Advertisement

Mathematics Education Research Journal

, Volume 30, Issue 4, pp 355–382 | Cite as

Identifying the mathematics middle year students use as they address a community issue

  • Margaret Marshman
Original Article
First Online:

Abstract

Middle year students often do not see the mathematics in the real world whereas the Australian Curriculum: Mathematics aims for students to be “confident and creative users and communicators of mathematics” (Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority [ACARA] 2012). Using authentic and real mathematics tasks can address this situation. This paper is an account of how, working within a Knowledge Producing Schools’ framework, a group of middle year students addressed a real community issue, the problem of the lack of a teenage safe space using mathematics and technology. Data were collected for this case study via journal observations and reflections, semi-structured interviews, samples of the students’ work and videos of students working. The data were analysed by identifying the mathematics the students used determining the function and location of the space and focused on problem negotiation, formulation and solving through the statistical investigation cycle. The paper will identify the mathematics and statistics these students used as they addressed a real problem in their local community.

Keywords

Knowledge Producing Schools Statistical investigation cycle Problem-based learning Mathematical modelling Middle years 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by a University of the Sunshine Coast University Research Grant. The author would like to thank Peter Dunn for his useful feedback on a draft of this paper.

References

  1. Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority [ACARA] (2012). Australian curriculum: mathematics. Retrieved from http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/mathematics/Curriculum/F-10.
  2. Battista. (1994). Teacher beliefs and the reform movement in mathematics education. The Phi Delta Kappan, 75(6), 462–470.Google Scholar
  3. Bigum, C. (2002). The knowledge producing school: beyond IT for IT’s sake in schools. Professional Voice, 2(2).Google Scholar
  4. Bigum, C. (2004). Rethinking schools and community: the knowledge producing school. In S. Marshall, W. Taylor, & X. Yu (Eds.), Using community informatics to transform regions (pp. 52–66). London: Idea Group Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bigum, C., & Rowan, L. (2009). Renegotiating knowledge relationships in schools. In S. E. Noffke & B. Somekh (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of educational action research (pp. 102–109). Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
  6. Brown, M., Brown, P., & Biddy, T. (2008). “I would rather die”: reasons given by 16-year-olds for not continuing their study of mathematics. Research in Mathematics Education, 10(1), 3–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carlson, M. P. (1999). The mathematical behavior of six successful mathematics graduate students: influences leading to mathematical success. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 40(3), 237–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. CensusAtSchool (n.d.) Are you a data detective? Retrieved from http://new.censusatschool.org.nz/resource/data-detective-poster/
  9. Dole, S., Bloom, L., & Kowalske, K. (2016). Transforming pedagogy: changing perspectives from teacher-centered to learner-centered. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 10(1). Retrieved from doi: 10.7771/1541-5015.1538
  10. Finan, M. (n.d.) Polya’s problem-solving process. Retrieved from: http://faculty.atu.edu/mfinan/2033/section1.pdf
  11. Galbraith, P. (2011) Models of modelling: is there a first among equals? In Mathematics: traditions and [new] practices. Proceedings of the 33rd annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia. Alice Springs: MERGA.Google Scholar
  12. Hãwera, N., & Taylor, M. (2011). ‘Twenty percent free!’ So how much does the original bar weigh? Australian Primary Mathematics Classroom, 16(4), 3–7.Google Scholar
  13. Houston, K., Mather, G., Wood, L. N., Petocz, P., Reid, A., Harding, A., Engelbrecht, J., & Smith, G. H. (2010). Is there life after modelling? Student conceptions of mathematics. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 22(2), 69–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. McGrath, C., & Rowan, L. (2012). Things that matter: student engagement and technologies in knowledge- producing schools. In L. Rowan & C. Bigum (Eds.), Transformative approaches to new technologies and student diversity in futures orientated classrooms. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  15. Newmann, F.M., Marks, H.M. & Gamoran, A. (1995). Authentic pedagogy and student achievement. Presented to the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA, April 18–22, 1995. Retrieved from: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED389679.pdf.
  16. Office of the Chief Scientist. (2014). Science, technology, engineering and mathematics: Australia’s future. Canberra: Australian Government.Google Scholar
  17. Pfannkuch, M., & Wild, C. (2000). Statistical thinking and statistical practice: themes gleaned from professional statisticians. Statistical Science, 15(2), 132–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Reys, R., Lindquist, M. M., Lambdin, D. V., & Smith, N. L. (2007). Helping children learn mathematics. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  19. Ribeiro, L. R. C. (2011). The pros and cons of project-based learning from the teacher’s standpoint. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 8(1), 1–17.Google Scholar
  20. Romberg, T. A. (1994). Classroom instruction that fosters mathematical thinking and problem solving: connections between theory and practice. In A. H. Schoenfeld (Ed.), Mathematical thinking and problem solving. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  21. Rowan, L., & Bigum, C. (2010). At the hub of it all: knowledge producing schools as sites for educational and social innovation. In D. Clandfield & G. Martell (Eds.), The school as community hub: beyond education’s iron cage (pp. 185–203). Ottawa: Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.Google Scholar
  22. Savery, J. R. (2006). Overview of problem-based learning: definitions and distinctions. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 1(1). Retrieved from: doi: 10.7771/1541-5015.1002
  23. Scardamalia, & Bereiter. (1999). School as knowledge-building organisations. In D. Keating & C. Hertzman (Eds.), Today’s children, tomorrow’s society: the development health and wealth of nations (pp. 274–289). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  24. Schneider, S. B., & Garrison, J. (2008). Deweyan reflections on knowledge-producing schools. Teachers College Record, 110(10), 2204–2223.Google Scholar
  25. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1992). Learning to think mathematically: problem solving, metacognition and sense making in mathematics. In D. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook for research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 334–370). New York: MacMillan.Google Scholar
  26. Stillman, G., Galbraith, P., Brown, J., & Edwards, I. (2007). A framework for success in implementing mathematical modelling in the secondary classroom. In: Mathematics: essential research, essential practice paper. Proceedings of the 30th Annual Conference of Mathematics Education Research Group of Australia, Hobart (pp. 688–697). Adelaide: MERGA.Google Scholar
  27. Strobel, J. & van Barneveld, A. (2009). When is PBL more effective? A meta-synthesis of meta-analyses comparing PBL to conventional classrooms. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 3(1). Retrieved from: doi: 10.7771/1541-5015.1046
  28. Sunshine Coast Council (2010). Speak Up Engage: Sunshine Coast Council’s Youth Engagement Program Report 2010. Retrieved from http://www.sunshinecoast.qld.gov.au/addfiles/documents/community_planning/speak_up_engage_report.pdf.
  29. Sunshine Coast Council (2013). Minutes ordinary meeting 13 January, 2013. Retrieved from http://www.sunshinecoast.qld.gov.au/addfiles/documents/minutes/Signed%20minutes_OM_310113.pdf.
  30. Tytler, R., Osborne, J., Williams, G., Tytler, K., Cripps & Clark, J. (2008) Opening up pathways: engagement in STEM across the primary-secondary school transition. Retrieved from http://www.innovation.gov.au/skills/ResourcesAndPublications/Documents/OpenPathinSciTechMathEnginPrimSecSchTrans.pdf.
  31. White, P., & Mitchelmore, M. (2005). Teaching percentage as a multiplicative relationship. In P. Clarkson, A Downton, D. Gron, M. Horne, A. McDonough, R. Pierce and A. Roche (Eds), Building connections: theory, research and practice. Proceedings of the 28th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (pp. 783–790). Melbourne: MERGA.Google Scholar
  32. Wild, C. J., & Pfannkuch, M. (1999). Statistical thinking in empirical enquiry. International Statistical Review, 67(3), 223–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Yimer, A. & Ellerton, N.F. (2006). Cognitive and metacognitive aspects of mathematical problem solving: an emerging model. In Identities, cultures and learning spaces. Proceedings of the 29th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, Canberra (pp. 573–582). Adelaide: MERGA.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, Inc. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of EducationUniversity of the Sunshine CoastSippy DownsAustralia

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options