Article Sidebar

Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 1567 Download : 624

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Main Article Content

Abstract

Task design is an important element of effective mathematics teaching and learning. Past research in mathematics education has investigated task design in mathematics education from different perspectives (e.g., cognitive and cultural) and offered a number of (theoretical) frameworks and sets of principles. In this study, through a narrative research in the form of autoethnography, I reflected on my past teaching and research experience and proposed a (theoretical) framework for task design in mathematics education. It contains four main principles: (a) inclusion, (b) cognitive demand, (c) affective and social aspects of learning mathematics, and (d) theoretical perspective(s) toward learning mathematics. This framework could be used as a tool for critically reflecting on current practices in terms of task design in teaching mathematics and research in mathematics education. It may also contribute to ongoing research in mathematics education about task design and enable or enhance opportunities for dialogue between lecturers, teachers, and researchers about how to design rich mathematical tasks for teaching and research purposes.

Keywords

Cognitive Demand Culturally Responsive Teaching Inclusion Real-World Context Task Design

Article Details

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

How to Cite
Radmehr, F. (2023). Toward a theoretical framework for task design in mathematics education. Journal on Mathematics Education, 14(2), 189–204. https://doi.org/10.22342/jme.v14i2.pp189-204
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX

References

  1. Anderson, L. W. (ed), Krathwohl, D. R. (ed), Airasian, P. W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintrich, P. R., Raths, J. & Wittrock, M. C. (2001) A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives (Complete edition). Longman.
  2. Arnon, I., Cottrill, J., Dubinsky, E. D., Oktaç, A., Fuentes, S. R., Trigueros, M., & Weller, K. (2014). APOS theory: A framework for research and curriculum development in mathematics education. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7966-6
  3. Averill, R., Anderson, D., Easton, H., Te Maro, P., Smith, D., & Hynds, A. (2009). Culturally responsive teaching of mathematics: Three models from linked studies. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 40(2), 157–186. https://doi.org/10.2307/40539330
  4. Buchs, C. & Butera, F. (2004). Socio-cognitive conflict and the role of student interaction in learning. New Review of Social Psychology, 3(1-2), 80–87. https://serval.unil.ch/resource/serval:BIB_33859.P001/REF.pdf
  5. Cevikbas, M., & Kaiser, G. (2021). A systematic review on task design in dynamic and interactive mathematics learning environments (DIMLEs). Mathematics, 9(4), 399. https://doi.org/10.3390/math9040399
  6. Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th edition). Sage publications.
  7. Den Braber, N., Krüger, J., Mazereeuw, M., & Kuiper, W. (2019). Reflecting on the value of mathematics in an interdisciplinary STEM course. In Eleventh Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (No. 8). Freudenthal Group; Freudenthal Institute; ERME. https://hal.science/hal-02410367
  8. Di Martino, P. (2019). The complex relationship between mathematical modeling and attitude towards mathematics. S. A. Chamberlin, B. Sriraman (Eds.), Affect in Mathematical Modeling, Advances in Mathematics Education (pp. 219–234). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04432-9_14
  9. Dreher, A., & Kuntze, S. (2015). Teachers’ professional knowledge and noticing: The case of multiple representations in the mathematics classroom. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 88(1), 89–114. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-014-9577-8
  10. English, L. D. (2017). Advancing elementary and middle school STEM education. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15(1), 5–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-017-9802-x
  11. Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive– developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906–911. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906
  12. Foster, C. (2011). A slippery slope: Resolving cognitive conflict in mechanics. Teaching Mathematics and its Applications: An International Journal of the IMA, 30(4), 216–221. https://doi.org/10.1093/teamat/hrr015
  13. Foster, C. (2012). Creationism as a misconception: Socio-cognitive conflict in the teaching of evolution. International Journal of Science Education, 34(14), 2171–2180. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.692102
  14. Gadanidis, G. (2012). Why can’t I be a mathematician?. For the Learning of Mathematics, 32(2), 20–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40751-016-0019-3
  15. Gadanidis, G., Hughes, J. M., Minniti, L., & White, B. J. (2017). Computational thinking, grade 1 students and the binomial theorem. Digital Experiences in Mathematics Education, 3(2), 77–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40751-016-0019-3
  16. Gay, G. (2002). Preparing for culturally responsive teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(2), 106–116. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487102053002003
  17. Gjesteland, T. & Vos, P. (2019). Affect and Mathematical Modeling Assessment: A Case Study on Engineering Students’ Experience of Challenge and Flow During a Compulsory Mathematical Modeling Task. In S. A. Chamberlin & B. Sriraman (Eds.), Affect in Mathematical Modeling (p. 257–272). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04432-9_16
  18. Greefrath, G., & Vos, P. (2021). Video-based Word Problems or Modelling Projects—Classifying ICT-based Modelling Tasks. In F. K. S. Leung, G. A. Stillman, G. Kaiser, K. L. Wong (Eds.) Mathematical Modelling Education in East and West. International Perspectives on the Teaching and Learning of Mathematical Modelling. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-66996-6_41
  19. Harris, D., Black, L., Hernandez-Martinez, P., Pepin, B., Williams, J., & with the TransMaths Team. (2015). Mathematics and its value for engineering students: What are the implications for teaching?. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 46(3), 321–336. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2014.979893
  20. Heays, V., Copson, K., & Mahon, R. (1994). Māori legends in maths. Wairarapa Education Resource Centre.
  21. Hiebert, J., Gallimore, R., Garnier, H., Givvin, K., Hollingsworth, H., Jacobs, J., et al. (2003). Teaching mathematics in seven countries: Results from the TIMSS 1999 video study. National Center for Educational Statistics.
  22. Kieran, C., Doorman, M., & Ohtani, M. (2015). Frameworks and principles for task design. In A. Watson & M. Ohtani (Eds.) Task design in mathematics education: An ICMI study 22 (pp. 19–81). Springer https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09629-2_2
  23. Jaworski, B. (2014) Unifying Complexity in Mathematics Teaching-Learning Development: A Theory-Practice Dialectic. In Li Y., Silver E., Li S. (Eds.), Transforming Mathematics Instruction. Advances in Mathematics Education (pp. 439–457). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-04993-9_24
  24. Jaworski, B. (2020). Inquiry-based practice in university mathematics teaching development. In D. Potari & O. Chapman (Eds.), International Handbook of Mathematics Teacher Education, Volume 1 (pp. 275–302). Brill Sense. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004418875_011
  25. Kazak, S., Wegerif, R., & Fujita, T. (2015). The importance of dialogic processes to conceptual development in mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 90(2), 105–120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-015-9618-y
  26. Klymchuk, S. (2017). Puzzle-based learning in engineering mathematics: Students’ attitudes. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 48(7), 1106–1119. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40753-019-00085-6
  27. Laursen, S. L., & Rasmussen, C. (2019). I on the prize: Inquiry approaches in undergraduate mathematics. International Journal of Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education, 5(1), 129–146. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40753-019-00085-6
  28. Levav-Waynberg, A., & Leikin, R. (2012a). Using multiple solution tasks for the evaluation of students’ problem-solving performance in geometry. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 12(4), 311–333. https://doi.org/10.1080/14926156.2012.732191
  29. Levav-Waynberg, A., & Leikin, R. (2012b). The role of multiple solution tasks in developing knowledge and creativity in geometry. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 31(1), 73–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2011.11.001
  30. Limón, M. (2001). On the cognitive conflict as an instructional strategy for conceptual change: A critical appraisal. Learning and Instruction, 11(4-5), 357–380. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(00)00037-2
  31. Mason, J., Burton, L., & Stacey, K. (2010). Thinking Mathematically (2nd edition). Pearson Education Limited.
  32. Mogari, D. (2017). Using culturally relevant teaching in a co-educational mathematics class of a patriarchal community. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 94(3), 293–307. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-016-9730-7
  33. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. NCTM.
  34. Nedaei, M., Radmehr, F., & Drake, M. (2019). Exploring engineering undergraduate students’ attitudes toward mathematical problem posing. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, 145(4), 04019009. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EI.1943-5541.0000418
  35. Neugebauer, J., Ray, D. G., & Sassenberg, K. (2016). When being worse helps: The influence of upward social comparisons and knowledge awareness on learner engagement and learning in peer-to-peer knowledge exchange. Learning and Instruction, 44, 41–52. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.02.007
  36. Olsen, J. K., Rummel, N., & Aleven, V. (2021). Designing for the co-orchestration of social transitions between individual, small-group and whole-class learning in the classroom. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 31(1), 24–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-020-00228-w
  37. Polya, G. (1949). How to Solve It (1st Edition). Princeton University Press.
  38. Radmehr, F., & Drake, M. (2017a). Revised Bloom’s taxonomy and integral calculus: unpacking the knowledge dimension. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 48(8), 1206–1224. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2017.1321796
  39. Radmehr, F., & Drake, M. (2017b). Exploring students’ mathematical performance, metacognitive experiences and skills in relation to fundamental theorem of calculus. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 48(7), 1043–1071. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2017.1305129
  40. Radmehr, F., & Drake, M. (2018). An assessment-based model for exploring the solving of mathematical problems: Utilizing revised bloom’s taxonomy and facets of metacognition. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 59, 41–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2018.02.004
  41. Radmehr, F., & Drake, M. (2019). Students’ mathematical performance, metacognitive experiences and metacognitive skills in relation to integral-area relationships. Teaching Mathematics and its Applications: An International Journal of the IMA, 38(2), 85–106. https://doi.org/10.1093/teamat/hry006
  42. Radmehr, F. & Vos, P. (2020). Issues and challenges of 21st century assessment in mathematics education. In L. Leite, E. Oldham, A. S. Afonso, F. Viseu, L. Dourado, H. Martinho (Eds.), Science and mathematics education for 21st century citizens: challenges and ways forward (pp. 437‒462). Nova Science Publishers.
  43. Radmehr, F., Nedaei, M., & Rezvanifard, F. (2021). Task design in engineering mathematical courses: The case of problem-posing and puzzle tasks. In H. Heiß, H. Järvinen, A. Mayer, A. Schulz (Eds.) Blended Learning in Engineering Education: challenging, enlightening – and lasting? SEFI 49th Annual Conference (1175–1183).
  44. Rezvanifard, F., Radmehr, F., & Rogovchenko, Y. (2022). Advancing engineering students’ conceptual understanding through puzzle-based learning: a case study with exact differential equations. Teaching Mathematics and its Application: An International Journal of IMA. https://doi.org/10.1093/teamat/hrac005
  45. Ruthven, K. (2015). Taking design to task: A critical appreciation. In A. Watson & M. Ohtani (Eds.) Task design in mathematics education: An ICMI study 22 (pp. 311–320). Springer https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09629-2_11
  46. Salavatinejad, N., Alamolhodaei, H., & Radmehr, F. (2021). Toward a model for students’ combinatorial thinking. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 61, 100823. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2020.100823
  47. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1985). Mathematical Problem Solving. Academic Press.
  48. Schoenfeld, A. H. (2014). What makes for powerful classrooms, and how can we support teachers in creating them? A story of research and practice, productively intertwined. Educational Researcher, 43(8), 404–412. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.3102/0013189X14554450
  49. Sfard, A. (2017). Ritual for ritual, exploration for exploration Or, what the learners get is what you get from them in return. In J. Adler & A. Sfard (Eds.), Research for educational change: Transforming researchers’ insights into improvement in mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 41–63). Routledge.
  50. Sfard, A. (2020). Commognition. In S. Lerman (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Mathematics Education (2nd ed., pp. 95–101). Springer. Https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15789-0
  51. Stephan, M. (2020) Sociomathematical Norms in Mathematics Education. In: Lerman S. (eds) Encyclopedia of Mathematics Education. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15789-0_143
  52. Stein, C. A. (2007). Let’s talk: Promoting mathematical discourse in the classroom. The Mathematics Teacher, 101(4), 285–289. https://doi.org/10.5951/MT.101.4.0285
  53. Stewart, S., & Thomas, M. O. J. (2009). A framework for mathematical thinking: The case of linear algebra, International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 40(7), 951–961. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207390903200984
  54. Sullivan, P., Knott, L., & Yang, Y. (2015). The relationships between task design, anticipated pedagogies, and student learning. In A. Watson & M. Ohtani (Eds.) Task design in mathematics education: An ICMI study 22 (pp. 83–114). Springer https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09629-2_3
  55. Tall, D. (2008). The transition to formal thinking in mathematics. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 20(2), 5–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03217474
  56. The Mathematical Association of America. (2018). MAA Instructional Practices Guide. Mathematical Association of America.
  57. Thomas, C., Badger, M., Ventura-Medina, E., & Sangwin, C. (2013). Puzzle-based learning of mathematics in engineering. Engineering Education, 8(1), 122–134. https://doi.org/10.11120/ened.2013.00005
  58. Van Den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M. (2005). The role of contexts in assessment problems in mathematics. For the Learning of Mathematics, 25(2), 2–23. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40248489
  59. Vos, P. (2020). Task contexts in Dutch mathematics education. In M. Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen (Ed.) National Reflections on the Netherlands Didactics of Mathematics (pp. 31–53). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33824-4_3
  60. Watson, A., & Ohtani, M. (2015). Themes and issues in mathematics education concerning task design: Editorial introduction. In A. Watson & M. Ohtani (Eds.) Task design in mathematics education: An ICMI study 22 (pp. 3–15). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09629-2_1
  61. Williams, J. (2012). Use and exchange value in mathematics education: Contemporary CHAT meets Bourdieu’s sociology. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 80(1), 57–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-011-9362-x
  62. Yackel, E., & Cobb, P. (1996). Sociomathematical norms, argumentation, and autonomy in mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27(4), 458–477. https://doi.org/10.2307/749877
  63. Zemira, M., & Bracha, K. (2014). Critical Maths for Innovative Societies: The Role of Metacognitive Pedagogies. OECD publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264223561-en