Students transitioning from primary to secondary mathematics learning: a study combining critical pedagogy, living theory and participatory action research

ABSTRACT

The connections between critical pedagogy, living theory and participatory action research (PAR) are discussed to explore their combined strength for empowering students, positively impacting on their attitudes towards their mathematics learning and creating social change in their primary-secondary mathematics transitions. This transition is recognised as creating social inequalities which existing transition research has failed to resolve. The interpretation of critical pedagogy, living theory and PAR are described before a summary of their application in a small scale, two-year study in a British curriculum school in Muscat, Oman. Critical pedagogy combined with living theory and PAR provides the theoretical and methodological framework to empower the students epistemologically. This paper gives an example of how PAR with students was conducted within the framework of critical pedagogy theory and living theory methodology. This account provides a valuable reference for participatory action researchers. The paper concludes that the combination of critical pedagogy, living theory and PAR can empower students to create social change.

KEYWORDS:

• Living theory
• critical pedagogy
• Freire
• participatory action research
• mathematics
• transitions

Introduction

This paper discusses the potential in the interweaving of critical pedagogy theory with a methodology of living theory in this participatory action research (PAR). These three elements converged in the research study recounted here to explore the primary-secondary mathematics transitions in Muscat, Oman. This transition is established as being the site of social inequalities which existing transition research has not resolved and I set out to explore the impact of an alternative approach. The focus here is on the impact on the students’ confidence and sense of having a voice in their mathematics learning during this transition. In this paper, I recount how myself and 37 10 and 11-year-old students in Year 6 at a British curriculum international school in Muscat came together in PAR to explore the research question of how can we create more successful mathematics transitions to Year 7?

I first discuss the theoretical perspective of Freirean critical pedagogy which frames this research, set out the methodology of living theory and then detail the PAR conducted. This is followed by describing the development of living theory in this research to offer a valuable insight for action researchers. I then discuss how living theory was created in this two-year study. I conclude that the alliance of PAR conducted within a living theory methodology framed by critical pedagogy has a powerful potential for students’ social change.

Background information and literature review for the primary-secondary mathematics transition

A transition is the ‘moving from one environment and set of relationships to another’ (Sanders et al. 2005, 9) and, in the context of the primary-secondary mathematics transition, this is when ten and eleven-year-old students move from the final year of primary school, Year 6 (Y6) to their first year of secondary school Year 7 (Y7). Any transition involves change which can be challenging but this is an especially significant event in students’ lives with the ‘negative effects more pronounced for mathematics than for any other subject.’ (O’Meara et al. 2020, 497).

The findings of the large-scale, longitudinal mathematics study, Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) evidence the negative impact of transition on students’ attainment and attitudes in mathematics over the past twenty-four years. The most recent reports (2019, 2015) reiterated this unresolved trend of students experiencing difficulties in their mathematics learning post transition to secondary school. Transition and mathematics have been the subject of much research to explore ‘what we can do to remedy the situation.’ (Niss and Lester 2006, 1293). Despite this, reviews of transition literature universally acknowledge (Jindal‐Snape and Cantali 2020: van Rens et al. 2018) that the primary-secondary mathematics transition is unsuccessful for many, negatively impacting on students’ academic and development.

This primary-secondary transition coincides with students’ physical and emotional transition to adolescence which has ‘complicate(d) matters’ (Anderson et al, 2000, 326), resulting in speculation that students’ difficulties are connected to their own developmental changes rather than the transition. This has been dismissed by more recent research (van Rens et al. 2018; West, Sweeting, and Young 2010):

International data are consistent in revealing a ‘dip’ in attainment following transfer to secondary school, the significance of which is increased because it occurs at different ages in different educational systems, thereby making other explanations (e.g., pubertal onset) less likely (West, Sweeting, and Young 2010, 24)

It can, therefore, be concluded that the difficulties are ‘caused by the transition itself’ (van Rens et al. 2018, 45). To date, existing transition research and policy has not redressed the negative impact of transition. Hutchinson et al. (2018) report that the post-transition decline in academic attainment deepens throughout secondary school, concluding that present efforts to address ‘the gap at the end of secondary school would take over 100 years to close’ (2018, 11). Despite being the focus of research, the negative impact of the primary-secondary mathematics transition continues unabated, resulting in social inequalities since research concurs (van Rens et al. 2018) that students from lower SES backgrounds are more likely to experience pronounced declines in academic and emotional development following the transition.

This supports the further investigation using an alternative approach which empowers the students, as the PAR reported here which explores the research question: how can we create more successful mathematics transitions to Y7? The school at the centre of this research is a primary and secondary school in Muscat, Oman. The school follows the British curriculum and has a diverse, international student and teacher population. The plethora of data from international sources about the difficulties in this transition are, therefore, applicable to students’ transitions at this school in Muscat. Since no transition research has been conducted in this location, this study adds a unique perspective to the field of transitions and education action research and, more specifically, PAR.

Theoretical perspectives

I use Freire’s critical pedagogy to explore the pedagogy at the heart of existing transitions and understand why problems persist and frame an alternative approach to foster successful transitions. Critical pedagogy is a branch of critical theory which focuses in on the theory and practise of teaching and learning. Critical pedagogy is ‘fundamentally concerned with understanding the relationship between power and knowledge.’ (McLaren et al. 2017, 67) and within the context of a school, critical pedagogy ‘draws attention to the ways in which knowledge, power, desire, and experience are produced’ (Giroux 2018, 4). The focus here is on the critical pedagogy theory developed by Paulo Freire. Described as the ‘main scholar’ (Veugelers 2017, 412) of critical pedagogy, Freire theorises the connection between a pedagogy which seeks to oppress students and the inequalities the students experience in education systems based on this pedagogy.

Freire is clear that teaching is so much more than seeking to transfer knowledge into passive students. The pedagogy of schools should support the establishment of a socially just society through developing a critical pedagogy which challenges the power imbalances and political nature inherent in education systems. This aims to empower teachers and students alike to both teach and learn. Teaching should:

create possibilities for the construction and production of knowledge rather than be engaged in a simple transferring of knowledge. (Freire 2001, 49).

Freire creates an analogy of banking education to illustrate the socially unjust pedagogy where students are cast as passive objects, receiving deposits of knowledge from their empowered teachers. This oppressive pedagogy is seen throughout schools internationally which are described collectively as ‘drill centers for habits and attitudes that corporate society demands.’ (Gatto 2010, 19). The traditional pedagogy dominates schools, resulting in a state of ‘bleakness’ (Giroux 2018, 122) with the education system being described as an act of ‘violence carried out against learners’ (Harber 2004, 40). Freire theorises an alternative, socially just pedagogy where students are epistemologically empowered to co-construct knowledge alongside teachers.

Viewing existing transitions through the theoretical framework of Freirean critical pedagogy shows this research is situated in the oppressive pedagogy of Freire’s (1970/1993) banking education. The students are positioned as passive objects with knowledge construction controlled and held exclusively by epistemologically empowered adults. The rights of young people to express their views freely in matters affecting them and for their views to being given due weight are enshrined in international law through Articles 12 and 13 of the United Nations Convention of the Rights of the Child (1989). However, the implementation of this in practice is ‘often little more than tokenistic interventions serving established power’ (Groundwater-Smith et al. 2019, 29).

This is seen in transition research where student participation is passive, limited to sharing their opinions which are used as a source of data to be analysed by the empowered adult researchers. Students are excluded from any stages of research where knowledge is constructed. In their review of transition research, van Rens et al. (2018) conclude that the passive participation creates a need for research where students actively participate as ‘partners in the transition process’ (2018, 43).

Existing transition research and practise masks its oppressive pedagogy, presenting an ‘epistemic illusion’ (Shor 1996, 11) of equality by consulting students and claiming to develop student voice. However, the theoretical lens of critical pedagogy reveals that in reality, the pedagogy of current transitions prevents the epistemological empowerment of students and further embeds their oppression in the education system to which they are conscripted.

Freire explained the significance of a praxis of his theory, defining praxis as the ‘reflection and action directed at the structures to be transformed’ (1970/1993, 99). This must be an ‘authentic praxis’ (Freire 1970/1993, 25) where the oppressed are empowered through the research itself. Freire stated that praxis ‘cannot fail to assign the people a fundamental role in the transformation process’ (Freire 1970/1993, 99). Research which aims to empower cannot do so if the research itself positions people as research subjects.

There is a move towards research which includes more active participation of students, including research which adopts the living theory methodology with older students (Huxtable and Whitehead 2021). The socially just implications of such epistemologically empowering research are hailed as ‘breaking silences and reclaiming spaces’ (Tuck, Cammarota, and Fine et al. 2008, 51) which historically have been used against young people. Berson, Berson, and Gray (2019) describe the development away from ‘viewing children as objects of research … to acknowledgment of children as competent contributors and agents throughout the inquiry process.’ (2019:ix). At present, this approach is lacking in transition literature which supports the exploration in the study reported here.

Viewing existing transitions through the lens of a critical pedagogy highlights that the pedagogy is contributing to the difficulties and social inequalities reported (TIMSS 2019, 2015; Jindal‐Snape and Cantali 2020; van Rens et al. 2018). An alternative approach is therefore needed which epistemologically empowers students in their transitions.

Methodology: living theory and participatory action research

Living theory

Living theory, or living educational theory as it sometimes also known, is an alternative to the dominant view in current social science research regarding what constitutes theory and how theory is formed in research. Living theory methodology challenges the ‘normative understandings of how contributions to educational theory should be judged’ (McNiff and Whitehead 2006, 5) and enables robust contributions to educational theory by redefining what theory is and how it is created.

Living theory methodology is rooted in an epistemological view that knowledge and theory can be created by anyone in the course of their daily life. Whitehead (2016) connects living theory methodology to critical action research which applies Habermas’ critical theory. This connects living theory to Freire’s critical pedagogy through their shared roots in critical theory. Living theory sees the potential in people reflecting on their own values and developing the flourishing of humanity, seeking to amplify all voices and ways of knowing (Amsler 2017). This mirrors Freire’s pedagogy of the oppressed which supports human flourishing and highlights the shared epistemology of living theory and critical pedagogy. The living theory methodology is, I argue, a praxis of Freire’s critical pedagogy theory; it is the critical dialogue of empowered students and teachers, co-constructing knowledge which seeks to effect positive social change.

McNiff and Whitehead (2006) equate claims to theory with claims to knowledge; that ‘all theories can be understood as knowledge claims’ (Whitehead and McNiff 2006, 29). They argue that academic theory generation has become political and is used as a way to increase power. The result is an epistemological hegemony in social science with an exclusive group of people alone holding the power to determine what is theory and knowledge. Currently, it is objective quantitatively generated knowledge that is held ‘as the dominant form by the scientific community’ (McNiff and Whitehead 2006, 33). Living theory methodology can support a break from this epistemological hegemony, ‘wrenching the term “theory” out of its historical context’ (Elliott, Noffke, and Somekh 2009, 32) by redefining what is educational theory.

Living theory is concerned with ‘how theory is used to maintain the current epistemological hegemony of the social sciences’ (McNiff and Whitehead 2006, 46). This methodology counters the disappointment expressed at action research which is described as having been ‘sucked into the battle between qualitative and quantitative paradigms’ (Elliott, 2009, 36). Living theory is a methodology for PAR to challenge this dominant hegemony with ‘forms that are grounded in a different kind of power.’ (McNiff and Whitehead 2006, 316).

Whitehead (2019) explains how people can develop their own living theory through everyday observations, questions, reflections and evaluations which centre on the key question; how do I improve what I am doing? This view of knowledge being constructed by the research participants matches the aims of this PAR situated within a framework of Freire’s critical pedagogy with knowledge constructed by the stakeholders as they engage critically with relevant issues, developing awareness of their needs and creating solutions to address these.

McNiff and Whitehead’s (2006) action-reflection cycle gives a structure to support the five stages of PAR: observation, reflection, action, evaluation and modification. This provides flexibility for participants’ self-determination of the research whilst giving a valuable framework to ensure the PAR has a necessary level of ‘methodological rigor’ which Freire (2001, 51) states is essential. This scaffold ensures the issues are fully explored and the findings can action social change for the participants. The iterative nature of this action-reflection cycle allows scope for living theory to be generated in PAR, allowing space for ideas to be tested and adapted, revisited and refined to form an answer to Whitehead’s (2019) key question. Through this cycle of action-reflection, the participants’ ideas develop into their living theory of how they can improve what they are doing. They have constructed their own educational theory.

Living theory upholds the need for quality theory but rather than quality being established by others’ judgements of the research, living theory entrusts the participant researchers through an ongoing reflection. Whitehead (2000) explains how an individual’s living theory is constantly developed and refined, strengthening the quality of their living theory:

they learn more and their theory changes as they understand more. Further, because they are living what they learn, new knowledge emerged (Whitehead 2000, 92)

Living theory, therefore supports a move away from the normative gaze often seen in existing educational research. By empowering stakeholders to explore and author their own social change, the need for others to dictate what is in their best interest is removed. This paternalistic approach is endemic in research with young people, as evidenced by existing transition literature which is described as adopting a ‘normative gaze “from above” [which] contradicts the empowerment approach’ (Fabian and Huber, 2019, 156).

The highly subjective nature of living theory and its organic development in real life contexts explains why to date there has been little published on what living theory looks like in practise. This recount is, therefore, a valuable example to develop the field of PAR. The example of the development of PAR is discussed next; where the students pause to think, reiterate, reflectively repeat themselves. This is the naissance of their living theory, which, I argue, has a powerful potential which is undervalued in current educational action research.

Participatory action research (PAR)

PAR is a research approach which challenges the traditional epistemological monopoly and proves a powerful methodological choice for research with marginalised voices including younger school students. PAR is a subset of action research (Udas 1998) which has a social justice agenda at its core. While the term PAR was first coined by Fals Borda, Freire is cited as a ‘significant influence on PAR’ (Pant, Coghlan, and Brydon-Miller 2014, 583). Pant states how ‘PAR should be used for conscientization’ (2014, 587), forging a connection between critical pedagogy, PAR and living theory through their shared foundation in critical theory.

PAR focuses in on the stakeholders, centring them in the research and empowering them to author positive social change for themselves. This empowerment extends to all aspects of the research with participant researchers designing and conducting research, discussing and actioning conclusions. Participants are viewed as experts, the ‘real knowers’ (McIntyre 2008, 11) and are empowered in the ‘knowledge generation as well as its use’ (Pant, Coghlan, and Brydon-Miller 2014, 584). There are, however, limitations to the current use of PAR since PAR is a subset of action research which is criticised as being ‘weak’ (Adelman 1997, 100), ‘biased … [and] unsound’ (Duncan-Andrade and Morrell 2008, 109) and action researchers limited to being considered ‘good practitioners but not good theorists.’ (McNiff and Whitehead 2006, 8). I argue that PAR needs a methodology which can give structure to redress these criticisms while honouring its aim of empowering the participants. Living theory methodology has been used in the research cited here to address and overcome these limitations, supporting PAR as a research approach to achieve its social change potential.

In the primary-secondary mathematics transitions, the students are the stakeholders. It is acknowledged, however, that presently children are marginalised in education and research since ‘traditionally dialogue in schools has its limits, positioning students as learners rather than speakers.’ (Groundwater-Smith et al. 2019). Berson, Berson, and Gray (2019) call for the development of ‘diverse methodologies to elevate children’s voices and actively engage them in the production of knowledge’ (2019:ix) and, I argue, students participating in PAR within a living theory methodology with student participants can contribute to this elevation.

While PAR is traditionally completed with adult stakeholders, there is a move towards developing PAR with younger stakeholders (Berson, Berson, and Gray 2019). Cammarota and Fine’s (2008) PAR with young people aged 16–22, explored school policies and practices and is an example of this advancement towards developing students’ agency. While there are other examples of PAR with young people (Berson, Berson, and Gray 2019; Tuck, Cammarota, and Fine et al. 2008; Blackburn 2009), in their recent review van Rens et al. (2018) concluded that there is a need to develop transition research which positions students as ‘partners’ (2018, 43). This study seeks to explore this.

In the existing hegemonies of social science epistemology, research findings are considered reliable only after they have been analysed by adult researchers who alone are empowered epistemologically. Students are actively excluded from any empowering knowledge construction and, I argue, this results in findings which, while being held as more reliable within the hegemony of social science research, do not resolve the students’ transition difficulties and instead contribute to the inequalities. Despite a wealth of research studies and theories to support transitions, the students’ difficulties persist (van Rens et al., 2918; Hutchinson et al. 2018). This supports my view that an alternative approach is needed.

Methods

Two cohorts totalling 192 Y6 students completed a questionnaire to self-assess their attitudes relating to their mathematics learning in Years 6 and 7. The questionnaire was completed before any transition support and then again shortly after the transition support session which had been designed by the students who took part in the PAR group. I designed the questionnaire to qualitatively explore seven attitudes which are reported in existing transition literature to be negatively affected by the transition. These seven attitudes were: confidence, resilience, motivation, enjoyment, sense of having a voice, feeling supported and how much responsibility the students feel they have over their mathematics learning.

After completing the first questionnaire, all students were invited to participate in the PAR group. 26 students took part in iteration one and 11 participated in iteration two. The PAR group members completed the five stages of the action-reflection cycle (McNiff and Whitehead 2006). Together we analysed the questionnaire findings and discussed what were the relevant issues and what actions we could take to support the transition for the group members and their Y6 peers. This PAR is the focus of my PhD thesis which explores the impact of the PAR on students’ epistemological curiosity. I acknowledge the conflict this presents in addition to the power imbalance which permeates our PAR. By remaining ‘reflexive’ (Warin 2011), I sought to limit my role to facilitating the PAR once it got underway so the students led the discussions and their voices dominated.

In the first year of PAR, the stages were completed face-to-face with responses audio recorded. In the second year, the stages of PAR were conducted during remote learning where students met online and discussed by typing their responses in our online chat. I transcribed all discussions to create two sets of transcripts for the two cycles of PAR.

Ethics is a significant matter in research with young people such as that undertaken here. I adopted covenantal ethics (Brydon-Miller 2009) which compliments the theoretical and methodological position of this PAR, epistemologically empowering students to determine matters of ethics and consent. Covenantal ethics are mutually agreed between stakeholders in research and develop as the research takes place. This approach rebukes the ‘exclusive claim to all credible processes of knowledge generation’ (Brydon-Miller 2009, 245) in traditional ethics where the ethical agreement is given by given by adult gatekeepers; teachers and parents and fixed at the start of the research.

Additionally, I followed the British Education Research Association (BERA) (2018) ethical guidelines to secure ethical approval from both institutions. This supported important elements of the PAR, including securing school leaders’ and parents’ consent which was essential to enable the research to take place. Furthermore, these British Education Research Association (BERA) (2018) guidelines set out the importance of protecting the participants’ confidentiality, supporting them to explore the issues more openly. In this PAR, all students chose pseudonyms which are used in the discussion of findings for anonymity.

Conduct of PAR

The focus of the analysis presented here is the impact active participation in the PAR had on the students’ self-assessed attitudes. I focus on two key areas where I observed significant impact of the PAR and compare these findings with those reported in existing transition research to discuss the impact of the PAR here in answering our research question: how can we create more successful mathematics transitions to Y7? I present the findings by each of these two key areas; confidence and sense of voice, and then discuss my observations. I find that the combination of the critical pedagogy theoretical framework and the living theory methodology had a powerful and positive impact on the participants’ attitudes.

I led the students in completing the five stages of the action-reflection cycle: observe, reflect, act, evaluate and modify. The analysis of findings shows the transformation in the students’ attitudes as they move through the iterations of this process, responding to the question, sharing their ideas, discussing their own and each other’s responses, suggesting actions to take to address the issues they identify, reflecting on the impact of these actions and suggesting further actions to improve the mathematics transitions further. As they explore the research question, linked to Whitehead’s (2019) key question of how can we improve what we are doing?, the development of a student’s thoughts can be seen as they made a statement and refined it, shaping their understanding as they talk and form ideas. This critical dialogue creates what Earl describes as ‘mutually useful conversations’ (2017: 139), enabling the researcher and participants to construct knowledge together in dialogue and develop living theory.

Students’ attitudes towards their mathematics learning in this transition are relevant due to the long-established decline of students’ attitudes towards mathematics learning following their transition to secondary school. TIMSS (2015) reports that this decline is worsening over time with more decreases than increases in students’ attitudes reported globally. The correlation between the difficulties students experience and the transition itself has been set out in the earlier literature review (van Rens et al. 2018; West, Sweeting, and Young 2010) and I have also presented evidence that despite current transition research and practise, this decline persists, resulting in social inequalities and ‘stagnating or even worsening social mobility’ (Hutchinson et al. 2018, 6). There are significant areas such as gaps in attainment linked to gender and ethnicity which do, I argue, warrant further attention but which are beyond the scope of this paper. Existing transition literature has highlighted significant declines in two key attitudes which are focused on to analyse the findings of the PAR: confidence and voice.

Confidence

In the questionnaires, students reported feeling less confident about mathematics learning in Y7 compared to Y6 which concurs with the findings of other transition literature (Prendergast et al., 2019, TIMSS 2019, 2015; van Rens et al. 2018, Paul, 2014, Attard, 2010). Secondary school mathematics is an area of concern and anxiety for students (O’Meara et al. 2020, Attard, 2010) and ‘feeling confident in mathematics (is) strongly associated with higher average achievement’ (TIMSS 2019), establishing the importance of students’ confidence in their mathematics learning during this transition to support their learning.

The PAR group participants echoed this decreased confidence during our discussions, reporting that their lack of confidence about mathematics learning in Y7 is a considerable issue for themselves and their peers:

‘people are definitely saying they are less confident about Y7 than Y6. It goes down a lot when they answer for Y7.’ (Dill)

As they talked, they evolved from discussing this in the third person to first, showing a developing understanding of relevant issues for themselves and others. Trinity commented in iteration one that ‘we all said we were not as confident about Y7’ and the student researchers in iteration two similarly identified the decline in confidence reported by their peers and, through their discussion, realised that they shared this sense themselves.

‘I feel the same actually. It is worrying and a bit scary and I don’t feel so confident about what maths is going to be like in Y7’ (Happy21)

‘I know. I am the same. I worry about it a bit. I think people were honest here as we do all feel worried and not so confident about it.’ (Unicornbanana)

My analysis of the questionnaire findings show that the students in both iterations felt less confident about mathematics in Y7 prior to the transition support sessions. I found that the non-PAR and PAR group students reported similar levels of confidence towards their mathematics learning in Y6 and Y7 prior to the transition support sessions but there was a significant difference when they re-assessed their confidence following the transition session. While I found an increase in feeling confident about Y7 mathematics for all students following the transition support, the increase was more pronounced for the PAR group members.

The development in the PAR group members’ confidence was seen as they worked through the stages of PAR. In this extract from the evaluation stage in iteration two, the students discussed the impact of their research on their own and their peers’ confidence about Y7 mathematics:

‘I know my friends talked about it and said they feel happier now. They feel less worried now. Battleship and others said that they feel more confident.’ (Rosa)

‘I do too. I feel like it won’t be too much of a jump to maths in Y7 and that we can ask the teachers for things we need and they will help us if they can.’ (Unicornbanana)

The questionnaire asked students to rate each attitude from 1–5, with 1 being very low up to 5 for very high. I analysed the students’ responses comparing their self-assessed level of attitudes before and after the transition support session, cross referencing between the non-PAR and PAR group members and with the findings reported in transition literature. The average rating for confidence about Y7 mathematics after the transition session for non-PAR group members in iteration one was 3.83 (an increase of 0.72) and was 4.08 (an increase of 1.0) for the PAR group members. In the second iteration, the ratings following the transition support session were 3.36 (an increase of 0.46) and 4.45 (an increase of 1.63) respectively. The highest possible rating was 5 and so the differences between non-PAR and PAR group members represent, I argue, a significant increase for PAR group members which is, I argue, an important finding. In iteration two, the students reported feeling less confident than the previous cohort before the transition support session and I suggest this is linked to changes in context since this was completed in April 2020, a few weeks after our school had closed and moved to online learning due to the coronavirus pandemic.

The findings evidence a reduction in the decline which is significant since this bucks the trend reported in other transition research. The TIMSS (2019, 2015) reports evidence a long-standing, international trend of students’ confidence about mathematics learning in their primary-secondary transition declining considerably. The average from the two most recent reports (2019, 2015) shows a 50% decline in students feeling most confident and a 50% increase in the students feeling least confident. These research findings show a decline which is far less severe than that reported in TIMSS and the reduction is most pronounced amongst PAR group students. This data is not comparative but the comparison is useful for highlighting the positive impact of PAR on these students’ confidence.

The reduction in the decline in confidence can be considered important when compared with the more severe decline found in transition research which uses the more traditional approach (Prendergast et al., 2019, TIMSS 2019, 2015; van Rens et al. 2018, Paul, 201, Attard, 2010). The correlation across both iterations to the most positive outcomes being linked to the PAR group participants gives further support for my connection. This, I argue, evidences the powerful potential this PAR, framed by critical pedagogy and with a living theory methodology has to address the failings of existing transition research and support students to have a confident primary-secondary mathematics transition.

Voice

The students in the two iterations of PAR initially reported low levels of feeling their voice is heard in Y6 and Y7. This finding echoes the established trend in the TIMSS (2019, 2015) reports of students feeling less of a voice in their mathematics learning post transition to secondary school. When the students completed the questionnaire after the transition support which actioned the PAR group’s findings, I found that again, as with confidence levels, there was a reduction in the decline and this was more pronounced among the PAR group members.

The average rating for confidence about Y7 mathematics following the transition support session for non-PAR group members in iteration one was 3.29 (an increase of 0.62) and was 4.07 (an increase of 1.26) for the PAR group members. In the second iteration, the ratings were 4.04 (an increase of 0.93) and 4.8 (an increase of 1.8) respectively. As before, the highest possible rating was 5 and so this is, I argue, a significant increase which correlates in both iterations with participation in the PAR. Again, the impact of the global pandemic can be seen in iteration two where all students initially report feeling their voice is heard less than the previous cohort which, I feel, could be due to the school having recently moved to online learning and students having considerably less contact with their teachers. The impact of PAR for these students is seen to be greater with larger increases in the second cycle. I argue this evidences the strength of the living theory methodology which enabled the research to be amended and completed in the new educational landscape we all found ourselves in.

The initial lower sense of having a voice reported in the questionnaires was seen in the PAR group’s discussion. In iteration one, our meetings were audio recorded and so the students’ intonation was palpable when they discovered they had the opportunity to explore the transition for themselves and had the power to tell teachers what they wanted to happen. Christopher commented, with a surprised tone:

‘So they are going to listen to us? We get to say what we want and they will do it?’

Loki commented that being listened to by teachers was a positive change:

‘Yeh, I think that’s good. It might help. It is better than just going up and we don’t know what will happen and they don’t know what we want. That won’t really help us.’

In iteration two it was not possible to capture the intonation in the students’ responses as students typed their responses in our online chat but the students responded positively when they learned that their research findings would be shared with their Y7 mathematics teachers and the head of secondary mathematics:

‘That’s good he will listen and try his best to do what we ask for.’ (Dr Illuminate)

This sense of being listened to was found to develop as we worked through the stages of PAR. Students developed an expectation of being listened to and began to challenge their teachers, suggesting the next cohort hold the teachers accountable to ensure their voices are heard. In the following extract, the PAR group in iteration two demonstrated the increased sense of having a voice which I observed in the questionnaire findings:

‘I don’t think we had the Q&A session with the maths teachers. Did we?’ (Rosa)

‘No but the teachers shared slides about themselves. Like their hobbies, likings etc.’ (Smiley321)

‘I think a Q&A would have been better though. To get more time to talk to the new teachers and get to know them.’ (Rosa)

‘Most of the actions we suggested were included except the Q&A. The students next time could get feedback with the maths teachers first, to check everything is included.’ (Dr. Illuminate.)

This transformation from being surprised that they would be heard, to expecting their voices to be listened to and their decisions actioned evidences, I argue, the development of these students’ agentic voice as a result of their participation in the PAR.

Discussion of findings

The findings of this PAR mirror the reported decline in confidence and voice found in existing transition literature (Prendergast, 2019. TIMSS 2019, 2015; van Rens et al. 2018, Paul, 201, Attard, 2010). However, the reduction of this decline is, I argue, significant and supports the exploration of PAR as an alternative approach which can support students to successfully navigate the primary-secondary transition.

The impact of these findings is, I argue, positive. All the students reported an increased sense of confidence and having their voice heard. The increases were more pronounced amongst the PAR group members in both iterations. The student researchers were positive about the impact their work had for themselves and their peers and shared a sense of achievement in completing the research together to explore how can we create more successful mathematics transitions to Y7?:

‘Yeh, talking like this is really useful because we can share our ideas and we can learn more and say what we want to know, to make it, to make the transition process answer the questions which are important to us so we can make it better for each of us.’ (Dill)

‘I agree with what Dill said. It is important to talk. I know it takes our time but we can think about it and the teachers will get to know what we think as well as doing what they think is right. If we work together, I think it’ll make it even better so I think we should keep doing this sort of research together.’ (Renn)

I observed the convergence of the increased sense of confidence and voice in the PAR group students and this became more evident as we moved into the final stages of the PAR. In the evaluate and modify stages of each iteration, I noted that the students articulated an agentic voice, taking control of the discussion and confidently expected their actions to be implemented. This was a marked development from the passive position they occupied in the first stages of the PAR, asking me, the empowered adult, what to do. This is seen in the earlier example of Rosa, Smiley321 and Dr. Illuminate. This extract shows how working through the stages of the PAR supported them to identify relevant issues and evidences the naissance of their epistemological curiosity. This emergence of the students’ empowerment and epistemological curiosity is significant given this PAR is situated in the traditional pedagogy of schools where the epistemological hegemony positions these students as passive, unknowledgeable objects. Here, the teacher and students ‘wrenched’ (Elliott, Noffke, and Somekh 2009, 32), educational theory from the hands of those who traditionally have controlled it and seized ownership to co-construct knowledge which supported positive change for themselves.

McNiff and Whitehead (2006) call for greater collaboration between practitioners and, I argue, this PAR evidences greater collaboration is possible between all stakeholders involved in the research. The use of PAR to explore how to create more successful transitions is now embedded into our school transition policy and practise and is in its third cycle, effecting positive outcomes for multiple cohorts of students.

The living theory methodology is, I argue, central to this positive change. This methodology provided the basis for the research question, the iterative action-reflection cycle structure and empowered the students’ findings to be considered valid educational theory which can and should be actioned. I argue the increased sense of confidence and having a voice evidences the positive impact of this PAR; the students now feel listened to and more confident since they can action the support they need. I observed a positive compound effect: when the students felt listened to they grew in confidence and then felt more empowered to ask for what they needed, which increased their confidence further. The two attitudes were intertwined and developed together as the PAR progressed.

In a similar way, I found the theory and methodology of the PAR to be intertwined. Critical pedagogy is the theory which frames this research and living theory is the methodology which underpins the PAR and their shared foundation in critical thinking has been set out earlier to justify their use in this research.

Critical pedagogy frames my understanding of the connection I have observed between increased levels of confidence and voice among PAR group members as they moved through the stages of the research. Freire’s (1970/1993) theory highlights the need to position students as empowered subjects in a problem posing education, removing the teacher-student contradiction I identified in existing transition research which reports ongoing steep declines in students’ confidence and voice. The iterative nature of PAR within living theory methodology is, I argue, the ‘reflection and action directed at the structures to be transformed’ (Freire 1970/1993, 99) which Freire defines as praxis. Since the stakeholders, the students, are active participants in this PAR, this can be considered an authentic praxis of critical pedagogy.

The findings here, I argue, show the powerful potential the convergence of critical pedagogy and living theory in PAR to empower students who have been excluded from present transition research and face ongoing difficulties which result in social inequalities. Critical pedagogy frames an understanding of why the present approach is flawed and what an alternative pedagogy should be, and living theory enabled a praxis of this to come to life in this PAR and for the students’ findings to be actioned, effecting positive and meaningful change for them.

The positive outcome of this is evidenced by the reported sense of confidence and voice, two important attitudes which support mathematics learning. The increase in these levels among all students shows that the PAR group members addressed our research question of how can we create more successful mathematics transitions to Y7?

Conclusion

The convergence of the theoretical framework of critical pedagogy, a living theory methodology, and PAR creates an equitable space for students, practitioners and researchers to come together to co-construct knowledge of what will support the students’ primary-secondary mathematics transitions. Students were empowered epistemologically to explore what would create a more successful mathematics transition for them. The methodological rigour of the living theory methodology enables the students’ conclusions to be considered valid educational theory and be actioned to effect social change. In this way PAR within a living theory methodology has empowered the students to author educational theory which supports positive primary-secondary mathematics transitions.

Living theory has been seen here to challenge the epistemological hegemony dominant in traditional educational research and offer a methodological rigour to support those at the centre of the research to author their own positive social change in education. The combination of the epistemologically empowering critical pedagogy theory and living theory methodology converged in this PAR project to create powerful positive social change for the student participants. I observed that the convergence of this theory and methodology, both of which politically seek social change, creates a space for revolutionary thinking by researchers and participants together, bringing new forms of research equity to life in settings where historically stakeholders have felt exploited and abandoned by research undertaken in more traditional paradigms. Living theory extends the potential of PAR by explaining that the knowledge constructed can be viewed as valid educational theory. The findings of such research which are a co-produced, co-imagined set of knowledges that take all stakeholders’ experiences into account can, therefore, be used as a foundation for pedagogical policy and practise.

PAR and critical pedagogy are established in education action research as being a powerful combination but living theory is, I argue, the missing piece in the puzzle of PAR which seeks to empower stakeholders to author social change. In this research, I found that the living theory methodology combined with the critical pedagogy theory in the PAR to create positive change for students as they explored the research question: how can we create more successful mathematics transitions to Y7? This observation warrants further exploration by researchers in varied PAR contexts. It is my hope that the positive outcomes I have witnessed of the combination of critical pedagogy, living theory and PAR can be emulated in other settings, empowering stakeholders to create positive social change.

Acknowledgments

With thanks to Cassie Earl and Jan McArthur for their support throughout my thesis research.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).