Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Seizing the Opportunity to Create Uncertainty in Learning Mathematics

  • Published:
Educational Studies in Mathematics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The paper is a reflective account of the design and implementation of mathematical tasks that evoke uncertainty for the learner. Three types of uncertainty associated with mathematical tasks are discussed and illustrated: competing claims, unknown path or questionable conclusion, and non-readily verifiable outcomes. One task is presented in depth, pointing to the dynamic nature of task design, and the added value stimulated by the uncertainty component entailed in the task in terms of mathematical and pedagogical musing.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Behr, M. and Harel, G.: 1995, ‘Students’ errors, misconceptions, and conflict in application of procedures’, Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics 12(3/4), 75–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berlyne, D.E.: 1960, Conflict, Arousal, and Curiosity, McGraw-Hill, NY.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burton, L.: 1984, ‘Mathematical thinking: The struggle for meaning’, Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 15(1), 35–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cobb, P., Wood, T. and Yackel, E.: 1993, ‘Discourse, mathematical thinking, and classroom practice’, in E. Forman, N. Minick and A. Stone (eds.), Contexts for learning: Sociocultural Dynamics in Children's Development, Oxford University Press, NY, pp. 91–119.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooney, T.J.: 1994, ‘Teacher education as an exercise in adaptation’, in D.B. Aichele and A.F. Coxford (eds.), Professional Development for Teachers of Mathematics: 1994 Yearbook, National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Reston, VA, pp. 9–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooney, T.J.: 2001. Considering the paradoxes, perils, and purposes of conceptualizing teacher development. In F.-L. Lin and T.J. Cooney (eds.), Making Sense of Mathematics Teacher Education, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp. 9–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Courant, R. and Robbins, H.: 1996, What is Mathematics?, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J.: 1933, How We Think: A Restatement of the Relation of Reflective Thinking to the Educative Process, D.C. Heath and Co., Boston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldin, G.A.: 2000, ‘A scientific perspective on structured, task-based interviews in mathematics education research’, in A. Kelly and R.A. Lesh (eds.), Handbook of Research Design in Mathematics and Science Education, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 517–545.

    Google Scholar 

  • Festinger, L.: 1957, A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance, Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischbein, E.: 1987, Intuition in Science and Mathematics, D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrech, The Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischbein, E. and Grossman, A.: 1997, ‘Schemata and Intuitions in Combinatorial Reasoning’, Educational Studies in Mathematics 34, 27–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hadas, N. and Hershkowitz, R.: 2002, ‘Activity analyses at the service of task design’, in A.D. Cockburn and E. Nardi (eds.), Proceedings of the 26th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Vol. 3, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK, pp. 49–56.

  • Hanna, G.: 2000, ‘Proof, Explanation and Exploration: An Overview’, Educational Studies in Mathematics 44(1/2), pp. 5–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henningsen, M. and Stein, M.K.: 1997, ‘Mathematical tasks and student cognition: Classroom-based factors that support and inhibit high-level thinking and reasoning’, Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 28, 534–549.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaworski, B.:1994, Investigating Mathematics Teaching: A Constructivist Enquiry. Falmer Press, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kilpatrick, J., Swafford, J. and Findell, B. (eds.): 2001, Adding it Up: Helping Children Learn Mathematics, National Academy Press, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krainer, K.: 1993, ‘Powerful tasks: A contribution to a high level of acting and reflecting in mathematics instruction’, Educational Studies in Mathematics 24, 65–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leinhardt, G., Zaslavsky, O. and Stein, M.K.: 1990, ‘Functions, graphs, and graphing: Tasks, learning, and teaching’, Review of Educational Research 60(1), 1–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mashiach-Eizenberg, M.: 2001, Novices and Experts Coping with Control on the Solution of Combinatorial Problems, Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Technion, Israel (in Hebrew).

  • Mashiach-Eizenberg, M. and Zaslavsky, O.: 2004, ‘Students’ verification strategies for combinatorial problems’, Mathematical Thinking and Learning 6(1), 15–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mason, J., Burton, L. and Stacey, K.: 1982, Thinking Mathematically, Addison-Wesley, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, N.E.: 1944, ‘Experimental studies in conflict’, in J.M. Hunt (ed.), Personality and the Behavior of Disorders: Vol. 1, Ronald Press, NY.

    Google Scholar 

  • Movshovitz-Hadar, N.: 1993, ‘The false coin problem, mathematical induction, and knowledge fragility’, Journal of Mathematical Behavior 12, 253–268.

    Google Scholar 

  • Movshovitz-Hadar, N. and Webb, J.: 1998, One Equals Zero and Other Mathematical Surprises: Paradoxes, Fallacies, and Mind Bogglers, Key Curriculum Press, Berkley, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piaget, J.: 1985, The Equilibration of Cognitive Structures, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. (Original work published 1975).

  • Peled, I. and Zaslavsky, O.: 1997, ‘Counter-Examples that (only) Prove and Counter-Examples that (also) Explain’, FOCUS on Learning Problems in Mathematics 19(3), 49–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ron, G.: 1996, Counterexamples in Mathematics: Students’ Understanding of their Role, Unpublished M.Sc. Thesis, Technion, Israel (in Hebrew).

  • Schön, D.A.: 1987, Educating the Reflective Practitioner, Jossey-Bass, Oxford, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sierpinska, A.: 2004, ‘Research in mathematics education through a keyhole: Task problematization’, For the Learning of Mathematics 24(2), 7–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stein, M.K., Smith, M.S., Henningsen, M.A. and Silver, E.A.: 2000, Implementing Standards-Based Mathematics Instruction: A Casebook for Professional Development, Teachers College Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan, P. and Mousley, J.: 2001, ‘Thinking teaching: Seeing mathematics teachers as active decision makers’, in F.-L. Lin and T. J. Cooney (eds.), Making Sense of Mathematics Teacher Education, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp. 147–163.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tall, D.: 1990, ‘Inconsistencies in the learning of calculus and analysis’, Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics 12(3/4), 49–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tirosh, D.: 1990, ‘Inconsistencies in students' mathematical constructs’, Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics 12(3/4), 111–129.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tirosh, D. and Even, R.: 1997, ‘To define or not to define: The case of \(\left({ - 8} \right)^{{\textstyle{1 \over 3}}}\)’, Educational Studies in Mathematics 33, 321–330.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tirosh, D., Stavy, R. and Cohen, S.: 1998, ‘Cognitive conflict and intuitive rules’, International Journal of Science Education 20(10), 1257–1269.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vinner, S.: 1990, ‘Inconsistencies: Their causes and function in learning mathematics’, Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics 12(3/4), 85–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L.: 1978, Mind and Society, Harvard University Press, Boston, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zaslavsky, O.: 1995, ‘Open-ended tasks as a trigger for mathematics teachers' professional development’, For the Learning of Mathematics 15(3), 15–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zaslavsky, O. and Leikin, R.: 1999, ‘Interweaving the Training of Mathematics Teacher-Educators and the Professional Development of Mathematics Teachers’, in O. Zaslavsky (ed.), Proceedings of the 23rd Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Vol.4, The Technion – Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel, pp. 143–158.

  • Zaslavsky, O. and Leikin, R.: 2004, ‘Professional development of mathematics teacher educators: Growth through practice’, Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education 7(1), 5–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zaslavsky, O. and Leikin, R. (in progress). Enhancing and Inhibiting Factors of Problem Solving Processes in a Dynamic Geometry Environment.

  • Zaslavsky, O. and Ron, G.: 1998, ‘Students' understandings of the role of counter-examples’, in A. Olivier and K. Newstead (eds.), Proceedings of the 22nd Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Vol. 4, University of South Africa, Stellenbosch, South Africa, pp. 225–232.

  • Zaslavsky, O., Sela, H. and Leron, U.: 2002, ‘Being sloppy about slope: The effect of changing the scale’, Educational Studies in Mathematics 49(1), 119–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Education in Technology and Science Technion, Israel Institute of Technology Haifa, Israel

    Orit Zaslavsky

Authors
  1. Orit Zaslavsky
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Orit Zaslavsky.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Zaslavsky, O. Seizing the Opportunity to Create Uncertainty in Learning Mathematics. Educ Stud Math 60, 297–321 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-005-0606-5

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-005-0606-5

Key Words

Search

Navigation