Mathematics Education Research Journal

, Volume 16, Issue 1, pp 41–71 | Cite as

Strategies employed by upper secondary students for overcoming or exploiting conditions affecting accessibility of applications tasks

  • Gloria Stillman


A cognitive/metacognitive framework is presented for analysing applications tasks and responses to these. Conditions facilitating or impeding access to such tasks at the upper secondary level were identified using qualitative data analysis techniques within this framework. Strategies employed in exploiting, or overcoming these conditions were identified. A well-developed repertoire of cognitive and metacognitive strategies together with a rich store of mathematical knowledge, real-world knowledge and experiences, and comprehension skills facilitated access. This was enhanced by metacognitive knowledge encouraging student engagement with the task and by students imagining they were in the task situation. Once moderate skill had been achieved in accessing these applications, coordination and integration of multiple representations, further cues, and mathematical processes and procedures became critical.


Cognitive Activity Perceptual Condition Secondary Student Metacognitive Knowledge Metacognitive Strategy 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Amit, M. (1994). Assessment in mathematics — past, present and future. In R. Peard & L. English (Eds.),New directions in assessment of mathematics (Proceedings of the 4th annual conference on Mathematics Teaching and Learning, pp. 1–17). Brisbane: Centre for Mathematics and Science Education, QUT.Google Scholar
  2. Atkinson, R. C., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1968). Human memory: A proposed system and its control processes. In W. K. Spence & J. T. Spence (Eds.),The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 1, pp. 89–195). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  3. Baddeley, A. (1997).Human memory: Theory and practice (Rev. ed.). Hove, England: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  4. Blum, W., & Niss, M. (1991). Applied mathematical problem solving, modelling, applications, and links to other subjects — state, trends and issues in mathematics instruction.Educational Studies in Mathematics, 22, 37–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bourne, L. F., Dominowski, R. G., Loftus, E. F., & Healy, A. F. (1986).Cognitive processes (2nd ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  6. Broadbent, D. (1987). Simple experiments for experimentable situations. In P. Morris (Ed.),Modelling cognition (pp. 169–186). London, England: Wiley.Google Scholar
  7. Bruer, J. T. (1993).Schools for thought: A science of learning in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  8. Busse, A., & Kaiser, G. (2003). Context in application and modelling: An empirical approach. In Q. Ye, W. Blum, I. D. Huntley & N. T. Neil (Eds.),Mathematical modelling in education and culture (pp. 95–107). Chichester, UK: Horwood.Google Scholar
  9. Carlson, R. A., Khoo, B. H., Yaure, R. G., & Schneider, W. (1990). Acquisition of a problem-solving skill: Levels of organization and use of working memory.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 119(2), 193–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carlson, R. A., Sullivan, M. A., & Schneider, W. (1989). Practice and working memory effects in building procedural skill.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15, 517–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction.Cognition and Instruction, 8, 293–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cooper, B. (1998). Assessing national curriculum mathematics in England: Exploring children’s interpretation of key stage 2 tests in clinical interviews.Educational Studies in Mathematics, 35 (1), 19–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ekol, G. (2004). Mathematical modelling: Country experience Uganda. In H. Henn & W. Blum (Eds.),Proceedings of International Congress of Mathematics Instruction Study 14: Applications and modelling in mathematics education (Pre-conference volume, pp. 77–82). Dortmund, Germany: ICMI.Google Scholar
  14. Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry.American Psychologist, 34, 906–911.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Flavell, J. H. (1987). Speculation about the nature and development of metacognition. In F. E. Weinert & R. H. Kluwe (Eds.),Metacognition, motivation and understanding (pp. 21–30). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  16. Fong, H. K. (1994). Information Processing Taxonomy (IPT): An alternative technique for assessing mathematical problem-solving.Singapore Journal of Education, 14(1), 31–45.Google Scholar
  17. Gravemeijer, K., & Doorman, M. (1999). Context problems in realistic mathematics education: A calculus course as an example.Educational Studies in Mathematics, 39, 111–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Greer, B., & Verschaffel, L. (Eds.) (1997). Modelling reality in mathematics classrooms.Learning and Instruction, 7(4). [Special issue].Google Scholar
  19. Kadijevich, D. (1999). What may be neglected by an application-centred approach to mathematics education? A personal view.Nordisk Matematikk Didaktikk (Nordic Studies in Mathematics Education), 7(1), 29–39.Google Scholar
  20. Kaplan, C. A., & Simon, H. A. (1990). In search of insight.Cognitive Psychology, 22, 374–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model.Psychological Review, 95 (2), 163–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kluwe, R. H. (1987). Executive decisions and regulation of problem solving behaviour. In F. E. Weinert & R. H. Kluwe (Eds.),Metacognition, motivation, and understanding (pp. 31–64). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  23. Krutetskii, V. A. (1969). An analysis of the individual structure of mathematical abilities in schoolchildren. In J. Kilpatrick & I. Wirszup (Eds.),Soviet studies in the psychology of learning and teaching mathematics: Vol. 2. The structure of mathematical abilities (pp. 59–104). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago. (Original work published 1962)Google Scholar
  24. Krutetskii, V. A. (1976).The psychology of mathematical abilities in schoolchildren. (J. Kilpatrick & I. Wirszup (Eds.),. J. Teller, Trans.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago. (Original work published 1968)Google Scholar
  25. Lubienski, S. T. (2000). Problem solving as a means toward mathematics for all: An exploratory look through a class lens.Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 31 (4), 454–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Masingila, J. O., Davidenko, S., & Prus-Wisniowska, E. (1996). Mathematics learning and practice in and out of school: A framework for connecting these experiences.Educational Studies in Mathematics, 31, 175–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mayer, R. (1983).Thinking, problem solving, cognition. New York: Freeman.Google Scholar
  28. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994).Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  29. Monsell, S. (1984). Components of working memory underlying verbal skills: A “distributed capacities” approach. In H. Bouma & D. G. Bouwhis (Eds.),Attention and performance X (pp. 327–350). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  30. Nathan, M. J., Kintsch, W., & Young, E. (1992). A theory of algebra-word-problem comprehension and its implications for the design of learning environments.Cognition and Instruction, 9 (4), 329–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pea, R. (1987). Cognitive technologies for mathematics education. In A. Schoenfeld (Ed.),Cognitive science and mathematics education (pp. 89–122). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  32. Peirce, B. N., & Stein, P. (1995). Why the “Monkeys Passage” bombed: Tests, genres, and teaching.Harvard Educational Review, 65 (1), 50–65.Google Scholar
  33. Pollak, H. O. (1997). Solving problems in the real world. In L. A. Steen (Ed.),Why numbers count: Quantitative literacy for tomorrow’s America (pp. 91–105). New York: College Entrance Examination Board.Google Scholar
  34. Prus-Wisniowska, E. (1993).Examining mathematics practice in restaurant management. Research Apprenticeship Report. Unpublished manuscript, Syracuse University.Google Scholar
  35. Qualitative Solutions and Research (1997). Non-numerical Unstructured Data *Indexing Searching and Theorizing (NUD*IST) v.4 [Computer Software]. Melbourne: Qualitative Solutions and Research.Google Scholar
  36. Queensland Board of Senior Secondary School Studies (QBSSSS). (1992).Senior mathematics B syllabus. Brisbane: Author.Google Scholar
  37. Queensland Board of Senior Secondary School Studies (QBSSSS). (2000).Mathematics B: Senior syllabus 2001. Brisbane: Author.Google Scholar
  38. Reusser, K., & Stebler, R. (1997). Every word problem has a solution: The suspension of reality and sense-making in the culture of school mathematics.Learning and Instruction, 7, 309–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Roulet, G., & Surrtamm, C. (2004). Modelling: Subject images and teacher practice. In H. Henn & W. Blum (Eds.),Proceedings of International Congress of Mathematics Instruction Study 14: Applications and modelling in mathematics education (Pre-conference volume, pp. 229–234). Dortmund, Germany: ICMI.Google Scholar
  40. Schneider, W., & Detweiler, M. (1987). A connectionist/control architecture for working memory. In G. H. Bower (Ed.),The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 21, pp. 54–119). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  41. Schneider, W., & Detweiler, M. (1988). The role of practice in dual-task performance: Toward workload modelling in a connectionist/control architecture.Human Factors, 30, 539–566.Google Scholar
  42. Smith, R., & Hurst, J. (1990). Accident investigations. In I. D. Huntley & D. J. G. James (Eds.),Mathematical modelling: A sourcebook of case studies (pp. 67–80). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Stillman, G. (1998). Task context and applications at the senior secondary level. In C. Kanes, M. Goos & E. Warren (Eds.),Teaching mathematics in new times (Proceedings of the 21st annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, Vol. 2, pp. 564–571). Gold Coast: MERGA.Google Scholar
  44. Stillman, G. (1999). Accessibility of applications tasks. In J. M. Truran & K. M. Truran (Eds.),Making the difference (Proceedings of the 22nd annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, pp. 454–461). Adelaide: MERGA.Google Scholar
  45. Stillman, G. (2000). Impact of prior knowledge of task context on approaches to applications tasks.Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 19 (3), 333–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Stillman, G. (2002).Assessing higher order mathematical thinking through applications. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Queensland.Google Scholar
  47. Stillman, G. A., & Galbraith, P. L. (1998). Applying mathematics with real world connections: Metacognitive characteristics of secondary students.Educational Studies in Mathematics 36 (2), 157–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990).Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  49. Sweller, J. (1992). Cognitive theories and their implications for mathematics instruction. In G. Leder (Ed.),Assessment and learning of mathematics (pp. 46–62). Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.Google Scholar
  50. Taylor, J. C. (1991). Designing instruction to generate expert cognitive skill performance: Empirical evidence. In G. Evans (Ed.),Learning and teaching cognitive skills (pp. 164–184). Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.Google Scholar
  51. Tesch, R. (1990).Qualitative research: Analysis types and software tools. New York, NY: Falmer.Google Scholar
  52. Tulving, E. (1985). How many memory systems are there?American Psychologist, 40(4), 385–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M. (1999). Context problems and assessment: Ideas from the Netherlands. In I. Thompson (Ed.),Issues in teaching numeracy in primary schools, (pp. 130–142). Buckingham, UK: Open University.Google Scholar
  54. Verschaffel, L., De Corte, E., & Vierstraete, H. (1999). Upper elementary school pupils’ difficulties in modeling and solving nonstandard additive word problems involving ordinal numbers.Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 30 (3), 265–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Verschaffel, L., Greer, B., & De Corte, E. (2000).Making sense of word problems. Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.Google Scholar
  56. Voigt, J. (1998). The culture of the mathematics classroom: Negotiating the mathematical meaning of empirical phenomena. In F. Seeger, J. Voigt & U. Waschescio (Eds.),The culture of the mathematics classroom (pp. 191–220). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Yoshida, H., Verschaffel, L., & De Corte, E. (1997). Realistic considerations in solving problematic word problems. Do Japanese and Belgian children have the same difficulties?Learning and Instruction, 7 (4), 329–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wagenaar, W. A. (1986). My memory: A study of autobiographical memory over six years.Cognitive Psychology, 18, 225–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Williams, G. (2002). Developing a shared understanding of task complexity. In L. Bazzini & C. Whybrow Inchley (Eds.),Mathematical literacy in the digital era: Research and classroom practice aiming at mathematics education for all. Proceedings of the 53rd conference of the International Commission for the Study and Improvement of mathematics Teaching (CIEAEM) (pp. 263–268). Milano, Italy: Ghisetti e Corvi Edirori.Google Scholar
  60. Wistedt, I., & Martinsson, M. (1996). Orchestrating a mathematical theme: Elevenyear olds discuss the problem of infinity.Learning and Instruction, 6 (2), 173–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia Inc. 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gloria Stillman
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Science and Mathematics EducationUniversity of MelbourneVICAustralia

Personalised recommendations