Mathematics Education Research Journal

, Volume 29, Issue 1, pp 25–43 | Cite as

Lessons in financial literacy task design: authentic, imaginable, useful

Original Article
First Online:
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:

Abstract

As part of ongoing design-based research exploring financial literacy teaching and learning, 10 tasks termed “financial dilemmas” were trialled by 14 teachers and more than 300 year 5 and 6 students in four government primary schools in urban Darwin. Drawing on data related to three tasks—Catching the bus, Laser Tag and Buying bread—this article explores insights into problem context and task design principles. The findings highlight that fit to circumstance, challenge yet accessibility and pedagogical architecture are important task design principles. Further, tasks involving unfamiliar, novel and imaginable problem contexts, while pedagogically demanding for teachers, can be considered useful by students and have the potential to broaden their horizons.

Keywords

Realistic mathematics Numeracy Task design Financial literacy Problem solving 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The EPMC project is funded through an Australian Research Council Discovery Project (DP110101027). The views expressed are those of the author. The project acknowledges the generous participation of the project schools.

References

  1. Anthony, G. & Walshaw, M. (2009). Effective pedagogy in mathematics. Educational Series 19. Brussels: International Academy of Education; Geneva: International Bureau of Education.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, T., & Shattuck, J. (2012). Design-based research: a decade of progress in education research? Educational Researcher, 41(1), 16–25. doi: 10.3102/0013189X11428813.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority [ACARA]. (2015a). The Australian curriculum: mathematics structure. Retrieved from http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/mathematics/structure
  4. Australian Securities & Investments Commission [ASIC]. (2016). MoneySmart teaching. Retrieved from https://www.moneysmart.gov.au/teaching
  5. Blue, L., Grootenboer, P., & Brimble, M. (2014). Financial literacy education in the curriculum: making the grade or missing the mark? International Review of Economics Education, 16, 51–62. doi: 10.1016/j.iree.2014.07.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blue, L., Grootenboer, P., & Brimble, M. (2015). The importance of praxis in financial literacy education: an indigenous perspective, 2015. In M. Marshman, V. Geiger, & A. Bennison (Eds.), Mathematics education in the margins, Proceedings of the 38th Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (pp. 117–124). Sunshine Coast: MERGA.Google Scholar
  7. Boaler, J. (1994). When do girls prefer football to fashion? An analysis of female underachievement in relation to ‘realistic’ mathematics contexts. British Educational Research Journal, 5, 551–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Borasi, R. (1986). On the nature of problems. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 17, 125–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clarke, D. D., Roche, A., Cheeseman, J., & Sullivan, P. A. (2014). Encouraging students to persist when working on challenging tasks: some insights from teachers. The Australian Mathematics Teacher, 70(1), 3–11.Google Scholar
  10. de Lange, J. (1979). Contextuele problemen [Contextual problems]. Euclides, 55, 50–60.Google Scholar
  11. de Lange, J. (2007). Large-scale assessment and mathematics education. In F. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 1112–1142). Charlotte, N.C: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  12. Gates, P., & Jorgensen, R. (2009). Foregrounding social justice in mathematics teacher education. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 12, 161–170. doi: 10.1007/s10857-009-9105-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Geiger, V., Goos, M., Forgasz, H., & Benison, A. (2014). Devising principles of design for numeracy tasks. In J. Anderson, M. Cavanagh, & A. Prescott (Eds.), Curriculum in focus: research guided practice, Proceedings of the 37th Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (pp. 557–564). Sydney: MERGA.Google Scholar
  14. 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. 100–108). Adelaide: MERGA.Google Scholar
  15. 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. doi: 10.1007/s13394-011-0008-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gravemeijer, K. (1994). Developing realistic mathematics education, Utrecht, the Netherlands. CD-B Press/Freudenthal Institute.Google Scholar
  17. 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
  18. Hill, H. C., Ball, D. L., & Schilling, S. G. (2008). Unpacking pedagogical content knowledge: conceptualising and measuring teachers’ topic-specific knowledge of students. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 39(4), 372–400.Google Scholar
  19. Jorgensen, R., Gates, P., & Roper, V. (2014). Structural exclusion through school mathematics: using Bourdieu to understand mathematics as a social practice. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 87(2), 221–239. doi: 10.1007/s10649-013-9468-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jorgensen, R., & Sullivan, P. (2010). Scholastic heritage and success in school mathematics: implications for remote aboriginal learners. In I. Snyder & J. Nieuwenhuysen (Eds.), Closing the gap in education? Improving outcomes in southern world societies (pp. 23–36). Melbourne: Monash University Publishing.Google Scholar
  21. Kemmis, S., Wilkinson, J., Edwards-Groves, C., Hardy, I., Grootenboer, P., & Bristol, L. (2014). Changing practices, Changing education. Singapore: Springer.Google Scholar
  22. Lappan, G., Fey, T., Fitzgerald, W. M., Friel, S., & Phillips, E. D. (2006). Connected mathematics 2: implementing and teaching guide. Boston, MA: Pearson, Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  23. Lucey, T. A., Agnello, M. F., & Laney, J. D. (2015). A critically compassionate approach to financial literacy. The Netherlands: Sense Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lucey, T. A., & Tanase, M. (2012). Making learning to problem-solve count: critical use of mathematics to bring about social justice. Multicultural Education, 19(4), 8–12.Google Scholar
  25. MacFarlane, A., Glynn, T., Cavanagh, T., & Bateman, S. (2007). Creating culturally-safe schools for Maori students. The Australian Journal on Indigenous Education, 36, 65–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mandell, L., & Klein, L. (2007). Motivation and financial literacy. Financial Services Review, 16, 105–116.Google Scholar
  27. Meyer, M. R., Dekker, T., & Querelle, N. (2001). Innovations in curriculum: context in mathematics curricula. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 6(9), 522–527.Google Scholar
  28. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD]. (2012a). OECD INFE guidelines on financial education in schools. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/daf/fin/financial-education/2012%20Schools%20Guidelines.pdf
  29. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD]. (2012b). PISA 2012 financial literacy framework. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/46962580.pdf
  30. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2013). PISA 2012 assessment and analytical framework: mathematics, reading, science, problem solving and financial literacy. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  31. Pinto, L. E. (2012). When politics trump evidence: financial literacy education narratives following the global financial crisis. Journal of Education Policy, 28(1), 95–120. doi: 10.1080/02680939.2012.690163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pinto, L., & Coulson, E. (2011). Social justice and the gender politics of financial literacy education. Journal of the Canadian Association for Curriculum Studies, 9(2), 54–85.Google Scholar
  33. Salgado, F. A., & Stacey, K. (2014). Item context factors affecting students’ performance on mathematics items. In J. Anderson, M. Cavanagh, & A. Prescott (Eds.), Curriculum in focus: research guided practice, Proceedings of the 37th Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (pp. 55–62). Sydney: MERGA.Google Scholar
  34. Salgado, F. A. (2016). Investigating the impact of context on students’ performance. 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. 100–108). Adelaide: MERGA.Google Scholar
  35. Sawatzki, C. (2013). What financial dilemmas reveal about students’ social and mathematical understandings. In V. Steinle, L. Ball, & C. Bardini (Eds.), Proceedings of the 36th Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (pp. 602–609). Melbourne: MERGA.Google Scholar
  36. Sawatzki, C. (2014). Connecting social and mathematical thinking: the use of “real life” contexts. In J. Anderson, M. Cavanagh, & A. Prescott (Eds.), Curriculum in focus: research guided practice, Proceedings of the 37th Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (pp. 557–564). Sydney: MERGA.Google Scholar
  37. Schoenfeld, A. H. (2009). Bridging the cultures of educational research and design. Educational Designer, 1(2). Retrieved 3 March 2014 from http://www.educationaldesigner.org/ed/volume1/issue2/article5/
  38. Smith, M. S., & Stein, M. K. (2011). Five practices for orchestrating productive mathematical discussions. Reston VA: National Council of Teacher of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  39. Sullivan, P., Askew, M., Cheeseman, J., Clarke, D., Mornane, A., Roche, A., & Walker, N. (2014). Supporting teachers in structuring mathematics lessons involving challenging tasks. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education. doi: 10.1007/s10857-014-9279-2.Google Scholar
  40. Sullivan, P., Clarke, D., & Clarke, B. (2013). Teaching with tasks for effective mathematics learning. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sullivan, P., Mousley, J., & Jorgensen, R. (2009). Tasks and pedagogies that facilitate mathematical problem solving. In B. Kaur (Ed.), Mathematical problem solving (pp. 17–42). Association of Mathematics Educators: Singapore / USA / UK World Scientific Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sullivan, P., Zevenbergen, R., & Mousley, J. (2003). The contexts of mathematics tasks and the context of the classroom: are we including all students? Mathematics Education Research Journal, 15(2), 107–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Stacey, K. (2015). The real world and the mathematical world. In K. Stacey & R. Turner (Eds.), Assessing mathematical literacy. The PISA experience (pp. 57–84). Cham: Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
  44. Thomson, S. (2014). Financing the future: Australian students’ results in the PISA 2012 Financial Literacy assessment. Australian Council for Educational Research [ACER], http://www.acer.edu.au/files/PISA_2012_Financial_Literacy.pdf
  45. Thomson, S., De Bortoli, L., & Buckley, S. (2013). PISA 2012: how Australia measures up. Melbourne: ACER.Google Scholar
  46. Vale, C., Atweh, B., Averill, R., & Skourdoumbis, A. (2016). Equity, social justice and ethics in mathematics education. In K. Makar, S. Dole, J. Visnovska, M. Goos, A. Bennison, & K. Fry (Eds.), Research in mathematics education in Australasia (pp. 2012–2015). Singapore: Springer.Google Scholar
  47. Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M. (2005). The role of contexts in assessment problems in mathematics. For the Learning of Mathematics, 2, 2–9.Google Scholar
  48. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind and society: the development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Walker, N. (2014). Improving the effectiveness of the whole class discussion in the summary phase of mathematics lessons. In J. Anderson, M. Cavanagh, & A. Prescott (Eds.), Curriculum in focus: research guided practice, Proceedings of the 37th Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (pp. 597–604). Sydney: MERGA.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, Inc. 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of EducationMonash UniversityClaytonAustralia

Personalised recommendations