# Task-Based Interviews in Mathematics Education

**DOI:**https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15789-0_147

- 13 Downloads

## Definition

Interviews in which a subject or group of subjects talk while working on a mathematical task or set of tasks.

### The Clinical Interview

Task-based interviews have their origin in clinical interviews that date back to the time of Piaget, who is credited with pioneering the clinical interview. In the early 1960s, the clinical interview was used in order to gain a deeper understanding of children’s cognitive development (e.g., Piaget 1965, 1975). Task-based interviews have been used by researchers in qualitative research in mathematics education to gain knowledge about an individual or group of students’ existing and developing mathematical knowledge and problem-solving behaviors.

### Task-Based Interview

The task-based interview, a particular form of clinical interview, is designed so that interviewees interact not only with the interviewer and sometimes a small group but also with a *task environment* that is carefully designed for purposes of the interview (Goldin 2000). Hence, a...

## Keywords

Clinical interview Teaching experiment Problem solving Task design## References

- Alqahtani M (2011) Pascal’s identity. Video annotation. Video Mosaic Collaborative. http://videomosaic.org/viewAnalytic?pid=rutgers-lib:35783
- Clement J (2000) Analysis of clinical interviews: foundation and model viability. In: Lesh R, Kelly AE (eds) Research design in mathematics and science education. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, pp 547–589Google Scholar
- Davis RB (1984) Learning mathematics: the cognitive science approach to mathematics education. Ablex, NorwoodGoogle Scholar
- Ginsburg, H. (1977). Children’s arithmetic: the learning process. New York: Van NostrandGoogle Scholar
- Ginsburg HP (1997) Entering the child’s mind: the clinical interview in psychological research and practice. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Goldin G (2000) A scientific perspective on structures, task-based interviews in mathematics education research. In: Lesh R, Kelly AE (eds) Research design in mathematics and science education. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, pp 517–545Google Scholar
- Koichu, B., & Harel, G. (2007). Triadic interaction in clinical task-based interviews with mathematics teachers. Educ Stud Math, 65(3), 349–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Maher CA (1998) Constructivism and constructivist teaching – can they co-exist? In: Bjorkqvist O (ed) Mathematics teaching from a constructivist point of view. Abo Akademi, Finland, pp 29–42Google Scholar
- Maher CA, Martino A (1996) Young children invent methods of proof: the gang of four. In: Nesher P, Steffe LP, Cobb P, Greer B, Goldin J (eds) Theories of mathematical learning. Erlbaum, Mahwah, pp 1–21Google Scholar
- Maher CA, Martino A (1998) Brandon’s proof and isomorphism. In: Maher CA (ed) Can teachers help children make convincing arguments? A glimpse into the process, vol 5. Universidade Santa Ursula, Rio de Janeiro, pp 77–101. (in Portuguese and English)Google Scholar
- Maher CA, Powell AB, Uptegrove E (2011) Combinatorics and reasoning: representing, justifying and building isomorphisms. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Newell AM, Simon H (1972) Human problem solving. Prentice-Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
- Piaget J (1965) The child’s conception of number. Taylor and Francis, LondonGoogle Scholar
- Piaget J (1975) The child’s conception of the world. Littlefield Adams, TotowaGoogle Scholar
- Schoenfeld A (1985) Mathematical problem solving. Academic, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Schoenfeld A (2002) Research methods in (mathematics) education. In: English LD (ed) Handbook of international research in mathematics education. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, pp 435–487Google Scholar
- Steffe LP, Olive J (2009) Children’s fractional knowledge. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Steffe LP, Thompson PW (2000) Teaching experiment methodology: underlying principles and essential elements. In: Lesh R, Kelly AE (eds) Research design in mathematics and science education. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, pp 267–307Google Scholar