Early childhood mathematics education research: A powerful beginning

Abstract

There has been a great deal of research in recent years in the field of mathematics in the early childhood years, especially in the early years of school. Much of this research and associated implementation of programs has had its genesis in Australia and New Zealand, especially in the area of early number. As well, Australasian early childhood mathematics educators and researchers have adapted much of the recent general early childhood research involving early brain development, play, argumentation and investigation, reflection and recording to demonstrate the power of young children’s mathematical thinking and how this thinking affects children’s learning in the early years. Our aim in this issue of MERJ is to highlight and celebrate some of the significant early childhood mathematics education research which has taken place in recent years and continues to take place in Australia, New Zealand, and elsewhere. All of the papers in this Special Issue have been written by MERGA members and all have important statements to make about Australasian mathematics education. One of the concerns that we had in developing this issue was whether we would be able to attract sufficient quality papers. Hence, we took two approaches to procuring papers. Firstly, we invited a small number of recognised early childhood mathematics education researchers—some from Australasia and some from beyond—to develop expressions of interest. Secondly, through the MERGA newsletter, we made a general call for expressions of interest. Much to our delight, these two approaches netted 18 expressions of interest! Following careful evaluation of the expressions of interest, we determined that seven author teams should be invited to submit a paper, and that four other teams who had made submissions dealing with aspects of systemic numeracy programs should be invited to combine to produce one paper. Much to the credit of all the author teams, we received eight papers for review. The review process involved 26 reviewers, including 8 members of the MERJ Editorial Board, 11 reviewers from Australasia and another 7 from further afield. Each paper was reviewed by an Editorial Board member and 2005, Vol. 16, No. 3, 1–4