of the connections between quantities and numbers:
Competence Level I: Development of basic numerical skills related to the concept
of quantity, the correct sequence of numbers and the counting procedure.
Competence Level II: Acquisition of awareness of the quantity of numbers: The
sequence of numbers gains quantitative meaning, first in an imprecise number concept
(little-much-very much), finally in a precise number concept (linking the sequence of
numbers with an exact sequence of quantities).
Competence Level III: Understanding relationships between numbers (partial-whole-
concept) (Krajewski, 2008).
Counting is thus considered a central competence for the arithmetical learning
process and forms an essential foundation for later mathematical understanding. ìQuan-
titative and numerical prior knowledge can be seen as the most significant specific
informal skill with regard to mathematical competences in the first two years of primary
schoolî (Werner, 2009, p. 112). Longitudinal studies among kindergarten children
confirm that quantity and number-related prior knowledge has a decisive influence on
the later performance in primary school mathematics lessons (Gerretson, 2010; Kra-
jewski, 2003; 2008; Walter, 2014).
Hasemann and Gasteiger (2014) also emphasize the ability of ìsubitizingî (p. 17),
the simultaneous acquisition of up to four or five elements by three or four-year-olds.
The successful counting process can be described by the counting principles described
by Gelmann and Galistel in 1978:
1. The one-to-one/unambiguous principle: one numeral is assigned to each object
to be counted.
2. The stable-order principle: The series of numerals has a fixed order.
3. The cardinal principle: The last named numeral indicates the number of
elements of a set (ìhow-to-count principlesî).
4. The abstraction principle: The way objects are to be counted is arbitrary.
5. The order-irrelevance principle: The respective arrangement of the objects to
be counted is not important for the counting result (ìwhat-to-count principlesî)
(Schipper, 2009, p. 75).
Hasemann (2003) presents a different model of counting competence which distin-
guishes five levels:
1. String level: The word order is recited mechanically like a poem. The numerals
have no cardinal meaning.
 110 Anita Summer

2. Unbreakable chain level: At the age of about 3.5 to 4 years, children use
numerals in the correct order, but counting errors occur, for example, objects
are counted twice or an object is assigned to each syllable of a numeral.
3. Breakable chain level: If random items are counted, children at about 4.5
years of age, start arranging the items while counting, for example, by pushing
the items that have already been counted aside.
4. Numerable chain level: At the age of about 5 years, children know that each
item is counted only once and that the latter number indicates the number of
items of the set.
5. Bidirectional chain level: From about 5.5 to 6 years of age, children recognize
cube pictures. Counting forwards is no longer only possible starting from one
and counting backwards is also possible. With the help of counting strategies,
the first word problems in mathematics can be solved (Hasemann & Gasteiger,
2014; Schipper, 2009).
Last but not least, various aspects concerning the concept of numbers are pointed
out. To begin with, children develop the cardinal number aspect, which describes the
number of elements of the set. The cardinal number aspect includes the counting number
aspect (the sequence of natural numbers while counting) and the ordinal number aspect
(indicates the position in the ranking of an item in an ordered sequence). Other aspects
like the size units aspect, operator aspect (describes the multiplicity of objects), arithmetic
number aspect (numbers are used for arithmetic operations) and coding aspect (telephone
numbers, post codes) only gain an importance over time (Hasemann & Gasteiger, 2014).
All the models, developmental stages and especially the age indications mentioned
are subject to changes in individual child development and can only serve as a rough
guideline. The following chapter will show which difficulties children can encounter
even when dealing with apparently very basic mathematical content.

ìWhat Can Be so Hard about That?î

ìOne two three four five six seven eight nine ten.î Children learn this catchy phrase,
for example, when playing hide-and-seek, but without necessarily linking it to mathematics.
As for the first approach, it is rather a period of time that one has to wait before one can
start looking for playmates. Day by day, children realize that these are individual words
and that they can be assigned to different objects.
The mathematician, Herrndorf (2005), recalls her first encounter with numbers as
follows: ìI soon understood the five correctly: ëFiveí, that is my little finger (of the left
hand, of course, because I needed the right hand for counting). At school, I was then
supposed to take two off this finger ñ my own five. How should I take two off my little
finger? Later I had to split my little finger ñ the five. I still donít want to think about
how to split one finger.î Herrndorf (2005) also refers to the game ìMensch-ƒrgere-
Dich-Nichtî (Ludo) to illustrate her way of counting as follows: ìthe others did not
agree with my moving the tokens. I wanted to count the field I was standing on as well.
When I noticed that their way of moving was faster, I did the same. Going faster canít
be wrong.î
Children often begin to accompany routine procedures or activities, such as walking
over tiles or stepping stones with counting words. The author of this article also recalls
a question that she could not answer at the age of about four: there were exactly eight
 A Sustainable Way of Teaching Basic Mathematics 111

large stepping stones along the access path to her parentsí house. If one walked towards
the house, ìeightî was right at the entrance, but if one walked away from the house,
ìeightî was at the garden fence. The parents just did not want to believe that there
were twice ìeightî stones in their front yard.
F., the authorís younger son, was a persistent ìstep counterî when he was about
three years of age: ìOne ñ two ñ three ñ four ñ five ñ six ñ seven ñ eight ñ nine ñ tenî.
The author recognized the above mentioned ìsyllable trapî (ìasynchronous countingî,
according to Hasemann (2003) at ìsevenî. Later his range of numbers expanded to
about 30, and an interesting conversation ensued one day: Together we were ìcountingî,
but already in a hurry, on the way to a doctorís appointment. F.ís order of counting was
particularly faulty and incomplete: ìMum, did you notice that I left out some numbers?î
ñ ìYes, but it doesnít matter.î ñ ìI did it on purpose, Mom, to get us faster there!î
Perhaps some readers will remember such anecdotes from their own childhood or
from observing children. At least one thing becomes clear that children think differently
from adults, and the logic of children is not always quite correct, but it is still remarkable
and considerate (Spiegel & Selter, 2015). In any case, despite the good will and the
efforts on behalf of the teachers and learners, mathematics offers ample opportunities
for misunderstandings and misinterpretations.

Enhancing Misunderstandings and Misconceptions

Sometimes common pedagogical practices even enhance childrenís misconceptions.
Some of the pedagogical practices are as follows though the list is not exhaustive: Small-
step notion of numbers and understanding ordinal numbers.
In very young children, misconceptions occur when they develop a pattern of ordinal
numbers only. This idea is supported by the way the range of numbers is structured in
most current textbooks: the first school year starts by dealing with small ranges of
number up to four (simultaneous understanding), up to five (using the hand) or up to
six (using the cube). Gradually (number by number) the range of numbers up to ten is
introduced.
Usually, additive arithmetic operations are already being performed in these small
ìartificialî ranges of numbers. This procedure follows the ìprinciple of small stepsî
and is intended to avoid asking too much of the children. Wilhelm Grube (1816ñ1884)
serves as a historic example. He proposed to treat numbers ìmonographicallyî, that is
number by number in their natural order from one to one hundred (Schipper et al., 2017).
This small-step approach tempts us to think in wrong or misleading ways and reinforces
the childrenís idea of numbers as having a rank in an infinite series of numbers. The
number seven, for example, is not used to understand seven as the entire quantity, but
rather, for example, the seventh stone in a row or the index finger of the left hand. This
can lead to subsequent problems when expanding the number range, because the small-
step structure makes it difficult to understand the decadic structure (i.e., decimal structure)
and the relationships between the numbers (Scherer & Moser Opitz, 2010).
Put yourself in the shoes of a child who thinks like this: The range of numbers was
built up in small steps, and up to number 5 the child still had a good ìgripî on all additions
and subtractions as they are practically in front of him/her on one hand. Now the range
of numbers has been further expanded with the new number ì6î, seven ìnewî possibi-
lities to split are added (0+6, 1+5, 2+4, 3+3, 4+2, 5+1, 6+0). With the number ì7î,
 112 Anita Summer

there are eight more possibilities to split and additionally finger calculations become
more complicated because one needs both hands to calculate. Some children find this
range of numbers quite challenging and become anxious because some classmates are
able to solve the calculations much faster than them. In this situation, the motivated
teacher might state that ìchildren, isnít this great? We now already know the numbers
up to 7 ñ but thatís not the end ñ because the numbers go on infinitely. The world of
numbers is infinite!î. It is understandable that some children cannot see anything positive
in this news. ìIf I have problems right now, how am I going to manage future challenges?
Now I know why Dad keeps saying our family is bad at math.î
The idea of an ordinal structure (number as a rank in an infinite series of numbers)
is also reinforced by counting on your fingers, which is common in our culture. We
usually start counting with the thumb of the left hand (ì1î). Step by step, the individual
fingers are bent back ñ the index finger is ì2î, the middle finger ì3î, etc. Thus, for
example, for the child the index finger of the left hand represents the number ì7î. It
would be much better to present ìfinger packagesî to the children when ìpre-countingî,
that is after pointing a finger (ì1î), bend it back and make a fist. At ì2î, both fingers
are stretched out simultaneously in one movement, but then both fingers are bent back
into a fist again. This process should be continued like this up toî10". This slightly
different way of counting emphasizes the entirety of the bent fingers more strongly. ì7î
is then no longer the newly added index finger, but the entirety of the stretched out
seven fingers. Likewise, ì7î is then to be shown, for example, as three plus four with
both hands (Gaidoschik, 2018).
If a child thinks in purely ordinal terms, it is understandable that, for example, the
prompt to count ì7 minus 3î is met with incomprehension: ìThe index finger of the
right hand minus the middle finger of the left hand? How is that possible?î The advice
given by adults, that is, ìyou only have to count backwardsî only exacerbates the problem.
So the child starts counting backwards from 7: ìSeven, six, five ñ the result is 5!î But
seven minus three is not five. The adult who has good intentions may continue to ìexplainî:
ìNo, you canít count that last number.î So the kid ìreckonsî: ìSix, five, four ñ the
result is four.î The adult is pleased that the child has now ìunderstoodî the calculation ñ
the child has learned a rule without understanding it. With the help of this strategy he
or she will in the future be able to solve all calculations correctly in small ranges of
numbers without knowing what he/she is actually doing. If it comes to the worst, the
childís understanding is never verified, and until the range of numbers is expanded into
the hundreds, the childís lack of understanding of the operation goes unnoticed. However,
at least in the range of one hundred, this strategy reaches its limits ñ who would like to
solve 74 minus 37 counting backwards?

Problems Understanding Place Value

As a result of having only an understanding of ordinal numbers, problems arise with
the meaning of place value. ìTenî is not perceived as a special feature, but is only a
number like many others in an ìinfinite series of numbersî. If one now asks the child:
ìWhat comes first, 13 or 16î, he is not able to see the analogy to 3 and 6, but must
recite the numbers up to 16 to be able to answer the question. This would be comparable
to the question: ìWhat comes first: N or K?î Here many adults also recite the part of
 A Sustainable Way of Teaching Basic Mathematics 113

the alphabet (ìK ñ L ñ M ñ Nî) to be able to answer the question. By the way, this is no
cause for concern because the alphabet does not have an ìinner orderî like our decimal
system.
For children who do not recognize essential correlations (analogies, the commutative
law) when counting, every calculation must be ìcountedî again and again. Therefore,the
process of automatizing extremely slows down. This means that the gap between children
who have understood the decadic basics (the decimal structure inherent in our system)
and the ìcountersî is widening.
Bundling tens and ones, which in the German language is made even more difficult
by the fact that the numbers are pronounced in the opposite direction to the reading
direction is not clear to these children when counting. For example, children do not
recognize 35 as a grouping of 3 tens and 5 ones, but they consider it as a point in the
infinite number sequence. This lack of understanding is also evident, for example, in the
task: ìWhat is bigger ñ 29 or 32?î Children answer spontaneously that 29 is bigger
because it contains a 9.

Linguistic Misunderstandings
In contrast to everyday language, which can often only be understood correctly in
the respective situation and within the given frame of reference (for example, ìmy little
brotherî ñ meaning ìmy younger brotherî), the language used in lessons is characterized
by specific features. It is generally valid, precise, unambiguous and understandable regard-
less of the situation. Children have to acquire several hundred mathematical technical
terms already in primary school and should be able to make abstract, generally valid,
depersonalized statements (ìIn an addition, both summands can be swapped.î) (Verboom,
2013). This subject-specific language serves as foreign language and is full of pitfalls
and potential misunderstandings.
If a teacher writes the numbers 3 and 5 on the blackboard and wants to know from
the children which number is larger, the typeface of the 3 is a little bit bigger than that
of the 5, so for visual learners the 3 is larger. Therefore, the actual solution is confusing
for these children. The same could happen to children with even and odd numbers. The
1 is even in the typeface, while the 2 is odd. ìHalf of 8î can also be answered as follows:
3 or even 0.

Use of Didactic Materials

The use of materials is often automatically equated with ìgoodî teaching. Educators
are surprised that children do not achieve the desired success: ìWe have always used
didactic materialî.
Dealing with material does not automatically foster understanding. On the contrary,
incorrect use of materials can even reinforce erroneous ways of thinking. Unstructured
materials like chestnuts, glass nuggets, or marbles can be used to train counting. However,
they are not suitable for arithmetic operations. Adding 17 chestnuts to 42 chestnuts
does not support the understanding of the operation and is a pure counting exercise.
The ìcalculation chainsî recommended in some kindergarten manuals (i.e., chains with
up to one hundred beads on which calculations can be ìmovedî) are also not conducive
to understanding the structure of the operation.
 114 Anita Summer

But even appropriate material following the rules of the decimal system (one cube,
tens bars, hundred plates...) does not guarantee understanding among children. It is
essential that children think, while they are looking at the material and handling it, to
ultimately draw abstract conclusions. This can be encouraged by asking specific questions.
ìNumbers as well as arithmetic operations are nothing that can be ìseenî or ìgraspedî:
They must be thought and understoodî (Gaidoschik, 2018, p. 43).

Challenges for Sustainable Mathematics

Whereas a few decades ago the focus was still on the rapid processing of arithmetical
problems, and automated ìpracticeî was seen as a desirable means of success. In recent
decades, substantial attention has been paid to the thinking processes of children and
related problematic areas that arise in initial mathematical lessons. As a result of doing
research with children with arithmetic difficulties, the focus of attention in up-to-date
didactics is on understanding arithmetic and getting detached from counting processes.
Counting arithmetic is an important strategy before and at the beginning of the first
school year and is completely adequate. Initially all children are counting calculators.
ìThe question, however, is why some of them remain that wayî (Selter, 2011, p. 3).
Counting arithmetic is to be replaced by the far more effective and comprehension-
based comparative arithmetic (Gaidoschik, 2018; Schipper, 2017). According to
Gaidoschik (2010), ìfor years, there has been agreement on this approach in the didactics
of mathematics, the science of learning and the teaching of mathematicsî (p. 212).
Memory recall is a strategy of a non-counting arithmetic approach: The child has
already ìmemorizedî by heart that 3 plus 4 equals 7.
Another form is the so-called ìdeductionî strategy: The child does not know 3
plus 4, but has already memorized the calculation 3 plus 3 (doublings are usually
memorized more easily). With 3 plus 4 he/she thinks: If 3 plus 3 equals six, then 3 plus
4 must be one more, so 3 plus 4 equals seven. The prerequisite for a non-numerical
procedure is a comprehensive concept of numbers, an understanding of relationships
between numbers, and an understanding of addition and subtraction based on this
(understanding of operations) (Selter, 2011).
Derivative arithmetic should be specifically promoted in the first-year mathematics
lessons, because it is disadvantageous for children if they are stuck too long in counting
arithmetic: Counting is error-prone, laborious, spoils the pleasure of dealing with numbers
in the long run and makes it more difficult to recognize structures of numbers and corre-
lations between calculations. In other words, ìit blocks childrenís access to the mathema-
tical aspects of calculatingî (Gaidoschik, 2016, p. 1).
This leads to the question of how widespread counting arithmetic or deductive
arithmetic is actually used in the first year of school. In Gaidoschik, Fellmann and
Guggenbichlerís (2010) study conducted in Austria, the calculation strategies of 139
randomly selected children from 20 randomly selected primary schools in Lower Austria
were assessed. Only about 33 percent of the interviewed children had learned counting
arithmetic at the end of the first school year. At the end of the first school year, about
27 percent had solved more than two thirds of the tasks in the range numbers up to 10
by counting. The question arises as to whether the expectations of the subject specific
didactics were too high or whether the poor result is due to the specific teaching. It is
noticeable that the teaching in the classes examined followed closely the respective text-
 A Sustainable Way of Teaching Basic Mathematics 115

books and these did not give the children any ideas for deductive arithmetic (Gaidoschik,
Fellmann, & Guggenbichler, 2015).
Another study by the same scientists, which was carried out in selected Carinthian
primary schools in cooperation with the University of Klagenfurt and the University
College of Teacher Education of Carinthia, provides clear evidence that teaching is
indeed a key factor in the childrenís acquiring arithmetic strategies. The arithmetic
strategies of 71 first-graders in classes where special emphasis was placed on developing
and practicing deduction were surveyed in face-to-face interviews. The childrenís teachers
had previously taken part in intensive training sessions in order to lead children away
from counting arithmetic already in the first school year. Results of the study clearly
show that a change in teaching has an extremely positive influence on the childrenís
arithmetic strategies. In two out of the four classes examined, counting arithmetic in
the range of numbers up to 10 was no longer used at the end of the school year. The
children were able to do most of the tasks in this range of numbers by heart, in some
cases deductions were made (usually very quickly). In the other two classes, the proportion
of children who had left counting arithmetic completely behind them was lower (63
and 44 percent respectively). In these classes there were only three children (out of 46)
for whom counting was still the predominant method of arithmetic (Gaidoschik, Fell-
mann, & Guggenbichler, 2015).
The results of literary research clearly show that an up-to-date mathematical first-
year teaching makes a significant contribution to a sustainable mathematical understanding,
reaching far beyond primary school. It is therefore an extremely urgent goal to adapt
mathematics education in the first school year to these current literature-based findings
and to focus on this desideratum in teacher training as well as in further education and
training. Last but not least, it is necessary to provide teachers with suitable textbooks
which are based on the results of these research findings.
Young people who are currently attending school will have to be able to cope with
serious ecological, economic and social problems in the future. This requires not only entre-
preneurial spirit and knowledge of the development of children but also practical skills.
The following chapter offers exemplary procedures in basic mathematics education.

Proposals for Working with the Range of Numbers Up to Ten

Counting is seen as a prerequisite for mathematical processes. Kindergarten and
primary school children have very diverse previous experiences with counting. For counting,
the childís environment is more suitable than for any other subject. Children are surrounded
by things that can be counted. Nevertheless, counting in the school context very often
takes place in the iconic form, i.e. in the textbook or on a worksheet. Most textbooks
also start with a so-called ìcounting pageî, on which ìstrokesî are to be made for
objects shown (Schipper et al., 2017). Of course, there is nothing to be said against this,
but before that activity it would be more appealing for children to count concrete things.
In this way, the natural need for moving around of the very young children can be met.
It is essential that the teacher observes the childrenís activities. This allows the teacher
to diagnose the childrenís performance, based on their background knowledge about
the average development of counting and counting skills of children as presented at the
beginning of this article. This diagnosis allows for rapid intervention and additional
support if necessary.
 116 Anita Summer

For simple action-based exercises, according to Walter (2014), Gaidoschik (2018),

and Schipper et al. (2017), the teacher needs larger quantities of the same objects. These
can be glass nuggets, wire balls, buttons, even foam rubber flowers in appealing boxes.
At the beginning only up to ten (identical) objects in each category suffice. For children
who can already count safely in larger ranges of numbers, appropriate boxes are prepared
for the respective range of numbers.
— Alone or with a partner, children take a box, empty it and determine the number.
The control could be done by the second child or by strokes (in a fiver structure) on
the bottom of the box. The teacher has the possibility to observe the counting
strategies of the children.
ìAt what level of counting competence according to Hasemann (2003) is the
child?î
— Counting should be experienced as something exciting: A number of things are put
into a counting box. The children are allowed to pick up the box, but not to open
it. ìWho can give the best estimate?î The winner poses the next ìriddleî.
ìPrecise number conceptî according to Krajewski (2008).
— On paper plates, pictures with dots (later also numbers) are given out. Children set
out the same number of materials as seen on the plate. Whether only materials of
the same kind are used or whether different materials are used is a point of discussion.
ìAbstraction principleî according to Gelmann and Galistel (1978).
— The children have the paper plates with a certain number of materials in front of
them. They close their eyes. A ìwitchî (teacher, later children) changes the quantities.
The change is discussed (ìone more... one less... same amountî).
ìCompetence level IIIî according to Krajewski (2008).
— In front of the children, a number of items is placed in a box. Now the box is shaken
strongly. ìHow many things are in the box now?î A discussion whether the number
has changed follows. Cognition: ìI have added nothing to it and taken nothing
away. The quantity remains the same.î
ìInvariance principleî according to Gelmann and Galistel (1978).
— The children are shown different cards with dots in different arrangements (for
example, in a cube arrangement, in fives, in a line or jumbled). ìWhich numbers
can you identify at a glance? Why?î It is discussed which arrangement is advanta-
geous for quick recognition and where you have to count.
ìSubitizingî according to Hasemann and Gasteiger (2014); ìOne-one principle
after Gelmann and Galistel (1978).
— The children are to master challenging counting tasks: for example, objects are
arranged in a circle and the teacher makes a counting mistake. ìWhy did a mistake
happen?î When the objects are put in a straight line, you can count them easily.
But the question is: ìHow many are there when you start counting from the other
side?î or when the position of the objects is changed in front of the childrenís eyes
(not the number): ìHow many are there now?î
 A Sustainable Way of Teaching Basic Mathematics 117

Order-irrelevance principle according to Gelmann and Galistel (1978).

— A small puppet can be used to practice counting forwards and backwards. It is
passed on from child to child. If the puppet faces the child, this means: counting
forwards. If the puppet is turned around, counting backwards is required. For
children who do not yet have a sufficient command of the language of instruction,
the following game can be carried out: at the beginning, all the children stand up,
they count out loud one by one. Child number ten must sit down (but continues to
count out loud without being counted himself/herself). The winner is the last child
to stand. The winner is therefore determined randomly, the children do the counting
up to ten with great pleasure.
ìBidirectional chain levelî ñ level 5 according to Hasemann (2003).
Exercises of this kind enable the children to have a fun-oriented, differentiated
introduction to mathematics and they form the basis for further sustainable development
of mathematical skills. Once the counting to ten has been successfully accomplished,
further comprehension-based exercises can be continued in the range of numbers up to
ten with a holistic approach.

Conclusion
Teachers play an essential key role in teaching sustainable mathematics and therefore
bear great responsibility for the success of the SDGs. Up-to-date mathematics teaching
requires teachers to have a profound knowledge of mathematics, didactic knowledge,
and an awareness of possible difficulties. Teachers are expected to present mathematics
in ways that are likely to be different from how they themselves were taught (Safford-
Ramus et al., 2016).
Teachers become active co-designers of future generations through their activities.
(Summer, 2019). They create settings in which pupils can transfer mathematical under-
standing across varied contexts and settings. The student-centered mathematical tasks
allow children to develop an understanding of sustainability issues that enable them to
take positive action in their daily lives (Serow, 2015). As a consequence, teachers have
a key role in generating insight into the basics of sustainable development.
Quality education is at the heart of public interest and is perceived as an urgent
desideratum. For mathematics teaching, this means that the childrenís entry into the
world of mathematics must be made with the greatest care, great knowledge of content,
pedagogical skills, and diagnostic competence. Children have to be equipped with mathe-
matical skills already at an early stage of their school career which will enable them to
measure and evaluate sustainability in their lives.
Based on the competent mathematics teaching, much can be achieved in terms of
sustainable development and the SDG ìQuality Educationî. This is essential not only
for basic mathematics instruction, but for the entire school and professional career of
children. Clifford (1845ñ1879) pointed out the importance of childhood experiences in
this learning process and noted that ìmathematics is the gateway to science, and this
gateway is so narrow and small that you can only walk through it as a small childî.
 118 Anita Summer

References
Akinmola, E. A. (2014). Developing mathematical problem solving ability: A panacea
for a sustainable development in the 21th century. International Journal of Education
and Research. Retrieved from https://www.ijern.com/journal/February-2014/28.pdf
Bka ñ Bundeskanzleramt. (2015). Ziele der Agenda 2030 [Objectives of the Agenda
2030]. Retrieved from https://www.bundeskanzleramt.gv.at/themen/nachhaltige-
entwicklung-agenda-2030/entwicklungsziele-agenda-2030.html
BMBWF (2019). UN-Agenda 2030: Die globalen Nachhaltigkeitsziele/SDGs im Bereich
Bildung [UN Agenda 2030: The global sustainability goals/SDGs in education].
Retrieved from https://www.bmbwf.gv.at/Themen/euint/ikoop/bikoop/sdgs.html
Gaidoschik, M. (2010). Wie Kinder rechnen lernen ñ oder auch nicht [How children
learn to calculate ñ or maybe not]. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Gaidoschik, M. (2016). Aktuelle Studie: Vom Z‰hlen zum Rechnen [Actual study: From
counting to calculating]. Retrieved from http://www.recheninstitut.at/2016/10/
aktuelle-studie-vom-zaehlen-zum-rechnen/#more-1828
Gaidoschik, M. (2018). Rechenschw‰che verstehen ñ Kinder gezielt fˆrdern [Under-
standing of arithmetic impairment ñ supporting children]. Hamburg: Persen.
Gaidoschik, M., Fellmann, A., & Guggenbichler, S. (2015). Computing by counting in
first grade: It ainít necessarily so. In Proceedings of the Ninth Congress of the
European Society for Research in Mathematics Education CERME 9, Prague.
Retrieved from https://www.dropbox.com/sh/8ybnhniqp2r5zm7/AACvry0oJXp
JHfQsX3GdxzwIa?dl=0&preview=CERME9_TWG2_Gaidoschik_v2.pdf
Gerretson, H., Iliko, Dz., & Fortino, C., (2010). Sustaining self-regulated studentsí
learning through inquiry-driven mathematics and science instruction. Discourse
and Communication for Sustainable Education, 1(1), 5ñ22.
Gerster, H.-D., & Schulz, R. (2004). Schwierigkeiten beim Erwerb mathematischer
Konzepte im Anfangsunterricht [Difficulties in acquiring mathematical concepts in
basic lessons]. Freiburg im Breisgau. Retrieved from https://phfr.bsz-bw.de/
frontdoor/deliver/index/docId/16/file/gerster.pdf
Guseva, S., Dombrovskis, V., Muraovs, V., & Iliko, Dz. (2012). Sustainability-designed
learning environment for pre-school children: The case of Latvia. International
Journal of Early Childhood Learning, 19(4), 15ñ26.
Gˆtz, T. (2012). Langeweile im Fach Mathematik [Boredom in mathematics]. Vortrag
auf der 46. Tagung f¸r Didaktik der Mathematik [Lecture at the 46th Conference
for Didactics of Mathematics]. Weingarten. Retrieved from http://nbn-resolving.de/
urn:nbn:de:bsz:352-0-346011
Gˆtze, D. (2015). Sprachfˆrderung im Mathematikunterricht [Language support in
mathematics lessons]. Berlin: Cornelson.
Hasemann, K., & Gasteiger, H. (2014). Anfangsunterricht Mathematik [Initial mathe-
matics]. Heidelberg: Springer Spektrum.
Hefendehl-Hebereker, L., & Schwank, I. (2015). Arithmetik: Leitidee Zahl [Arithmetic:
Central idea of number]. In Bruder, R., Hefendehl-Hebereker, L., Schmidt-
Thieme, B., & Weingard, H. G. (Eds.), Handbuch der Mathematikdidaktik [Manual
of mathematical didactics]. Heidelberg: Springer Spektrum.
Krajewski, K. (2008). Vorschulische Fˆrderung bei beeintr‰chtigter Entwicklung mathe-
matischer Kompetenzen [Pre-school support for impaired development of mathema-
tical competences]. In Borchert, J., Hartke, B., & Jogschies P. (Eds.), Fr¸he Fˆrderung
 A Sustainable Way of Teaching Basic Mathematics 119

entwicklungsauff‰lliger Kinder und Jugendlicher [Early support for children and

young people with developmental problems]. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.
Lindner, J. (2018). Entrepreneurship education for a sustainable future. Discourse and
Communication for Sustainable Education, 9(1), 115ñ127.
Moser Opitz, E. (2008). Z‰hlen-Zahlbegriff-Rechnen [Counting-number concept-calcu-
lation]. Bern Stuttgart Wien: Haupt Verlag.
Safford-Ramus, K., Kumar Misra, K., & Maguire, T. (2016). The troika of adult learners,
lifelong learning, and mathematics. Hamburg: Springer.
SalÓte, I. (2008). Educational action research for sustainability: Constructing a vision
for the future in teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education for Sustainability,
10, 5ñ16.
SalÓte, I., & Pipere, A. (2006). Aspects of sustainable development from the perspective
of teachers. Journal of Teacher Education and Training, 6, 15ñ32.
Scherer, P., & Moser Opitz, E. (2010). Fˆrdern im Mathematikunterricht der Primarstufe
[Support in mathematics lessons at primary level]. Heidelberg: Springer.
Schipper, W., Ebelin, A., & Drˆge, R. (2017). Handbuch f¸r den Mathematikunterricht,
1. Schuljahr [Handbook for the teaching of mathematics, 1st grade]. Braunschweig:
Westermann.
Schipper, W. (2009). Handbuch f¸r den Mathematikunterricht an Grundschulen [Hand-
book for the teaching of mathematics in primary schools]. Braunschweig: Schroedel.
Serow P. (2015). Education for sustainability in primary mathematics education. In
Taylor, N., Quinn, F., & Eames, C. (Eds.), Educating for sustainability in primary
schools. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Selter, C. (2012). Pr‰vention von Rechenschwierigkeiten [Prevention of arithmetic diffi-
culties]. PIKAS. Dortmund. Retrieved from https://pikas.dzlm.de/pikasfiles/uploads/
upload/Material/Haus_3_-_Umgang_mit_Rechenschwierigkeiten/FM/Modul_3.1/
Sachinfos.pdf
Spiegel, H., & Selter, C. (2015). Kinder & Mathematik. Was Erwachsene wissen sollten
[Children & mathematics. What adults should know]. Seelze: Klett-Kallmeyer.
Summer, A. (2019). Entrepreneurship education in mathematics education for future
primary school teachers. Discourse and Communication for Sustainable Education,
10(2), 89ñ99.
Sch¸tky, R., Grasser, U., Haider, R., & Holzer, N. (2017). Fachwissenschaftliche Grund-
lagen der Primarstufenmathematik [Scientific principles of primary school mathe-
matics]. Graz: logomedia.
Verboom, L. (2013). ìMeine Kinder kˆnnen das nicht!î [My kids canít do that].
Grundschule Mathematik ñ Sprachfˆrderung [Journal for Primary School Mathe-
matics ñ Language Support], 39.
Walter, S. (2014). Matheabenteuer mit Lisa und Ali. Klasse 1. Lehrerband [Adventure
in mathematics with Lisa and Ali. Class level 1st. Teachers Edition]. Hamburg:
Auer.
Weber, H., & Petermann, F. (2016). Der Zusammenhang zwischen Schulangst, Schulun-
lust, Anstrengungsvermeidung und den Schulnoten in den F‰chern Mathematik
und Deutsch [The connection between fear of school, unwillingness to go to school,
avoidance of effort and school grades in mathematics and German]. Zeitschrift f¸r
P‰dagogik [Journal for Pedagogy], 62(4), 551ñ570.
 120 Anita Summer

Werner, B. (2009). Dyskalkulie ñ Rechenschwierigkeiten. Diagnose und Fˆrderung

rechenschwacher Kinder an Grund- und Sonderschulen [Dyscalculia ñ arithmetic
difficulties. Diagnosis and promotion of children with dyscalculia in primary schools
and special schools]. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.
Wittmann, E. C., & M¸ller, G. N. (2016). Das Zahlenbuch 1. Begleitband [The numbers
book 1st. Companion volume]. Wien: ˆbv.

Correspondence relating this paper should be addressed to Anita Summer, University

Teacher College, Vienna/Krems, Austria. Email: [email protected]