# Development of a Framework to Characterise the Openness of Mathematical Tasks

- 511 Downloads
- 2 Citations

## Abstract

Educators usually mean different constructs when they speak of open tasks: some may refer to pure-mathematics investigative tasks while others may have authentic real-life tasks in mind; some may think of the answer being open while others may refer to an open method. On the other hand, some educators use different terms, e.g. open and open-ended, to mean the same construct, while others distinguish between these terms. It is difficult to hold a meaningful discussion or to define clearly an area of research on open tasks if the idea of what constitutes the construct of openness is vague. Moreover, what students learn depends on the types of tasks that they are given, and different kinds of tasks place differing cognitive demands on students. Thus, the objectives of this article are to clarify the types of mathematical tasks and develop a framework to characterise their openness based on five task variables: goal, method, task complexity, answer and extension; and to discuss how different types of tasks and openness may affect student learning. The openness framework can help teachers to design or select more appropriate tasks to cater to students with different abilities in order to develop in them various kinds of mathematical thinking processes, and it can also make it easier for researchers to study the interaction between different types of openness and student learning.

## Keywords

Mathematical investigation Open tasks Open-ended tasks Problem solving Real-life tasks## References

- Becker, J. P. & Shimada, S. (1997).
*The open-ended approach: A new proposal for teaching mathematics*. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar - Boaler, J. (1998). Open and closed mathematics: Student experiences and understandings.
*Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 29*, 41–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Brown, S. I. & Walter, M. I. (2005).
*The art of problem posing*(3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar - Cai, J. & Cifarelli, V. (2005). Exploring mathematical exploration: How two college students formulated and solved their own mathematical problems.
*Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 27*(3), 43–72.Google Scholar - Christiansen, B. & Walther, G. (1986). Task and activity. In B. Christiansen, A. G. Howson & M. Otte (Eds.),
*Perspectives on mathematics education: Papers submitted by members of the Bacomet Group*(pp. 243–307). Dordrecht, The Netherland: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Cockcroft, W. H. (1982).
*Mathematics counts: Report of the committee of inquiry into the teaching of mathematics in schools under the chairmanship of Dr W H Cockcroft*. London, England: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office (HMSO).Google Scholar - Doyle, W. (1983). Academic work.
*Review of Educational Research, 53*, 159–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Ernest, P. (1991).
*The philosophy of mathematics education*. London, England: Falmer Press.Google Scholar - Evans, J. (1987). Investigations: The state of the art.
*Mathematics in School, 16*(1), 27–30.Google Scholar - Frederiksen, N. (1984). Implications of cognitive theory for instruction in problem solving.
*Review of Educational Research, 54*, 363–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Frobisher, L. (1994). Problems, investigations and an investigative approach. In A. Orton & G. Wain (Eds.),
*Issues in teaching mathematics*(pp. 150–173). London, England: Cassell.Google Scholar - Henderson, K. B. & Pingry, R. E. (1953). Problem solving in mathematics. In H. F. Fehr (Ed.),
*The learning of mathematics: Its theory and practice*(pp. 228–270). Washington, DC: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar - Henningsen, M. & Stein, M. K. (1997). Mathematical tasks and student cognition: Classroom-based factors that support and inhibit high-level mathematical thinking and reasoning.
*Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28*, 524–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Hiebert, J. & Wearne, D. (1993). Instructional tasks, classroom discourse, and students’ learning in second-grade arithmetic.
*American Educational Research Journal, 30*, 393–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Jaworski, B. (1994).
*Investigating mathematics teaching: A constructivist enquiry*. London, England: Falmer Press.Google Scholar - Kaiser, G. & Sriraman, B. (2006). A global survey of international perspectives on modelling in mathematics education.
*Zentralblatt für Didaktik der Mathematik, 38*, 302–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Kilpatrick, J. (1987). Problem formulating: Where do good problems come from? In A. H. Schoenfeld (Ed.),
*Cognitive science and mathematics education*(pp. 123–147). Hillsdale, MI: Erlbaum.Google Scholar - Klavir, R. & Hershkovitz, S. (2008). Teaching and evaluating ‘open-ended’ problems.
*International Journal for Mathematics Teaching and Learning*. Retrieved from http://www.cimt.plymouth.ac.uk/journal. - Lampert, M. (1990). When the problem is not the question and the solution is not the answer: Mathematical knowing and teaching.
*American Educational Research Journal, 27*, 29–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Lerman, S. (1989). Investigations: Where to now? In P. Ernest (Ed.),
*Mathematics teaching: The state of the art*(pp. 73–80). London, England: Falmer.Google Scholar - Lester, F. K., Jr. (1980). Problem solving: Is it a problem? In M. M. Lindquist (Ed.),
*Selected issues in mathematics education*(pp. 29–45). Berkeley: McCutchan.Google Scholar - Lingefjärd, T. & Meier, S. (2010). Teachers as managers of the modelling process.
*Mathematics Education Research Journal, 22*, 92–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Mason, J., Burton, L. & Stacey, K. (1985).
*Thinking mathematically*(Revth ed.). Wokingham, England: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar - Mason, J. & Johnston-Wilder, S. (2006).
*Designing and using mathematical tasks*. St Albans, England: Tarquin Publications.Google Scholar - Moschkovich, J. N. (2002). Bringing together workplace and academic mathematical practices during classroom assessments. In E. Yackel, M. E. Brenner & J. N. Moschkovich (Eds.),
*Everyday and academic mathematics in the classroom*(pp. 93–110). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar - National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (1991).
*Professional standards for teaching mathematics*. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar - Orton, A. & Frobisher, L. (1996).
*Insights into teaching mathematics*. London, England: Cassell.Google Scholar - Pirie, S. (1987).
*Mathematical investigations in your classroom: A guide for teachers*. Basingstoke, England: Macmillan.Google Scholar - Reys, R. E., Lindquist, M. M., Lambdin, D. V., Smith, N. L. & Suydam, M. N. (2012).
*Helping children learn mathematics*(10th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar - Ronis, D. (2001).
*Problem-based learning for math and science: Integrating inquiry and the Internet*. Arlington Height, IL: SkyLight.Google Scholar - Schoenfeld, A. H. (1985).
*Mathematical problem solving*. Orlando, FL: Academic.Google Scholar - Schoenfeld, A. H. (1988). When good teaching leads to bad results: The disasters of “well-taught” mathematics courses.
*Educational Psychologist, 23*, 145–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Sheffield, L. J., Meissner, H. & Foong, P. Y. (2004).
*Developing mathematical creativity in young children.*Paper presented at the Tenth International Congress on Mathematical Education, Copenhagen, Denmark.Google Scholar - Silver, E. A. (1994). On mathematical problem posing.
*For the Learning of Mathematics, 14*(1), 19–28.Google Scholar - Simon, H. A. (1978). Information-processing theory of human problem solving. In W. K. Estes (Ed.),
*Handbook of learning and cognitive processes*(Vol. 5, pp. 271–295). Hillsdale, MI: Erlbaum.Google Scholar - Skovsmose, O. (2002). Landscapes of investigation. In L. Haggarty (Ed.),
*Teaching mathematics in secondary schools*(pp. 115–128). London, England: Routledge Falmer.Google Scholar - Stein, M. K., Grover, B. W. & Henningsen, M. (1996). Building student capacity for mathematical thinking and reasoning: An analysis of mathematical tasks used in reform classrooms.
*American Educational Research Journal, 33*, 455–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Wolf, A. (1990). Testing investigations. In P. Dowling & R. Noss (Eds.),
*Mathematics versus the national curriculum*(pp. 137–153). London, England: Falmer Press.Google Scholar - Yeo, J.B.W. (2008). Secondary school students investigating mathematics. In M. Goos, R. Brown & K. Makar (Eds.),
*Proceedings of the 31st Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (MERGA): Navigating Currents and Charting Directions*(vol. 2, pp. 613–619). Brisbane, Australia: MERGA, Inc. Google Scholar - Yeo, J.B.W & Yeap, B.H. (2010). Characterising the cognitive processes in mathematical investigation.
*International Journal for Mathematics Teaching and Learning*. Retrieved from http://www.cimt.plymouth.ac.uk/journal.