Advertisement

Development of a Framework to Characterise the Openness of Mathematical Tasks

Article

Abstract

Educators usually mean different constructs when they speak of open tasks: some may refer to pure-mathematics investigative tasks while others may have authentic real-life tasks in mind; some may think of the answer being open while others may refer to an open method. On the other hand, some educators use different terms, e.g. open and open-ended, to mean the same construct, while others distinguish between these terms. It is difficult to hold a meaningful discussion or to define clearly an area of research on open tasks if the idea of what constitutes the construct of openness is vague. Moreover, what students learn depends on the types of tasks that they are given, and different kinds of tasks place differing cognitive demands on students. Thus, the objectives of this article are to clarify the types of mathematical tasks and develop a framework to characterise their openness based on five task variables: goal, method, task complexity, answer and extension; and to discuss how different types of tasks and openness may affect student learning. The openness framework can help teachers to design or select more appropriate tasks to cater to students with different abilities in order to develop in them various kinds of mathematical thinking processes, and it can also make it easier for researchers to study the interaction between different types of openness and student learning.

Keywords

Mathematical investigation Open tasks Open-ended tasks Problem solving Real-life tasks 

References

  1. Becker, J. P. & Shimada, S. (1997). The open-ended approach: A new proposal for teaching mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  2. Boaler, J. (1998). Open and closed mathematics: Student experiences and understandings. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 29, 41–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brown, S. I. & Walter, M. I. (2005). The art of problem posing (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  4. Cai, J. & Cifarelli, V. (2005). Exploring mathematical exploration: How two college students formulated and solved their own mathematical problems. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 27(3), 43–72.Google Scholar
  5. Christiansen, B. & Walther, G. (1986). Task and activity. In B. Christiansen, A. G. Howson & M. Otte (Eds.), Perspectives on mathematics education: Papers submitted by members of the Bacomet Group (pp. 243–307). Dordrecht, The Netherland: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cockcroft, W. H. (1982). Mathematics counts: Report of the committee of inquiry into the teaching of mathematics in schools under the chairmanship of Dr W H Cockcroft. London, England: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office (HMSO).Google Scholar
  7. Doyle, W. (1983). Academic work. Review of Educational Research, 53, 159–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ernest, P. (1991). The philosophy of mathematics education. London, England: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  9. Evans, J. (1987). Investigations: The state of the art. Mathematics in School, 16(1), 27–30.Google Scholar
  10. Frederiksen, N. (1984). Implications of cognitive theory for instruction in problem solving. Review of Educational Research, 54, 363–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Frobisher, L. (1994). Problems, investigations and an investigative approach. In A. Orton & G. Wain (Eds.), Issues in teaching mathematics (pp. 150–173). London, England: Cassell.Google Scholar
  12. Henderson, K. B. & Pingry, R. E. (1953). Problem solving in mathematics. In H. F. Fehr (Ed.), The learning of mathematics: Its theory and practice (pp. 228–270). Washington, DC: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  13. 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, 524–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hiebert, J. & Wearne, D. (1993). Instructional tasks, classroom discourse, and students’ learning in second-grade arithmetic. American Educational Research Journal, 30, 393–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jaworski, B. (1994). Investigating mathematics teaching: A constructivist enquiry. London, England: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  16. Kaiser, G. & Sriraman, B. (2006). A global survey of international perspectives on modelling in mathematics education. Zentralblatt für Didaktik der Mathematik, 38, 302–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kilpatrick, J. (1987). Problem formulating: Where do good problems come from? In A. H. Schoenfeld (Ed.), Cognitive science and mathematics education (pp. 123–147). Hillsdale, MI: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  18. Klavir, R. & Hershkovitz, S. (2008). Teaching and evaluating ‘open-ended’ problems. International Journal for Mathematics Teaching and Learning. Retrieved from http://www.cimt.plymouth.ac.uk/journal.
  19. Lampert, M. (1990). When the problem is not the question and the solution is not the answer: Mathematical knowing and teaching. American Educational Research Journal, 27, 29–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lerman, S. (1989). Investigations: Where to now? In P. Ernest (Ed.), Mathematics teaching: The state of the art (pp. 73–80). London, England: Falmer.Google Scholar
  21. Lester, F. K., Jr. (1980). Problem solving: Is it a problem? In M. M. Lindquist (Ed.), Selected issues in mathematics education (pp. 29–45). Berkeley: McCutchan.Google Scholar
  22. Lingefjärd, T. & Meier, S. (2010). Teachers as managers of the modelling process. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 22, 92–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mason, J., Burton, L. & Stacey, K. (1985). Thinking mathematically (Revth ed.). Wokingham, England: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  24. Mason, J. & Johnston-Wilder, S. (2006). Designing and using mathematical tasks. St Albans, England: Tarquin Publications.Google Scholar
  25. Moschkovich, J. N. (2002). Bringing together workplace and academic mathematical practices during classroom assessments. In E. Yackel, M. E. Brenner & J. N. Moschkovich (Eds.), Everyday and academic mathematics in the classroom (pp. 93–110). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  26. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (1991). Professional standards for teaching mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  27. Orton, A. & Frobisher, L. (1996). Insights into teaching mathematics. London, England: Cassell.Google Scholar
  28. Pirie, S. (1987). Mathematical investigations in your classroom: A guide for teachers. Basingstoke, England: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  29. Reys, R. E., Lindquist, M. M., Lambdin, D. V., Smith, N. L. & Suydam, M. N. (2012). Helping children learn mathematics (10th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
  30. Ronis, D. (2001). Problem-based learning for math and science: Integrating inquiry and the Internet. Arlington Height, IL: SkyLight.Google Scholar
  31. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1985). Mathematical problem solving. Orlando, FL: Academic.Google Scholar
  32. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1988). When good teaching leads to bad results: The disasters of “well-taught” mathematics courses. Educational Psychologist, 23, 145–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sheffield, L. J., Meissner, H. & Foong, P. Y. (2004). Developing mathematical creativity in young children. Paper presented at the Tenth International Congress on Mathematical Education, Copenhagen, Denmark.Google Scholar
  34. Silver, E. A. (1994). On mathematical problem posing. For the Learning of Mathematics, 14(1), 19–28.Google Scholar
  35. Simon, H. A. (1978). Information-processing theory of human problem solving. In W. K. Estes (Ed.), Handbook of learning and cognitive processes (Vol. 5, pp. 271–295). Hillsdale, MI: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  36. Skovsmose, O. (2002). Landscapes of investigation. In L. Haggarty (Ed.), Teaching mathematics in secondary schools (pp. 115–128). London, England: Routledge Falmer.Google Scholar
  37. Stein, M. K., Grover, B. W. & Henningsen, M. (1996). Building student capacity for mathematical thinking and reasoning: An analysis of mathematical tasks used in reform classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 33, 455–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wolf, A. (1990). Testing investigations. In P. Dowling & R. Noss (Eds.), Mathematics versus the national curriculum (pp. 137–153). London, England: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  39. Yeo, J.B.W. (2008). Secondary school students investigating mathematics. In M. Goos, R. Brown & K. Makar (Eds.), Proceedings of the 31st Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (MERGA): Navigating Currents and Charting Directions (vol. 2, pp. 613–619). Brisbane, Australia: MERGA, Inc. Google Scholar
  40. Yeo, J.B.W & Yeap, B.H. (2010). Characterising the cognitive processes in mathematical investigation. International Journal for Mathematics Teaching and Learning. Retrieved from http://www.cimt.plymouth.ac.uk/journal.

Copyright information

© Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Institute of EducationNanyang Technological UniversitySingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations