Advertisement

Exploring an innovative approach to teaching mathematics through the use of challenging tasks: a New Zealand perspective

  • Naomi IngramEmail author
  • Marilyn Holmes
  • Chris Linsell
  • Sharyn Livy
  • Melody McCormick
  • Peter Sullivan
Original Article

Abstract

This paper reports on a New Zealand iteration of the Encouraging Persistence, Maintaining Challenge (EPMC) project, which proposes that students learn mathematics best when they build connections between mathematical ideas for themselves. This iteration explores the actions, perceptions and learning of 12 primary teachers and their 281 students during the implementation of a set of challenging tasks related to geometric reasoning. The teachers launched the suggested tasks, ensuring that the challenge was maintained. The students explored these tasks with minimal input from the teacher, and learning was summarised and extended. The teachers were positive about the intervention. The challenging task approach enabled students’ thinking became visible and, at times, the teachers’ prior perceptions of their students’ ability were challenged. A highly significant difference between the students’ pre- and post-assessment scores was found. The students were supported to have autonomy in their learning and make mathematical connections themselves. The students became less reliant on their teachers’ help and were positive about their involvement in the project.

Keywords

Mathematics Challenging tasks Persistence Confusion Geometry Lesson structure 

Notes

References

  1. Anderson, J. (2014). Forging new opportunities for problem solving in Australian mathematics classrooms through the first national mathematics curriculum. In Y. Li & G. Lappan (Eds.), Mathematics curriculum in school education (pp. 209–229). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anthony, G., & Walshaw, M. (2009). Effective pedagogy in mathematics. In Educational series—19. Brussels: International Academy of Education, Geneva.Google Scholar
  3. Boaler, J. (2016). Mathematical mindsets: unleashing students’ potential through creative math, inspiring messages and innovative teaching. San Francesco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  4. Cheeseman, J., Clarke, D., Roche, A., & Wilson, K. (2013). Teachers’ views of the challenging elements of a task. In V. Steinle, L. Ball, & C. Bardini (Eds.), Mathematics education: yesterday, today and tomorrow Proceedings of the 36th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (pp. 154–161). Melbourne: MERGA.Google Scholar
  5. Christiansen, B., & Walther, G. (1986). Task and activity. In B. Christiansen, A. G. Howson, & M. Otte (Eds.), Perspectives on mathematics education (pp. 243–307). Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clark, C. M., & Peterson, P. L. (1986). Teachers’ thought processes. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 255–296). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  7. Cobb, P., Jackson, K., & Dunlap Sharpe, C. (2016). Conducting design studies to investigate and support mathematics students’ and teachers’ learning. In J. Cai (Ed.), Compendium for research in mathematics education (pp. 208–233). Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  8. Desforges, C., & Cockburn, A. (1987). Understanding the mathematics teacher: a study of practice in first schools. London: The Palmer Press.Google Scholar
  9. Dooley, T. (2012). Constructing and consolidating mathematical entities in the context of whole class discussion. In J. Dindyal, L. P. Cheng, & S. F. Ng (Eds.), Mathematics education: Expanding horizons. Proceedings of the 35th conference of the Mathematics Education Group of Australasia (pp. 234–241). Singapore: MERGA.Google Scholar
  10. Dweck, C. S. (2000). Self-theories: their role in motivation, personality, and development. Philadelphia: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  11. Furinghetti, F., & Pehkonen, E. (2002). Rethinking characterizations of beliefs. In G. Leder, E. Pehkonen, & G. Törner (Eds.), Beliefs: A hidden variable in mathematics education (pp. 39–57). The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  12. Gladwell, M. (2008). Outliers: the story of success. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.Google Scholar
  13. Hill, H., Ball, D., & Schilling, S. (2008). Unpacking pedagogical content knowledge: Conceptualising and measuring teachers’ topic-specific knowledge of students. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 39(4), 372–400.Google Scholar
  14. Ingram, N. (2011). Affect and identity: The mathematical journeys of adolescents. (PhD doctoral dissertation), University of Otago, New Zealand.Google Scholar
  15. Ingram, N., Linsell, C., Holmes, M., Livy, S., & Sullivan, P. (2016). Teacher actions that encourage students to persist in solving challenging mathematical tasks. In B. White, M. Chinnappan, & S. Trenholm (Eds.), Opening Up Mathematics Education Research. Proceedings of the 39th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (pp. 657–660). Adelaide: MERGA.Google Scholar
  16. Ingram, N., Williamson-Leadley, S., & Pratt, K., (2016). Showing and Telling: Using tablet technology to engage students in mathematics. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 28(1), 123–147Google Scholar
  17. Jackson, K., Garrison, A., Wilson, J., Gibbons, L., & Shahan, E. (2013). Exploring relationships between setting up complex tasks and opportunities to learn in concluding whole-class discussions in middle-grades mathematics instruction. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 44(4), 646–682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kilpatrick, J., Swafford, J., & Findell, B. (Eds.). (2001). Adding it up: helping children learn mathematics. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  19. Linsell, C., Holmes, M., Ingram, N., Livy, S., & Sullivan, P. (2016). Perceptions of challenging tasks and achievement by New Zealand students. In B. White, M. Chinnappan, & S. Trenholm (Eds.), Opening Up Mathematics Education Research. Proceedings of the 39th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (pp. 661–664). Adelaide: MERGA.Google Scholar
  20. Livy, S., Holmes, M., Ingram, N., Linsell, C., & Sullivan, P. (2016). A highly capable Year 6 student’s response to a challenging mathematical task. In B. White, M. Chinnappan, & S. Trenholm (Eds.), Opening Up Mathematics Education Research. Proceedings of the 39th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (pp. 661-664). Adelaide: MERGAGoogle Scholar
  21. Ministry of Education. (2007). The New Zealand curriculum. Wellington: Learning Media Limited.Google Scholar
  22. Ministry of Education. (2008). Numeracy professional development projects: Book 3 getting started. Wellington: Ministry of Education.Google Scholar
  23. Op’t Eynde, P., De Corte, E., & Verschaffel, L. (2002). Framing students’ mathematics-related beliefs. In G. Leder, E. Pehkonen, & G. Törner (Eds.), Beliefs: A hidden variable in mathematics education? (pp. 13–37). The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2014). Do students have the drive to succeed? PISA in focus. Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  25. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1992). Learning to think mathematically: problem solving, metacognition, and sense making in mathematics. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 334–370). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  26. Schoenfeld, A. H. (2016). Solving the problem of powerful instruction. In C. Csikos, A. Rausch, & J. Szitanyi (Eds.), Proceedings of the 40th Conference of the international Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, pp. 3–18). Szeged: PME.Google Scholar
  27. Schroeder, T. L., & Lester, F. K. (1989). Developing understanding in mathematics via problem solving. In P. R. Trafton & A. P. Shulte (Eds.), New directions for elementary school mathematics (pp. 31–42). Reston: NCTM.Google Scholar
  28. Skemp, R. R. (1976). Relational understanding and instrumental understanding. Mathematics Teaching, 77, 20–26.Google Scholar
  29. Smith, M. S., & Stein, M. K. (2011). 5 practices for orchestrating productive mathematical discussions. Reston: National Council of Teacher of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  30. Stein, M. K., & Lane, S. (1996). Instructional tasks and the development of student capacity to think and reason: an analysis of the relationship between teaching and learning in a reform mathematics project. Educational Research and Evaluation: An International Journal on Theory and Practice, 2(1), 50–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Stein, M. K., Smith, M. S., Henningsen, M., & Silver, E. (2009). Implementing standards-based mathematics instruction: a casebook for professional development (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  32. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  33. Sullivan, P., & Davidson, A. (2014). The role of challenging mathematical tasks in creating opportunities for student reasoning, 2014. In J. Anderson, M. Cavanagh, & A. Prescott (Eds.), Curriculum in focus: Research guided practice. Proceedings of the 37th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (pp. 605–612). Sydney: MERGA.Google Scholar
  34. Sullivan, P., Clarke, D. M., Clarke, B., & O'Shea, H. (2009a). Exploring the relationship between task, teacher actions, and student learning. PNA, 4(4), 133–142.Google Scholar
  35. Sullivan, P., Mousley, J., & Jorgensen, R. (2009b). Tasks and pedagogies that facilitate mathematical problem solving. In B. Kaur, M. Kapur, & K. Berinderjeet (Eds.), Yearbook of the Association of Mathematics Educators (pp. 17–42). London: AME and World Scientific Publishing.Google Scholar
  36. Sullivan, P., Clarke, D., & Clarke, B. (2013). Teaching with tasks for effective mathematics learning. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sullivan, P., Clarke, D., Cheeseman, J., Mornane, A., Roche, A., Sawatzki, C., & Walker, N. (2014). Students’ willingness to engage with mathematical challenges: Implications for classroom pedagogies. In J. Anderson, M. Cavanagh, & A. Prescott (Eds.), Curriculum in focus: Research guided practice. (Proceedings of the 37th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia) (pp. 597–604). Sydney: MERGA.Google Scholar
  38. Sullivan, P., Askew, M., Cheeseman, J., Clarke, D., Mornane, A., Roche, A., & Walker, N. (2015). Supporting teachers in structuring mathematics lessons involving challenging tasks. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education., 18, 123–140.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-014-9279-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sullivan, P., Walker, N., Borcek, C., & Rennie, M. (2016). Exploring a structure for mathematics lessons that initiate learning by activating cognition on challenging tasks. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 159–170.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2015.12.002.
  40. van den Akker, J., Gravemeijer, K., McKenney, S., & Nieveen, N. E. (2006). Educational design research. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Watson, A., & Sullivan, P. (2008). Teachers learning about tasks and lessons. In D. Tirosh & T. Wood (Eds.), Tools and resources in mathematics teacher education (pp. 109–135). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, Inc. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of OtagoDunedinNew Zealand
  2. 2.Monash UniversityMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations