Advertisement

LEARNING COHERENT MATHEMATICS THROUGH SEQUENCES OF MICROTASKS: MAKING A DIFFERENCE FOR SECONDARY LEARNERS

  • Anne WatsonEmail author
  • Els De Geest
Article

ABSTRACT

We report on the work of 3 schools which set out to make a difference for their previously low-attaining students. Through naturalistic enquiry over 3 years, we built a picture of their practices. Against a national trend, students reported positive attitudes to mathematics and, in 2 out of 3 schools, showed improvement in attainment, so we probe more deeply into the teaching. The lessons broadly conformed to an approach combining inclusive participation with complex and coherent development of mathematical ideas. To understand how the teachers orchestrated this, we developed lesson analysis techniques that focus on how thinking, repertoire and understanding are scaffolded by teachers through sequences of microtasks.

KEY WORDS

improving mathematics learning lesson analysis low-attaining students mathematical coherence scaffolding tasks 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Andrews, P. (2007). Mathematics teacher typologies or nationally located patterns of behaviour? International Journal of Educational Research, 46, 306–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Askew, M., Hodgen, J., Hossain, S. & Bretscher, N. (2010). Values and variables: Mathematics education in high-performing countries. London: Nuffield Foundation.Google Scholar
  3. Beswick, K., Watson, A. & De Geest, E. (2010). Comparing theoretical perspectives for describing mathematics departments: Complexity and activity. Educational studies in mathematics, 75(2), 153–170.Google Scholar
  4. Biggs, J. & Collis, K. (1982). Evaluating the quality of learning: the SOLO taxonomy. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  5. Boaler, J. & Brodie, K. (2004). The importance, nature and impact of teacher questions. In D. E. McDougall & J. A. Ross (Eds.), Proceedings of the 26th Annual meeting of the North American International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 773–781). Toronto, Japan: University of Toronto.Google Scholar
  6. Boaler, J., Wiliam, D. & Brown, M. (2000). Students’ experiences of ability grouping—disaffection, polarisation and the construction of failure. British Educational Research Journal, 26, 631–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brown, M., Brown, P. & Bibby, T. (2007). “I would rather die”: Attitudes of 16-year-olds towards their future participation in mathematics. Paper presented at annual conference of British Educational Research Association. Available from http://www.lancs.ac.uk/fass/events/mathematicalrelationships/comments/documents/Margaret%20BERA%202007.doc. Accessed 25 Nov 2009.
  8. Day, C., Sammons, P. & Kington, A. (2008). Effective classroom practice: A mixed method study of influences and outcomes: Full research report, ESRC End of Award Report, RES-000-23-1564. Swindon, UK: ESRC.Google Scholar
  9. Dorman, J., Adams, J. & Ferguson, J. (2002). Psychosocial environment and student self-handicapping in secondary school mathematics classes: A cross-national study. Educational Psychology, 22, 499–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Greeno, J. (1994). Gibson’s affordances. Psychological Review, 101, 336–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Hiebert, J., Gallimore, R., Garnier, H., Givvin, K. B., Hollingsworth, H., Jacobs, J., et al (2003). Teaching mathematics in seven countries: Results from the TIMSS 1999 video study (NCES 2003–013). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.Google Scholar
  13. Ireson, J., Hallam, S. & Plewis, I. (2001). Ability grouping in secondary schools: Effects on pupils’ self-concepts. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 315–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Krainer, K. (2005). What is ‘good’ mathematics teaching, and how can research inform practice and policy? Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 8, 75–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Leinhardt, G. (1988). Expertise in instructional lessons: An example from fractions. In D. Grouws, T. Cooney & D. Jones (Eds.), Perspectives on research on effective mathematics teaching (pp. 47–66). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  16. Lincoln, Y. & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  17. Marton, F. & Tsui, A. (2004). Classroom discourse and the space of learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  18. Mason, J., Graham, A. & Johnston-Wilder, S. (2005). Developing thinking in algebra. London: Paul Chapman.Google Scholar
  19. Mullis, I., Martin, M. & Foy, P. (2008). TIMSS 2007 international mathematics report: Findings from IEA’s trends in International Mathematics and Science Study at the Fourth and Eighth Grades. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College.Google Scholar
  20. Nardi, E. & Steward, S. (2003). Is mathematics T.I.R.E.D.? A profile of quiet disaffection in the secondary mathematics classroom. British Educational Research Journal, 29, 345–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ofsted (2005). Mathematics in secondary schools 2003/4. Available from www.ofsted.gov.uk/publications/annualreport0304/subject_reports/secondary/maths.htm. Accessed 25 Nov 2009.
  22. Pietch, J., Walker, R. & Chapman, E. (2003). The relationship among self-concept, self-efficacy, and performance in mathematics during secondary school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 589–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Sternberg, R. (1986). Toward a unified theory of human reasoning. Intelligence, 10, 281–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sturman, L., Ruddock, G., Burge, B., Styles, B., Lin, Y. & Vappula, H. (2008). England’s achievement in TIMSS 2007: National report for England. Slough, UK: NFER.Google Scholar
  25. Watson, A. (2007). The nature of participation afforded by tasks, questions and prompts in mathematics classrooms. Research in Mathematics Education 9 (111–126).Google Scholar
  26. Watson, A. & De Geest, E. (2005). Principled Teaching for Deep Progress: Improving Mathematical Learning Beyond Methods and Materials. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 58, 209–234.Google Scholar
  27. Watson, A. & Mason, J. (2005). Mathematics as a Constructive Activity: Learners Generating Examples, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  28. Wiliam, D., Brown, M. & Boaler, J. (1999). ‘We’ve still got to learn’: Low attainers’ experiences of setting. Equals, 5, 15–18.Google Scholar
  29. Wilson, P., Cooney, T. & Stinson, D. (2005). What constitutes good mathematics teaching and how it develops: Nine high school teachers’ perspectives. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 8, 83–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EducationUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK
  2. 2.The Open UniversityBuckinghamshireUK

Personalised recommendations