Advertisement

Three-Act Tasks: Creative Means of Engaging Authentic Mathematical Thinking Through Multimedia Storytelling

  • Adrienne Redmond-SanogoEmail author
  • Susan Stansberry
  • Penny Thompson
  • Sheri Vasinda
Chapter
Part of the Mathematics Education in the Digital Era book series (MEDE, volume 10)

Abstract

Three-Act mathematics tasks provide opportunities for P–12 learners to engage in creative problem posing, exploration, and problem solving through video storytelling. Because they are innovative and relatively new, preservice and inservice teachers may not be familiar with evaluating, creating, and implementing Three-Act Tasks. In this chapter, we describe our design process for developing a rubric to evaluate and scaffold these creative multimedia mathematical stories. The rubric draws on four broad areas of literature for its theoretical grounding: (1) research on selecting and posing high cognitive demand tasks for mathematical problem solving, (2) use of story arc for contextual relevance, (3) research on assessing and measuring creativity, and (4) principles of effective multimedia message design and use of story arc. The rubric developed insures a Three-Act Task attends to mathematical concepts, effective use of digital technologies, and creative thinking. It is designed to serve as a guideline for preservice and inservice teachers as they select or create Three-Act Tasks to use in their classrooms.

Keywords

Three act mathematics tasks Multimedia message design Problem-posing Creativity Digital technologies 

References

  1. Allen, K. (2011). Mathematics as thinking: A response to “democracy and school math”. Democracy and Education, 19(2).Google Scholar
  2. Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 10(1), 123–167.Google Scholar
  3. APA Work Group of the Board of Educational Affairs (APAWG). (1997). Learner-centered psychological principles: A framework for school reform and redesign. Washington, D.C.: Author. Retrieved from https://www.apa.org/ed/governance/bea/learner-centered.pdf.
  4. Birth of Image (Producer). (2010, August 27, 2015). Visual grammar: The 4 basic elements [instructional video]. Retrieved from https://vimeo.com/17900961.
  5. Boaler, J. (2008). What’s math go to do with it? Helping children fall in love with their least favorite subject—And why it’s important for America. New York, NY: Penguin.Google Scholar
  6. Boaler, J. (2016). Mathematical mindsets: Unleashing students’ potential through creative math, inspiring messages, and innovative teaching. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  7. Boaler, J., & Staples, M. (2008). Creating mathematical futures through an equitable teaching approach: The case of Railside School. Teachers College Record, 110(3), 608–645.Google Scholar
  8. Bonotto, C. (2013). Artifacts as sources for problem-posing activities. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 83, 37–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brabazon, T. (2016). Let’s talk about something important. Let’s talk about me. Life, community and culture through digital storytelling. In Play: A theory of learning and change (pp. 205–223). New York, NY: Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
  10. Chandler, D. (2015). The grammar of television and film. Retrieved from http://visual-memory.co.uk/daniel/Documents/short/gramtv.html.
  11. Clark-Wilson, A., Robutti, O., & Sinclair, N. (2014). Introduction. In A. Clark-Wilson, O. Robutti, & N. Sinclair (Eds.), The mathematics teacher in the digital age: An international perspective on technology focused professional development. Dordrecht, The Netherland: Springer Science+Business Media.Google Scholar
  12. Cohn, N. (2013). Visual narrative structure. Cognitive Science, 37(3), 413–452.  https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cropley, A. J. (2001). Creativity in education and learning: A guide for teachers and educators. London, UK: Kogan Page.Google Scholar
  14. England, L. (2015, June 22). Engaging students in three-acts, Part 2. Retrieved from http://www.nctm.org/Publications/Teaching-Children-Mathematics/Blog/Engaging-Students-in-Three-Acts,-Part-2/.
  15. Fishman, B. J., Marx, R. W., Best, S., & Tal, R. T. (2003). Linking teachers and student learning to improve professional development in systemic reform. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19(6), 643–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fletcher, G. (2016, April). Modeling with mathematics through three-act tasks. Teaching Children Mathematics. Retrieved from http://www.nctm.org/Publications/Teaching-Children-Mathematics/Blog/Modeling-with-Mathematics-through-Three-Act-Tasks/.
  17. Fox, J. M., & Fox, R. L. (2010). Exploring the nature of creativity. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishers.Google Scholar
  18. Friedel, C., & Rudd, R. (2005). Creative thinking and learning styles in undergraduate agriculture students. In E. A. Moore, & D. Krueger (Eds.), Proceedings of the American Association for Agricultural Education Conference (pp. 199–211). San Antonio, Texas.Google Scholar
  19. Greelish, D. (2013). An interview with computing pioneer Alan Kay. Time. Retrieved from http://techland.time.com/2013/04/02/an-interview-with-computing-pioneer-alan-kay/.
  20. 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(5), 524–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Henriksen, D., Mishra, P., & Mehta, R. (2015). Novel, effective, whole: Toward a NEW framework for evaluations of creative products. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 23(3), 455–478.Google Scholar
  22. Hiebert, J., Morris, A. K., Berk, D., & Jansen, A. (2007). Preparing teachers to learn from teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 58(1), 47–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hiebert, J., & Wearne, D. (1993). Instructional tasks, classroom discourse, and students’ learning in second-grade arithmetic. American Educational Research Journal, 30(2), 393–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hobbs, L., & Davis, R. (2012). Narrative pedagogies in science, mathematics and technology. Research in Science Education, 43(3), 1289–1305.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-012-9302-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. International Society for Technology in Education. (2008). Standards for teachers. Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/standards/iste-standards/standards-for-teachers.
  26. Istenic Starčič, A., Cotic, M., Solomonides, I., & Volk, M. (2016). Engaging preservice primary and preprimary school teachers in digital storytelling for the teaching and learning of mathematics. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47(1), 29–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jewitt, C. (2008). Multimodality and literacy in school classrooms. Review of Research in Education, 32(1), 241–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kapur, M. (2014). Productive failure in learning math. Cognitive Science, 38, 1008–1022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kisa, M. T., & Stein, M. K. (2015). Learning to see teaching in new ways: A foundation for maintaining cognitive demand. American Educational Research Journal, 52(1), 105–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2008). Introducing TPCK. In Handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK) for educators (pp. 3–29).Google Scholar
  31. Krulik, S., & Rudnik, J. A. (1999). Innovative tasks to improve critical- and creative-thinking skills. In I. V. Stiff (Ed.), Developing mathematical reasoning in grades K–12 (pp. 138–145). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  32. Lang, A. (2000). The limited capacity model of mediated message processing. Journal of Communication, 50(1), 46–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lang, A. (2006). Using the limited capacity model of motivated mediated message processing to design effective cancer communication messages. Journal of Communication, 56(s1), S57–S80.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00283.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lego Education. (2013, September). Building future skills: Creativity and playful learning in the classroom. Retrieved from http://www.bettshow.com/library_10/2728656_assocPDF.pdf.
  35. Makel, M. C. (2009). Help us creativity researchers, you’re our only hope. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 3(1), 38–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Malaguzzi, L. (1998). History, ideas, and basic philosophy: An interview with Lella Gandini. In Edwards, C., Gandini, L., & G. Forman (Eds.), The hundred languages of children: The Reggio Emilia approach advanced reflections (2nd ed.). Westport, CT: Ablex Publishing.Google Scholar
  37. Mayer, R. E. (2002). Multimedia learning. The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 41, 85–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mayer, R. E. (2005). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 31–48). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Merriam-Webster. (2017). Definition of technology. Retrieved from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/technology.
  40. Meyer, D. (2013a, May 14). The three-acts of a mathematical story. Retrieved from http://blog.mrmeyer.com/2011/the-three-acts-of-a-mathematical-story/.
  41. Meyer, D. (2013b, May 14). Teaching with three-act tasks: Act one. Retrieved from http://blog.mrmeyer.com/2013/teaching-with-three-act-tasks-act-one/.
  42. Meyer, D. (2013c, May 14). Teaching with three-act tasks: Act two. Retrieved from http://blog.mrmeyer.com/2013/teaching-with-three-act-tasks-act-two/.
  43. Meyer, D. (2013d, May 14). Teaching with three-act tasks: Act three & Sequel. Retrieved from http://blog.mrmeyer.com/2013/teaching-with-three-act-tasks-act-three-sequel/.
  44. Meyer, D. (2015). Missing the promise of mathematical modeling. Mathematics Teacher, 108(8). Retrieved from http://www.nctm.org/Publications/mathematics-teacher/2015/Vol108/Issue8/Missing-the-Promise-Of-Mathematical-Modeling/.
  45. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108, 1017–1054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Muhtaris, K., & Ziemke, K. (2015). Amplify: Digital teaching and learning in the K–6 classroom. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  47. Mullis, I., Martin, M., & Foy, P. (2008). TIMSS 2007 international mathematics report. TIMMS & PIRLS International Study Centre, Boston College.Google Scholar
  48. National Centre for Excellence in Teaching Mathematics (NCETM). (2011). ICT and digital technology used in mathematics teaching—Useful online resources. Retrieved from https://www.ncetm.org.uk/resources/34752.
  49. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA.: NCTM.Google Scholar
  50. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). (2014). Principles to action: Ensuring mathematical success for all. Reston, VA.: NCTM.Google Scholar
  51. Ofsted. (2008). Mathematics—Understanding the score. London, UK: Ofsted.Google Scholar
  52. Oldham, G. R., & Cummings, A. (1996). Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors at work. Academy of Management Journal, 39(3), 607–634.Google Scholar
  53. Ortiz, E. (2016). The problem-solving process in a mathematics classroom, Transformations, 1(1). Retrieved from http://nsuworks.nova.edu/transformations/vol1/iss1/1.
  54. P21 Partnership for 21st Century Learning. (2015). P21 framework definitions. Retrieved from http://www.p21.org/storage/documents/docs/P21_Framework_Definitions_New_Logo_2015.pdf.
  55. Padmavathy, R. D., & Mareesh, K. (2013). Effectiveness of problem based learning in mathematics. International Multidisciplinary e-Journal, 2(1). ISSN:2277-4262.Google Scholar
  56. Parrish, P. E. (2009). Aesthetic principles for instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 57, 511–528.  https://doi.org/10.1007/1s1423-007-9060-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Pehkonen, E. (1997). The state-of-art in mathematical creativity. ZDM Mathematics Education, 29(3), 63–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Polly, D., & Hannafin, M. J. (2010). Reexamining technology’s role in learner-centered professional development. Education Technology Research Development, 58, 557–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Plucker, J. A., Beghetto, R. A., & Dow, G. T. (2004). Why isn’t creativity more important to educational psychologists? Potentials, pitfalls, and future directions in creativity research. Educational Psychologist, 39(2), 83–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Rubenstein, L. D., McCoach, D. B., & Siegle, D. (2013). Teaching for creativity scales: An instrument to examine teachers’ perceptions of factors that allow for the teaching of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 25(3), 324–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Schiro, M. S. (2004). Oral storytelling and teaching mathematics: Pedagogical and multicultural perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  62. Schlechty, P. (2002). Working on the work: An action plan for teachers, principals, and superintendents. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  63. Smith, F. (1992). To think. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  64. Spector, J. M. (2012). Defining educational technology. In J. M. Spector (Ed.), Foundations of educational technology: Integrative approaches and interdisciplinary perspectives (pp. 3–15). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  65. Stansberry, S. L., Thompson, P., & Kymes, A. (2015). Teaching creativity in a master’s level educational technology course. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 23(3), 433–453.Google Scholar
  66. Stein, M. K., Smith, M. S., Henningsen, M., & Silver, E. A. (2009). Implementing standards-based mathematics instruction: A casebook for professional development (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  67. Turner, S. (2013, May). Teachers’ and pupils’ perceptions of creativity across different key stages. Research in Education, 89.  https://doi.org/10.7227/rie.89.1.3.
  68. Wells, G. (1987). Apprenticeship in literacy. Interchange, 18(1–2), 109–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Yenca, (2016, February). 3-Acts: Using digital tools to give every student a voice. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School. Retrieved from http://www.nctm.org/Publications/Mathematics-Teaching-in-Middle-School/Blog/3-Acts_-Using-Digital-Tools-to-Give-Every-Student-a-Voice/.
  70. Zhou, J., & George, J. (2001). When job dissatisfaction leads to creativity: Encouraging the expression of voice. Academy of Management Journal, 44(4), 682–696.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Adrienne Redmond-Sanogo
    • 1
    Email author
  • Susan Stansberry
    • 1
  • Penny Thompson
    • 1
  • Sheri Vasinda
    • 1
  1. 1.Oklahoma State UniversityStillwaterUSA

Personalised recommendations