한국수학교육학회지시리즈D:수학교육연구 (Research in Mathematical Education)

  • 제25권4호
  • /
  • Pages.285-309
  • /
  • 2022
  • /
  • 1226-6191(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2287-9943(eISSN)
한국수학교육학회 (Korean Society of Mathematical Education)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Development of Mathematical Task Analytic Framework: Proactive and Reactive Features

  • Sheunghyun, Yeo (Department of Mathematics Education, Daegu National University of Education) ;
  • Jung, Colen (Department of Mathematical & Natural Sciences, Chadron State College) ;
  • Na Young, Kwon (Department of Mathematics Education, Inha University) ;
  • Hoyun, Cho (School of Education, Capital University) ;
  • Jinho, Kim (Department of Mathematics Education, Daegu National University of Education) ;
  • Woong, Lim (Graduate School of Education, Yonsei University)
  • 투고 : 2022.12.05
  • 심사 : 2022.12.29
  • 발행 : 2022.12.31
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

A large body of previous studies investigated mathematical tasks by analyzing the design process prior to lessons or textbooks. While researchers have revealed the significant roles of mathematical tasks within written curricular, there has been a call for studies about how mathematical tasks are implemented or what is experienced and learned by students as enacted curriculum. This article proposes a mathematical task analytic framework based on a holistic definition of tasks encompassing both written tasks and the process of task enactment. We synthesized the features of the mathematical tasks and developed a task analytic framework with multiple dimensions: breadth, depth, bridging, openness, and interaction. We also applied the scoring rubric to analyze three multiplication tasks to illustrate the framework by its five dimensions. We illustrate how a series of tasks are analyzed through the framework when students are engaged in multiplicative thinking. The framework can provide important information about the qualities of planned tasks for mathematics instruction (proactive) and the qualities of implemented tasks during instruction (reactive). This framework will be beneficial for curriculum designers to design rich tasks with more careful consideration of how each feature of the tasks would be attained and for teachers to transform mathematical tasks with the provision of meaningful learning activities into implementation.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Arbaugh, F., & Brown, C. A. (2005). Analyzing mathematical tasks: A catalyst for change? Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 8(6), 499-536. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-006-6585-3
  2. Baumert, J., Kunter, M., Blum, W., Brunner, M., Voss, T., Jordan, A., ... Tsai, Y. M. (2010). Teachers' mathematical knowledge, cognitive activation in the classroom, and student progress. American Educational Research Journal, 47(1), 133-180. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831209345157
  3. Berg, C. V. (2012). From designing to implementing mathematical tasks: Investigating the changes in the nature of the T-shirt task. The Mathematics Enthusiast, 9(3), 347-358. https://doi.org/10.54870/1551-3440.1249
  4. Boston, M. D. (2012). Assessing instructional quality in mathematics. The Elementary School Journal, 113(1), 76-104.
  5. Boston, M. D., & Candela, A. G. (2018). The instructional quality assessment as a tool for reflecting on instructional practice. ZDM, 50(3), 427-444. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-018-0916-6
  6. Boston, M. D., & Smith, M. S. (2009). Transforming secondary mathematics teaching: Increasing the cognitive demands of instructional tasks used in teachers' classrooms. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 40(2), 119-156.
  7. Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Fuson, K. C., Hiebert, J., Murray, H., & Wearne, D. (1997). Making sense: Teaching and learning mathematics with understanding. Heinemann. Charalambous, C. Y. (2010). Mathematical knowledge for teaching and task unfolding: An exploratory study. The Elementary School Journal, 110(3), 247-278. https://doi.org/10.1086/648978
  8. Christiansen, B., & Walther, G. (1986). Task and activity. In B. Christiansen, A. G. Howson, & M. Otte (Eds.), Perspectives on mathematics education (pp. 243-307). Reidel Publishing Company.
  9. Civil, M., & Andrade, R. (2002). Transitions between home and school mathematics: Rays of hope amidst the passing clouds. In G. D. Abreu, A. J. Bishop, & N. C. Presmeg (Eds.), Transitions between contexts of mathematical practices (pp. 149-169). Kluwer.
  10. Clarke, D., & Roche, A. (2018). Using contextualized tasks to engage students in meaningful and worthwhile mathematics learning. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 51, 95-108.
  11. Cohen, D. K., Raudenbush, S. W., & Ball, D. L. (2003). Resources, instruction, and research. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(2), 119-142. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737025002119
  12. Crespo, S. (2003). Learning to pose mathematical problems: Exploring changes in preservice teachers' practices. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 52(3), 243-270. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024364304664
  13. Doyle, W. (1983). Academic work. Review of Educational Research, 53(2), 159-199. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543053002159
  14. Doyle, W. (1988). Work in mathematics classes: The context of students' thinking during instruction. Educational Psychologist, 23(2), 167-180. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2302_6
  15. Drake, C., Land, T. J., Bartell, T. G., Aguirre, J. M., Foote, M. Q., McDuffie, A. R., & Turner, E. E. (2015). Three strategies for opening curriculum spaces. Teaching Children Mathematics, 21(6), 346-353. https://doi.org/10.5951/teacchilmath.21.6.0346
  16. Turner, E. E. (2015). Three strategies for opening curriculum spaces. Teaching Children Mathematics, 21(6), 346-353.
  17. Fan, L., & Zhu, Y. (2007). Representation of problem-solving procedures: A comparative look at China, Singapore, and US mathematics textbooks. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 66(1), 61-75.
  18. Francisco, J. M., & Maher, C. A. (2011). Teachers attending to students' mathematical reasoning: Lessons from an after-school research program. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 14(1), 49-66.
  19. Gimenez, J., Font, V., & Vanegas, Y. (2013). Designing professional tasks for didactical analysis as a research process. In C. Margolinas (Ed.), Task design in mathematics education. Proceedings of ICMI Study 22 (pp. 581-590). ICMI studies.
  20. 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(5), 524-549 https://doi.org/10.2307/749690
  21. Herbel-Eisenmann, B. A., & Otten, S. (2011). Mapping mathematics in classroom discourse. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 42(5), 451-485. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.42.5.0451
  22. Herbst, P., & Chazan, D. (2012). On the instructional triangle and sources of justification for actions in mathematics teaching. ZDM, 44(5), 601-612. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-012-0438-6
  23. Hiebert, J., & Wearne, D. (1993). Instructional tasks, classroom discourse, and students' learning in second-grade arithmetic. American Educational Research Journal, 30(2), 393-425. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312030002393
  24. Hiebert, J., Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Fuson, K., Human, P., Murray, H., ... & Wearne, D. (1996). Problem solving as a basis for reform in curriculum and instruction: The case of mathematics. Educational Researcher, 25(4), 12-21. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X025004012
  25. Horoks, J., & Robert, A. (2007). Tasks designed to highlight task-activity relationships. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 10(4-6), 279-287. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-007-9040-1
  26. Jader, J., Sidenvall, J., & Sumpter, L. (2017). Students' mathematical reasoning and beliefs in non-routine task solving. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15(4), 759-776.
  27. Jitendra, A. K., Griffin, C. C., Haria, P., Leh, J., Adams, A., & Kaduvettoor, A. (2007). A comparison of single and multiple strategy instruction on third-grade students' mathematical problem solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(1), 115. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.1.115
  28. Kazemi, E., & Stipek, D. (2009). Promoting conceptual thinking in four upper-elementary mathematics classrooms. Journal of Education, 189(1-2), 123-137. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022057409189001-209
  29. Kim, J. (2014). Instructional materials for learner-centered mathematics instruction, Educational Research in Science and Mathematics, 37, 169-185.
  30. Kim, J. (2020). Mathematics classroom for students to enjoy: Grade 3 addition and subtraction. Kyoyook Book.
  31. Kim, J. (2021). Mathematics classroom for students to enjoy: Grade 3 multiplication and division. Kyoyook Book.
  32. Kisker, E. E., Lipka, J., Adams, B. L., Rickard, A., Andrew-Ihrke, D., Yanez, E. E., & Millard, A. (2012). The potential of a culturally based supplemental mathematics curriculum to improve the mathematics performance of Alaska Native and other students. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 43(1), 75-113. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.43.1.0075
  33. Konig, J., Bremerich-Vos, A., Buchholtz, C., & Glutsch, N. (2020). General pedagogical knowledge, pedagogical adaptivity in written lesson plans, and instructional practice among preservice teachers. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 52(6), 800-822. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2020.1752804
  34. Lampert, M. (2001). Teaching problems and the problems of teaching. Yale University Press.
  35. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press.
  36. Li, Y. (2000). A comparison of problems that follow selected content presentations in American and Chinese mathematics textbooks. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 31(2), 234-241.
  37. Liljedahl, P. (2020). Building thinking classrooms in mathematics, grades K-12: 14 teaching practices for enhancing learning. Corwin Press.
  38. Liljedahl, P., Chernoff, E., & Zazkis, R. (2007). Interweaving mathematics and pedagogy in task design: A tale of one task. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 10(4- 6), 239-249. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-007-9047-7
  39. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1991). Professional standards for teaching mathematics. Author.
  40. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Author.
  41. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2014). Principles to action: Ensuring mathematical success for all. Author.
  42. National Research Council. (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. The National Academies Press.
  43. Ni, Y., Zhou, D., Li, X., & Li, Q. (2014). Relations of instructional tasks to teacher-student discourse in mathematics classrooms of Chinese primary schools. Cognition and Instruction, 32(1), 2-43. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2013.857319
  44. Norton, A., & Kastberg, S. (2012). Learning to pose cognitively demanding tasks through letter writing. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 15(2), 109-130. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-011-9193-9
  45. Polly, D. (2015). Examining how professional development influences elementary school teachers' enacted instructional practices and students' evidence of mathematical understanding. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 29(4), 565-582. https://doi.org/10.1080/02568543.2015.1073198
  46. Raymond, A. M. (1997). Inconsistency between a beginning elementary school teacher's mathematics beliefs and teaching practice. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28(5), 550-576.
  47. Remillard, J. T. (2005). Examining key concepts in research on teachers' use of mathematics curricula. Review of Educational Research, 75(2), 211-246. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543075002211
  48. Romberg, T. (1994). Classroom instruction that fosters mathematical thinking and problem solving: connections between theory and practice. In A. Schoenfeld (Ed.), Mathematical thinking and problem solving (pp. 287-304). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  49. Ruthven, K., Laborde, C., Leach, J., & Tiberghien, A. (2009). Design tools in didactical research: Instrumenting the epistemological and cognitive aspects of the design of teaching sequences. Educational Researcher, 38(5), 329-342. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X09338513
  50. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2006). Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy, and technology. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 97-118). Cambridge.
  51. Schmidt, W. H., McKnight, C. C., & Raizen, S. A. (1997). A splintered vision: An investigation of U.S. science and mathematics education. Kluwer Academic.
  52. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1992). On paradigms and methods: What do you do when the ones you know don't do what you want them to? Issues in the analysis of data in the form of videotapes. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2), 179-214. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls0202_3
  53. Shaughnessy, M., Garcia, N. M., O'Neill, M. K., Selling, S. K., Willis, A. T., Wilkes, C. E., Salazar, S. B., & Ball, D. L. (2021). Formatively assessing prospective teachers' skills in leading mathematics discussions. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 108(3), 451-472. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-021-10070-z
  54. Sherin, M. G. (2002). A balancing act: Developing a discourse community in a mathematics classroom. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 5(3), 205-233. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020134209073
  55. Simon, M. A., Placa, N., & Avitzur, A. (2016). Participatory and anticipatory stages of mathematical concept learning: Further empirical and theoretical development. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 47(1), 63-93. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.47.1.0063
  56. Singer, F. M., Voica, C., & Pelczer, I. (2017). Cognitive styles in posing geometry problems: Implications for assessment of mathematical creativity. ZDM, 49(1), 37-52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-016-0820-x
  57. Son, J. W. (2012). A cross-national comparison of reform curricula in Korea and the US in terms of cognitive complexity: The case of fraction addition and subtraction. ZDM, 44(2), 161-174. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-012-0386-1
  58. Son, J. W., & Senk, S. L. (2010). How reform curricula in the USA and Korea present multiplication and division of fractions. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 74(2), 117-142. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-010-9229-6
  59. Stein, M. K., Smith, M. S., Henningsen, M., & Silver, E. A. (2000). Implementing standards-based mathematics instruction: A casebook for professional development. Teachers College Press.
  60. 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(2), 455-488. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312033002455
  61. Stein, M. K., & Smith, M. S. (1998). Mathematical tasks as a framework for reflection: From research to practice. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 3(4), 268-275. https://doi.org/10.5951/mtms.3.4.0268
  62. Stein, M. K., Smith, M. S., Henningsen, M. A., & Silver, E. A. (2009). Implementing standards-based mathematics instruction: A casebook for professional development. Teachers College Press and the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
  63. Stillman, G. (2000). Impact of prior knowledge of task context on approaches to applications tasks. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 19(3), 333-361. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0732-3123(00)00049-3
  64. Tarr, J. E., Chavez, O ., Reys, R. E., & Reys, B. J. (2006). From the written to the enacted curricula: The intermediary role of middle school mathematics teachers in shaping students' opportunity to learn. School Science and Mathematics, 106(4), 191-201. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2006.tb18075.x
  65. Tarr, J. E., Reys, R. E., Reys, B. J., Chavez, O ., Shih, J., & Osterlind, S. J. (2008). The impact of middle-grades mathematics curricula and the classroom learning environment on student achievement. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 39(3), 247-280.
  66. Tekkumru-Kisa, M., Stein, M. K., & Doyle, W. (2020). Theory and research on tasks revisited: Task as a context for students' thinking in the era of ambitious reforms in mathematics and science. Educational Researcher, 49(8), 606-617. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X20932480
  67. van de Walle, J. A., Karp, K., & Bay-Williams, J. M. (2019). Elementary and middle school mathematics: Teaching developmentally (10th ed.). Pearson.
  68. Watson, A., & Mason, J. (2007). Taken-as-shared: A review of common assumptions about mathematical tasks in teacher education. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 10, 205-215. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-007-9059-3
  69. Watson, A., & Ohtani, M. (2015). Themes and issues in mathematics education concerning task design. In A. Watson & M. Ohtani (Eds.), Task design in mathematics education: An ICMI study (pp. 3-15). Springer.
  70. Wijaya, A., van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M., & Doorman, M. (2015). Opportunity-to-learn context-based tasks provided by mathematics textbooks. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 89(1), 41-65.
  71. Yeh, C., Ellis, M., & Hurtado, C. (2016). Reimagining the mathematics classroom: Creating and sustaining productive learning environments, K-6. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
  72. Yeo, J. B. (2017). Development of a framework to characterise the openness of mathematical tasks. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15(1), 175-191. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-015-9675-9