Advertisement

ZDM

, Volume 51, Issue 6, pp 929–940 | Cite as

Using mathematics as evidence supporting critical reasoning and enquiry in primary science classrooms

  • Vince GeigerEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

In this article I describe an approach to task design and implementation that addresses the broad capabilities common to 21st Century Skills and the STEM education agenda. Principles of task design and implementation were co-constructed by ten teachers and a single researcher during a longitudinal study that took place over 3 years. A vignette that draws on observation data from a Year 1 class and a post-lesson teacher interview is used to illustrate the possibilities that exist for mathematics to support critical reasoning and enquiry in primary science. The article concludes with a reflection on the role of teachers in designing and implementing tasks aimed at promoting effective STEM teaching and learning.

Keywords

STEM 21st Century Skills Mathematics education Numeracy Mathematical literacy Science education Critical reasoning 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This article reports on research funded by the Australian Research Council—project DE150100269.

References

  1. American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education and the Partnership for 21st Century Skills (2010). 21st century knowledge and skills in educator preparation. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED519336.pdf. Retrieved 16 June 2019.
  2. Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills project (2009). http://www.atc21s.org/. Retrieved 16 June 2019.
  3. Australian Council of Learned Academies (ACOLA) (2013). STEM: Country comparisons: International comparisons of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education. Final report. Melbourne: ACOLA.Google Scholar
  4. Balka, D. (2011). Standards of mathematical practice and STEM. Stillwater: School Science and Mathematics Association.Google Scholar
  5. Brown, M. W. (2009). The teacher-tool relationship: Theorizing the design and use of curriculum materials. In J. T. Remillard, B. A. Herbel-Eisenmann, & G. M. Lloyd (Eds.), Mathematics teachers at work: Connecting curriculum materials and classroom instruction (pp. 17–36). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Burkhart, H., & Swan, M. (2013). Task design for systemic improvement: Principles and frameworks. In C. Margolinas (Ed.), Task design in mathematics education (The 22st ICME study conference) (pp. 431–440). Oxford: ICME.Google Scholar
  7. Burns, R. (2000). Introduction to research methods (4th ed.). Sydney: Longman.Google Scholar
  8. Bybee, R. W., (2010). Advancing STEM education: A 2020 vision. Technology and Engineering Teacher, pp 30–35.Google Scholar
  9. Charette, R. N. (2013). The STEM crisis is a myth. Retrieved December 23, 2014 from http://spectrum.ieee.org/at-work/education/the-stem-crisis-is-a-myth.
  10. Cobb, P., Confrey, J., DiSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in educational research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Coles, A., & Brown, L. (2013). Making distinctions in task design and student activity. In A. Watson, M. Ohtani, J. Ainley, J. Bolite Frant, M. Doorman, C. Kieran, A. Leung, C. Margolinas, P. Sullivan, D. Thompson, & Y. Yang (Eds.), Proceedings of ICMI Study 22 task design in mathematics education, (pp. 183–192). Oxford: International Commission on Mathematics Instruction.Google Scholar
  12. Commonwealth of Australia (2015). National innovation and science agenda. http://www.innovation.gov.au/page/agenda. Retrieved 16 June 2019.
  13. Darling-Hammond, L. (2007). Building a system for powerful teaching and learning. In B. Wehling & C. Schneider (Eds.), Building a 21st Century U.S. education system (pp. 65–74). Washington, DC: National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future.Google Scholar
  14. de Araujo, Z., & Singletary, L. M. (2011). Secondary mathematics teachers’ conceptions of worthwhile tasks. In L. R. Wiest & T. Lamberg (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd annual meeting of the North American chapter of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education (pp. 1207–1215). Reno: University of Nevada, Reno.Google Scholar
  15. English, L. D. (2016). STEM education K-12: perspectives on integration. International Journal of STEM Education.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-016-0036-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. European Parliament (2015). Encouraging STEM studies for the labour market. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/studies. Retrieved 16 June 2019.
  17. Fitzallen, N. (2015). STEM education: what does mathematics have to offer? In M. Marshman (Ed), Mathematics education in the margins. Proceedings of the 38th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, Sunshine Coast, June 28–July 2 (pp. 237–244). Sydney: MERGA.Google Scholar
  18. Geiger, V. (2016). Teachers as designers of effective numeracy 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. 252-259). Adelaide: MERGA.Google Scholar
  19. Geiger, V., Forgasz, H., & Goos, M. (2015a). A critical orientation to numeracy across the curriculum. ZDM–Mathematics Education, 47(4), 611–624.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-014-0648-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Geiger, V., Goos, M., & Dole, S. (2015b). The role of digital technologies in numeracy teaching and learning. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 13(5), 1115–1137.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-014-9530-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Glancy, A. W. & Moore, T. J., (2013). Theoretical Foundations for Effective STEM Learning Environments. School of Engineering Education Working Papers. Paper 1. https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/enewp/1/. Retrieved 16 June 2019.
  22. Goos, M., Dole, S., & Geiger, V. (2011). Improving numeracy education in rural schools: A professional development approach. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 23(2), 129–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Goos, M., Geiger, V., & Dole, S. (2013). Designing rich numeracy tasks. In C. Margolinas (Ed.), Task design in mathematics education (The 22st ICME study conference) (pp. 589–598). Oxford: ICME.Google Scholar
  24. Goos, M., Geiger, V., & Dole, S. (2014). Transforming professional practice in numeracy teaching. In Y. Li, E. Silver, & S. Li (Eds.), Transforming mathematics instruction: Multiple approaches and practices (pp. 81–102). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  25. Haggarty, L., & Pepin, B. (2002). An investigation of mathematics textbooks and their use in English, French and German classrooms: Who gets an opportunity to learn what? British Educational Research Journal, 28(4), 567–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hobbs, L., Clark, J. C., & Plant, B. (2018). Successful students—STEM program: Teacher learning through a multifaceted vision for STEM education. In R. Jorgensen & K. Larkin (Eds.), STEM education in the junior secondary (pp. 133–168). Singapore: Springer Nature.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Honey, M., Pearson, G., & Schweingruber, (Eds.). (2014). STEM integration in K-12 education: Status, prospects, and an agenda for research. Washington: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  28. Hopkins, S., Forgasz, H., Corrigan, D. & Panizzon, D. (2014). The STEM issue in Australia: What it is and where is the evidence? Paper presented at the STEM Conference, Vancouver, Canada. http://stem2014.ubc.ca. Retrieved 16 June 2019.
  29. Jia, Y., Oha, Y., Sibumaa, B., LaBancab, F., & Lorentsonc, M. (2016). Measuring twenty-first century skills: development and validation of a scale for in-service and pre-service teachers. Teacher Development, 20(2), 229–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Johnson, H. L., Coles, A., & Clarke, D. (2017). Mathematical tasks and the student: navigating “tensions of intentions” between designers, teachers, and students. ZDM Mathematics Education, 49(6), 813–822.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jones, K., & Pepin, B. (2016). Research on mathematics teachers as partners in task design. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 19(2–3), 105–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kieran, C., Doorman, M., & Ohtani, M. (2013). Principles and frameworks for task design within and across communities. In C. Margolinas (Ed.), Task design in mathematics education (The 22st ICME study conference) (pp. 419–420). Oxford: ICME.Google Scholar
  33. Lappan, G., & Phillips, E. (2009). A designer speaks. Educational Designer, 1(3), 1–9.Google Scholar
  34. Lesh, R. A., & Zawojewski, J. (2007). Problem solving and modeling. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 763–804). Greenwich: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  35. Loucks-Horsley, S., Love, N., Stiles, K., Mundry, S., & Hewson, P. (2003). Designing Professional Development for Teachers of Science and Mathematics (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
  36. Maass, K., Garcia, J., Mousoulides, N., & Wake, G. (2013). Designing interdisciplinary tasks in an international design community. In C. Margolinas (Ed.), Task design in mathematics education (ICMI-22 study conference) (pp. 367–376). Oxford: ICMI.Google Scholar
  37. Organisation For Economic Co-Operation And Development [OECD] (2005) The definition and selection of key competencies [Executive Summary]. http://www.oecd.org/edu/skills-beyond-school/definitionandselectionofcompetenciesdeseco.htm. Retrieved 16 June 2019.
  38. Partnership for 21st Century Skills (2002). Learning for the 21st Century: A Report and Mile Guide for 21st Century Skills. http://www.21stcenturyskills.org/images/stories/otherdocs/p21up_Report.pdf. Retrieved 16 June 2019.
  39. Pepin, B., Gueudet, G., & Trouche, L. (2013). Re-sourcing teacher work and interaction: New perspectives on resource design, use and teacher collaboration. ZDM: The International Journal of Mathematics Education, 45(7), 929–943.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Schoenfeld, A. H. (2009). Bridging the cultures of educational research and design. Educational Designer, 1(2). http://www.educationaldesigner.org/ed/volume1/issue2/article5/. Retrieved 16 June 2019.
  41. STEM Task Force Report. (2014). Innovate: a blueprint for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics in California public education. Dublin, California: Californians Dedicated to Education Foundation.Google Scholar
  42. Sullivan, P., & Yang, Y. (2013). Features of task design informing teachers’ decisions about goals and pedagogies. In C. Margolinas (Ed.), Task design in mathematics education (The 22st ICME study conference) (pp. 529–530). Oxford: ICME.Google Scholar
  43. Venville, G. J., Wallace, J., Rennie, L. J., & Malone, J. A. (2002). Curriculum integration: Eroding the high ground of science as a school subject? Studies in Science Education, 37, 43–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Voogt, J., & Roblin, N. P. (2012). A comparative analysis of international frameworks for 21st century competences: implications for national curriculum policies. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 44(3), 299–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wong, V., & Dillon, J. (2019). ‘Voodoo maths’, asymmetric dependency and maths blame: why collaboration between school science and mathematics teachers is so rare. International Journal of Science Education, 41(6), 782–802.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2019.1579945.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Zaslavsky, O. & Sullivan, P. (Eds.). (2011). Setting the stage: A conceptual framework for examining and developing tasks for mathematics teacher education. In O. Zaslavsky and P. Sullivan (Eds.), Constructing knowledge for teaching secondary mathematics: Tasks to enhance prospective and practicing teacher learning (pp. 1–19). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  47. Zollman, A. (2012). Learning for STEM literacy: STEM literacy for learning. School Science and Mathematics., 112(1), 12–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© FIZ Karlsruhe 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Learning Sciences and Teacher EducationAustralian Catholic UniversityBrisbaneAustralia

Personalised recommendations