Looking at the Workplace through Mathematical Eyes

- An Innovative approach
John J. Keogh
Institute of Technology Tallaght, Dublin, Ireland

Terry Maguire John O’Donoghue

Lifelong Learning NCE-MSTL
ITT Dublin, Ireland University of Limerick
The initiating premise of this paper is that mathematical ideas and techniques proliferate in
everyday workplaces, but are dismissed as ‘common sense’ or part of the job’. This
‘invisibility’ presents difficulties for recruitment, adaptability, response to change, training,
mobility and the Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL). Making such mathematics more
visible, provides a starting point at which to address these issues. However, the mathematics
that underpin the performance of work tend to be obscured from view, being encapsulated by
habit and procedure, wrapped in a ‘job’ description, in a context of preceding and
dependent jobs that comprise an organisation. This paper describes an innovative approach
to penetrating the obscuring layers, to reveal the underlying mathematics content and
benchmarking them with the National Framework of Qualifications in Ireland.

Introduction
The characterisation of mathematics in industry, to the extent that it exists, is contested, being
described variously as techno-mathematical literacy (Hoyles, Noss, Kent, & Bakker, 2007),
functional mathematics (Wake, 2005), quantitative literacy (van der Kooij & Strasser, 2004;
Coben, 2009; Steen, 1997), numeracy (OECD, 2008; Maguire & O'Donoghue, 2003), and
realistic mathematics (van den Heuvel-Panhizen, 1998; Treffers, 1987). The proliferation of
such similar terms seeking to nuance mathematical content, tends to exacerbate the struggle
to achieve shared meaning and some measure of generalisation. More than ever, problem
solving, spatial awareness, estimation, interpretation and communication skills, are highly
valued in the modern worker, as being essential to support change, reaction and response
(Expert group on Future Skills Needs, 2009; O'Donoghue, 2000), especially given the
pervasiveness of ICT and ’black boxes’. However, Mathematical Knowledge, Skill and
Competence (MKSC) that underpin work, may be dismissed as ‘just part of the job’ (Coben
& Thumpston, 1995). Skills deployed from a ‘common sense‘ perspective may tend to
conceal mathematical ability rather than expose it for development (Coben, 2009). To dismiss
mathematical skills, rendering them invisible, poses significant challenges for education and
training programmes for want of a starting point, i.e. the so-called ‘bootstrap problem’
(Klinger, 2009). This is problematic for the worker, since, in the view of the National
Development Plan (NDP) in Ireland, a lack of appropriate MKSC can have a critical impact
on a person’s continuing employability (NDP/CSF Information Office, 2007).

Longitudinal studies, conducted in the United Kingdom, tend to confirm the correlation
between low levels of numeracy and poor long term employment prospects (Bynner &
Parsons, 2005; Bynner & Parsons, 1997). This seems to be further underlined by the report
of the Expert Skills Group in Ireland, that persons with low levels of education are at the
greatest risk of unemployment, only 5% of all vacancies being for lower skilled jobs (Expert
group on Future Skills Needs, 2009).

1
There are many factors that may exacerbate MKSC invisibility e.g. Language / Jargon (Wake
& Williams, 2007); Habitus (Wedege, 1999); Training (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989)
1989); Common sense (Coben, 2000); Group Status (Gal et al., 2009) (Lave & Wenger,
1991); Artefact (Marr & Hagston, 2007; Strasser, 2003); Black-box (Hoyles, Wolf,
Molyneux-Hodgson, & Kent, 2002; Wake & Williams, 2007); Culture (Colleran,
O'Donoghue, & Murphy, 2003) and Anxiety (Evans, 2000; McLeod, 1992), operating to
obscure or deny such skills, however unwittingly. Just as human vision perceives only a
narrow spectrum of light, so too will many overlook the mathematical concepts that pervade
everyday work and life. Seeing things through what might be called ‘Everyday Eyes’, gives
prominence to what workers ‘do’, rather then what they ‘know’, and adds to the self-
perception of not being a ‘maths person’.

That mathematics could become so inextricably bound up in one’s work practices as to

be invisible presents different yet interrelated problems for different stakeholders.
Employers, for whom a profile of the skills requirement of a particular job overlooks
the MKSC elements, may struggle to recruit and train personnel. Workers that are
mismatched to their jobs are less likely to realise their potential, be positively
responsive to change, and to obtain job satisfaction which negatively impacts on
retention and absence (McClelland, 1988). Moreover, the tendency to dismiss such
expertise as mere ’common sense’ impedes the Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL).
Providers of workplace learning opportunities are constrained in the design of
programmes for the want of a starting point, especially for topics that are not seen to be
pertinent to the job (Klinger, 2009).

In contrast, viewing the world through what might be called ‘Mathematical Eyes’, perceives
problem solving, space and shape, pattern and relationship, data handling and chance, in
addition to quantity and number. Opening ‘Mathematical Eyes’ heightens the awareness of
what workers ‘know’ rather than what they ‘do’. Furthermore, a platform is established on
which to adapt, change, innovate and create in response to an ever-evolving world. However,
deriving benefits from latent mathematical knowledge, skills and competence, requires that
they are first located, and then expressed in terms of a common standard in order to exploit
their potential. Uncovering these MKSC, faces the workplace challenge that skills underpin
tasks that form procedures and habits, that constitute a job set in a context, particular to an
organisation. A number of tools have been developed by this present work, to peel away the
covering layers to reveal the mathematics beneath, categorise them as to domain and
benchmark them with the National Framework of Qualifications (NFQ) for visibility.

The National Qualifications Authority of Ireland (NQAI, 2003), was set up in 2001 to
establish and maintain the National Framework of Qualifications , in order to recognise and
award qualifications based on standards of knowledge, skill and competence acquired by
learners. Launched in 2003, the NFQ enjoys growing national and international support. Its
structure offers a new metric for achievement in more breadth and depth, across all subject
areas. However, since it post-dates work in progress on the development of a mathematics
framework, there remain areas of dissonance between the two, adding significantly to the
impact of this study.

The NFQ provides for 10 levels of achievement, ranging from the Elementary or Foundation
Level 1, rising incrementally through Levels 4 and 5, equivalent to the completion of upper-
secondary school leavers. This is followed by Level 6 indicating a post upper second level
award often provided as a precursor to University. Levels 7 through to 10, attest to Bachelor

2
degrees at ordinary and honours standards, Masters degrees and Doctorates respectively.
Each level of achievement may be classified in 3 main strands, each refined by attendant sub-
sub
strands as follows;

Knowledge : Kind and Breadth, Skills: Range and Selectivity, and Competence:
Competence Context,
Role, Learning to Learn and Insight. Differentiation between
between levels is guided by textual
specification which may be vulnerable to idiosyncratic interpretation (NQAI, 2003).
2003)

A precise knowledge of the provisions of the National Standards, informed the selection
select of
the methodology with the capacity to discipline the conduct of research in relatively few
workplaces,, seeking to link underpinning MKSC with the NFQ.

Methodology
This research is guided by the ‘Building Theory from Case Study Research’ (BTCSR)
methodology,, described by Eisenhardt (2002). In developing BTCSR, Eisenhardt draws
together work previously done on ‘Grounded Theory’ (Glaser er & Strauss, 1967) and ‘Case
Study Design’ (Yin, 1984).. The resulting platform includes
include construct definition,
triangulation, across case analysis,
analysis and the role of pertinent literature (Eisenhardt, 2002).
2002)
The richness of detail, anticipated from relatively few cases studied, rather than being a
weakness of BTCSR (Huberman & Miles, Mil 2002),, supports within and across case analysis,
comparison with enfolding literature and triangulation of multiple sources.

In the modern workplace, skills deployed in the performance of work lie at the kernel of a
number of encapsulating layers, each exerting its own influence to hide, wholly or partially,
the underpinning MKSC. Businesses comprise chains of activity that are triggered in
different combinations. Activities encapsulate work practices, which themselves are a
combination of tasks, normally considered to be a ‘job’. Underpinning a ‘job’ is a collection
of knowledge, skills and competence, the mathematical content of which may lie under the
cover of a range of factors, whether internal, external, personal, contextual or other,
other Fig 1.

Fig.1 Workplace Mathematics Knowledge, Skills and Competence (MKSC)

This catalogue of circumstances and factors, aid the concealment of mathematics in the
workplace. Not only are MKSC obscured from the view of of Management and Operator alike,

3
albeit in varying degrees and combinations, the performance of the tasks upon which they
rely, are buried deeply in organisations. References to a job usually denote a person, working
alone or in concert to maintain workflow
workflow from initiation to completion. In seeking to make
MKSC visible, this research must find them in the first instance, guided by an awareness of
how they might be hidden.

In a coordinated plan, designed to strip away the occluding layers, the researcher separates
combinations of business activities to identify their constituent jobs. Then by setting
boundaries to a specific job, makes explicit the precise component tasks. By assessing the
MKSC underlying the tasks, classifies them as to mathematics domain,
domain, calibrates them for
complexity and situational factors and benchmarks them against the National Framework of
Qualifications in order to communicate about them. Finally, reflecting back the findings to
the participants informs an assessment of overall invisibility and the extent of the influence of
each factor.

Different tools have been designed for this research to untangle the challenges presented by
each layer, in order to identify a ‘job’
‘ and break it down into its parts Fig. 2.
2

Fig. 2 Overview of the Methods and Tools used.

Firstly, the
he Business Activity Model(BAM)
Model tool (Ericsson, 2004),, applied at the Management
level, traces the individual activities that comprise a business, noting their precedents and
dependents, that are triggered in various combinations
combinations by different business events.

Secondly, the
he Work Practice Model (WPM), tool (Sierhuis, Clancey, & de Hoog, 2009), 2009)
profiles the combination of tasks that constitute a job contained in a business activity from
thee Management point of view initially.. This is then corroborated or extended in an
interview at the Operations level and sets boundaries to the selected job.

Thirdly, a Detailed Task Analysis, guided by the WPM and elaborated by researcher
observation, breaks
reaks down each task element so that the mathematics can be identified and
categorised as to MKSC domain.

4
A comprehensive Literature Review, together with extensive experience of the workplace,
sensitises the researcher to MKSC and the many ways in which they may be disguised or
overlooked. With the support of documents, designed to ensure completeness and
consistency, the researcher identifies the mathematics and categorises them to domain. Then,
guided by the provisions of the National Standards and taking situational factors into account,
each instance of MKSC is calibrated for level in terms of Knowledge: Kind and Breadth,
Skills: Range and Selectivity, and Competence: Context, Role, Learning to Learn and Insight.
The aggregate level is then modelled onto the NFQ for each mathematics domain and
reflected to the participants.

In preparation for doctoral research, this approach was recently piloted in an enterprise,
selected for its compactness and labour intensiveness, in order to test tools designed to locate
subtle instances of mathematical ideas and techniques.

Pilot Study
The Pilot Study was conducted in three site visits over a period of 4 weeks. The host site is a
subsidiary of a larger group of companies, and is engaged in creating images of
approximately 1million documents per week on behalf of client companies. The work is
completed by 10 people, both full and part time, supervised by a line manager and assistant
manager. Despite its superficial simplicity, there are a number of conditional subroutines in
response to customers’ Service Level Agreements (SLA) that add complexity.

The BAM was drafted by the researcher and confirmed by the Management. While there
were activities that involved very apparent manipulation of numbers, e.g. accounting and
payroll, the researcher selected the more labour intensive scanning activities for their
superficial absence of MKSC.

The researcher then produced a WPM using information provided from the management
perspective. In a semi structured interview with the worker, the WPM was confirmed,
modified and extended to include conditional elements that had been overlooked by the
management.

A Detailed Task Analysis, based on the WPM, extended by the researcher’s observations,
disentangled the ‘job’ into 17 separate instances of underpinning mathematical ideas and
techniques, albeit at ‘low’ levels.

Calibrating the identified MKSC, in order to benchmark them with the NFQ was challenging
due to the variety of factors involved. Designed to address all learning disciplines, the NFQ
does not contain mathematics specific language. The Further Education Training Awards
Council (FETAC, 2009) provisions are under development and not yet aligned with the NFQ.
The pilot study observed jobs containing complicated mathematical elements that had been
rendered a matter of routine by repetition over time. Other jobs were characterised by an
array of relatively simple mathematical activities when taken in isolation, yet combined to
construct a whole job featuring a degree of complexity beyond the aggregate of its parts.
Future case studies will take particular care to differentiate between complexity and
complicatedness in the interests of precision.

The terms “complex” and “complicated” are commonly used interchangeably to describe the
opposite of simple. It seems somewhat counter intuitive to suggest that a task may be
complex but not complicated or conversely, that a task may be complicated, but not complex.

5
 However, discourse concerning contextualisations of mathematics in the workplace, requires
precise use of language that is capable of differentiating between these two adjectives.

A complicated task comprises elements that are difficult to understand and analyse. It does
not index volume but rather intricacy (Summers et al 2000). Degrees of complicatedness may
be addressed by the national standards with references to abstractness, however, elementary
concepts may be considered to be complicated in spite of being located at the lowest level of
the framework.

In contrast, a task is said to be complex if it has many interconnected parts. Complexity

increases in line with the number of bits of information involved, the variety of information
and the number of ways in which it can be arranged (Dodge, 2009). That there are many
interrelated parts of the whole, does not necessarily imply difficulty.

Typically, ‘jobs’ comprise multiple tasks and sub tasks, many of which are routine when
viewed in isolation, yet may be combined in a wide variety of ways that increase complexity.
When some of its component parts are difficult to understand, analyse and perform, a
complex ‘job’ becomes complicated in line with the degree of difficulty encountered.

This distinction is particularly apposite in the workplace, where complex and complicated
jobs are repeatedly performed with apparent ease, belying their underlying mathematical and
other characteristics. Assessing workplace ‘jobs’ and their constituent tasks, for the purpose
of benchmarking against existing frameworks, must take account of the extent to which a
‘job’ component is complex and complicated, in addition to the situation within which the
‘job’ is performed. Moreover, workers should not ‘inherit’ a level of MKSC associated with
complicated mathematics that are thoroughly embedded in a ‘black-box’ and otherwise,
completely invisible to them.

The National Framework of Qualifications makes extensive provision for the calibration of
knowledge, skills and competence that range from the elementary and concrete at the ‘lower’
end of the spectrum, to the abstract and theoretical at the ‘higher’ end. The degree of
complexity and/or complicatedness is a qualifying rather than a determinant of the NFQ
level. For example, the Knowledge Kind related to a task may be elementary and routine, but,
performed in a complex situation may index breadth of knowledge. Competence Context and
Role are self evident, but aspects of Learning to Learn and Insight may be collinear with
situation complexity

As this research continues with an intense focus on case studies, the relationship between
complex / complicated and embeddness , contrasted with the workers role, will be profiled as
an aid to training and a decision support tool. For example, that the mathematical content of
a job element has become complicated over time, may indicate the type of training necessary
for the worker to maintain process control. Alternatively, such a job profile may justify a
‘black-box’ solution as a means of removing the risk of failure posed by increasing levels of
complicatedness.

The extent of ‘ embeddedness’ may be a marker of mathematics invisibility in a continuum

ranging from obvious and overt at one end to completely opaque at the other. Awareness of
the factors contributing to invisibility, together with the job profiled in terms of the NFQ, will
inform the design of the appropriate teaching and learning response.

6
The standards frameworks are well developed and readily accessible by the providers of
teaching and learning. This work has created and tested a range of methods and instruments
that locate the MKSC that underpin workplace numeracy activity. In an iterative process
over a relatively few cases, a Framework Interface Protocol will be developed and refined,
such that the MKSC detected in the workplace can be consistently, reliably and objectively
interpreted.
Concluding Remarks
The difficulty in researching this topic was highlighted by the multiple affectors that may
contribute to invisibility, each in their own way and extent. Moreover, that the MKSC sought
were to be found at the individual task level, ‘buried’ under a number of layers, presented
particular challenges of identification. The approach to observing the workplace described
above, consists of a set of tools for the exploration of mathematics in the workplace, to
overcome these obstacles and meet the needs of the research.

The BAM rapidly orientates the researcher in the workplace, providing sufficient familiarity
to make an informed and independent selection of candidate jobs. In this way, the possible
contaminating affects of self-selectors and employer influence can be avoided.

The WPM, developed initially from the Management point of view and corroborated by that
of Operations, builds internal validity and sets boundaries to the job under observation. The
researcher can absorb the details of the work practices described and be better positioned to
appreciate the purpose and meaning of each task that might otherwise be masked by the
operator, however unintentionally.

By reflecting the job-MKSC content back to the participants, it may be possible to triangulate
the extent and possible causes of mathematics invisibility in the workplace. These may
provide an index of visibility, pointing to the factors to be addressed in order to open a
person’s ‘Mathematical Eyes’.

The benefits accruing to the individual of being made aware of their facility with MKSC may
include a review their self perception of not being a maths person, and their being encouraged
to pursue further development. Acknowledgement of their skills, may support the
Recognition of Prior Learning, and empower them in their work and elsewhere. They need no
longer equate what they know with what they do, and become aware of their inter-sector
mobility. The employer, accurately informed by the MKSC requirement of existing, changing
and planned jobs will be more likely to recruit suitable personnel. Providing learning and
training opportunities, specific to the identified need could be more efficient use of time and
money. Personnel, matched to the requirements of their job, whose potential to develop is
leveraged by the company, provides fulfilment and satisfaction, with a consequent positive
affect on retention and absence. Workplace learning and training providers will benefit from
a clearer indication of the skills required by the company, and, being equipped with an
audience profile based on their work, can adjust their content and delivery methods
accordingly.The Framework Interface Protocol under development, together with a model to
facilitate communications between stakeholders, may constitute a step towards alignment of
the Mathematics Framework with the European Qualifications Framework (EQF) for the
benefit of inter sector mobility both in Ireland and across the European Union.

7
 Reference List

Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated Cognition and the Culture of
learning. Educational Researcher, 18, 32-42.

Bynner, J. & Parsons, S. (1997). Does Numeracy Matter? London: Basic Skills Ageny.

Bynner, J. & Parsons, S. (2005). Does Numeracy Matter More? London: NRDC, Institute of
Education.

Coben, D. (2000). Mathematics or Common Sense? Researching 'Invisible' Mathematics

through Adult's Mathematics Life Histories. In D.Coben, J. O'Donoghue, & G. E.
Fitzsimons (Eds.), Perspectives on Adults Learning Mathematics (pp. 47-51).
Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Coben, D. (2009). Numeracy for Nursing:The Scope for International Collaboration. In K.

Safford-Ramus, G. E. Fitzsimons, L. Ginsburg, & J. Kanter (Eds.), A Declaration of
Numeracy:Empowering Adults through mathematics Education (pp. 3-16).
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.: Chestnut Hill College.

Coben, D. & Thumpston, G. (1995). Common Sense, Good Sense and Invisible Mathematics.
In T.Kjaergard & A. L. N. Kvame (Eds.), The Third International Conference on the
Political Dimensions of Mathematics Education - PDME III (pp. 284-297). Norway:
Caspar F A/Sorlag.

Colleran, N., O'Donoghue, J., & Murphy, E. (2003). Adult problem Solving and Common
Sense: new insights. In J. Maasz & W. Schloeglmann (Eds.), Learning mathematics to
Live and Work in our World (pp. 85-93). Linz: Universitatverlag Rudolf Trauner.

Dodge, B. (21-11-2009). Complexity Made Simple. Retrieved, 21-11-2009 from

http://webquest.sdsu.edu/higherquest/complexity.ppt

Eisenhardt, K. M. (2002). Building Theories from Case Study Research. In A.M.Huberman

& Miles.M.B. (Eds.), The Qualitative Researcher's Companion (pp. 5-36). London:
SAGE Publications.

Ericsson, M. (2004). Activity Diagrams; What are they and How to Use Them.
http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/rational/library/2802.html [On-line]. Available:
http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/rational/library/2802.html

Evans, J. (2000). Adults' Mathematical Thinking and Emotions: A Study of Numerate

Practices. London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Expert group on Future Skills Needs (2009). National Skills Bulletin. Retrieved, 13-10-2009
from http://www.skillsireland.ie/media/egfsn090703_national_skills_bulletin.pdf

Expert group on Future Skills Needs (2009). National Skills Bulletin 2009. Retrieved, 13-10-
2009 from
http://www.skillsireland.ie/media/egfsn090703_national_skills_bulletin.pdf

8
FETAC (2009). Further Education and Training Awards Council. NQAI [On-line].
Available: http://www.fetac.ie

Gal, I., Alatorre, S., Close, S., Evans, J., Johansen, L., Maguire, T. et al. (2009). PIAAC
Numeracy: A Conceptual Framework (Rep. No. No. 35). OECD Ditectorate for
Education.

Glaser, B. & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory:Strategies of qualitative

research. London: Wiedenfield and Nicholson.

Hoyles, C., Noss, R., Kent, P., & Bakker. (2007). Techno-Mathematical Literacies in the
Workplace. TmL project 10/2003 - 6/2007.
Ref Type: Generic

Hoyles, C., Wolf, A., Molyneux-Hodgson, S., & Kent, P. (2002). Mathematical Skills in the
Workplace (Rep. No. Final). London: Institute of Education, University of London
Science, Technology and Mathematics Council.

Huberman, A. M. & Miles, M. B. (2002). The Qualitative Researcher's Companion. London:

SAGE Publications.

Klinger, C. (2009). Passing it on: Linking Adult innumeracy to Mathematics Attitudes, Low
Self-Efficacy Beliefs, and Math-Anxiety in Student Primary Teachers. In K. Safford-
Ramus (Ed.), 15th International Conference of Adults Learning Mathematics A
Research Forum (pp. 123-132). Philadelphia: Adults learning mathematics(ALM) - A
Research Forum.

Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning:legitimate peripheral participation. (1991

ed.) Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Maguire, T. & O'Donoghue, J. (2003). Numeracy Concept Sophistication - An Organising

Framework A useful Thinking Tool. In J. Maasz & W. Schloeglmann (Eds.), 10th
International Conference on Adults Learning Mathematics (pp. 154-161). Austria:
Universitatsverlag Rudolf Trauner.

Marr, B. & Hagston, J. (2007). Thinking beyond Numbers:Learning numeracy for the future
workplace Adelaide, South Australia: NCVR.

McClelland, D. (1988). Human Motivation. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University

Press.

McLeod, D. B. (1992). Research on affect on mathematics education: A reconceptualisation.

In D.A.Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning
(pp. 575-596). New York: McMilan.

NDP/CSF Information Office (2007). NDP 2007-20013 Transforming Ireland. NDP/CSF

Information Office, Government Buildings, Dublin. [On-line]. Available:
http://www.ndp.ie/documents/ndp2007-2013/NDP-2007-2013-English.pdf

NQAI (2003). National Framework of Qualifications. NQAI [On-line]. Available:

http://www.nfq.ie/nfq/en/

9
O'Donoghue, J. (2000). Assessing Numeracy. In D.Coben, J. O'Donoghue, & G. E.
Fitzsimons (Eds.), Perspectives on Adults Learning Mathematics (pp. 271-287).
Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

OECD (2008). The OECD Programme for the International Assessment of Adult
Competencies (PIAAC). http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/13/45/41690983.pdf [On-
line]. Available: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/13/45/41690983.pdf

Sierhuis, M., Clancey, W. J. v. H. R., & de Hoog, R. (2009). Modeling and Simulating Work
Practices from Apollo 12.
http://www.agentisolutions.com/documentation/papers/sesp00pa043.pdf [On-line].
Available: http://www.agentisolutions.com/documentation/papers/sesp00pa043.pdf

Steen, L. A. (1997). Preface: the New Literacy. In L.A.Steen (Ed.), Why Numbers Count:
Quantitative Literacy for Tomorrow's America (pp. xv-xxviii). New York: College
Entrance Examination Board.

Strasser, R. (2003). Mathematics at Work: Adults and Artefacts. In J. Maasz & W.

Schloeglmann (Eds.), Learning Mathematics to Live and Work in our World ALM 10
(pp. 30-37).

Treffers, A. (1987). Three Dimensions. A Model of Goal and Theory Description in

Mathematics Instruction.

van den Heuvel-Panhizen, M. (1998). Realistic Mathematics Education - work in progress.

Retrieved, 10-3-2009 from http://fi.uu.nl/en/rme

van der Kooij, H. & Strasser, R. (2004). TSG 7: Mathematics education in and for work. In
M. Niss & E. Emborg (Eds.), ICME - 10 Denmark 2004 Roskilde University,
Denmark: IMFUFA, Department of Science, Systems and Models.

Wake, G. (2005). Functional Mathematics: More than "Back to Basics". Nuffiefd Review of
14-19 Education and Training, 1-11.

Wake, G. & Williams, J. (2007). Metaphors and Models in Translation Between College and
Workplace mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 64, 345-371.

Wedege, T. (1999). To know, or not to know mathematics, that is a question of context. In

Educational Studies in Mathematics (pp. 205-277).

Yin, R. (1984). Case study research. Beverly Hills, California: Sage.

10