Research in Mathematical Education (한국수학교육학회지시리즈D:수학교육연구)

Korean Society of Mathematical Education (한국수학교육학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Beyond Accuracy and Speed: Task Demands and Mathematical Performance

  • Received : 2011.11.22
  • Accepted : 2012.09.29
  • Published : 2012.09.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

It is an important issue to explore classroom environments which are conducive to developing students' mathematical performance. This study explores the effects of different classroom environments (solution-demand and corresponding-time setting) on mathematical performances. Fourteen and eighteen prospective teachers were required to prove a task under different conditions respectively: a) Cognitive demand of multiple-solution corresponding time of three hours, and b) Cognitive demand of a right solution corresponding time of 20 minutes. We used SOLO as the assessment tool for mathematical performance from quality perspective. Significant differences were found in the quantity and quality of mathematical performance. The regular environment focusing on speed and accuracy were found to be directly linked to low levels of performance. The findings above provide implications to the cognitive benefits of multiple-solution demand and corresponding time setting.

Keywords

References

  1. Ball, D. L. (1993). With an eye on the mathematical horizon: Dilemmas of teaching elementary school mathematics. Elementary School Journal 93(4), 373-397. ME 1994c.01020 ERIC EJ461722 https://doi.org/10.1086/461730
  2. Bayazit, I. (2006). Task selection and task implementation: seven constraints affecting the teacher's instruction. In: D. Hewitt (Ed.), Proceedings of the British Society for Research into Learning Mathematics, Vol. 26, No. 1 (pp 23-28). London: BSRLM. ME 2007a.00394
  3. Biggs, J. B. & Collis, K F. (1982). Evaluating the Quality of Learning: The SOLO Taxonomy. New York, NY: Academic Press. ME 1985c.03244
  4. Boston, M. D. & Smith, M.S. (2009). Transforming secondary mathematics teaching: Increasing the cognitive demands of instructional tasks used in teachers' classrooms. J. Res. Math. Educ. 40( 2), 119-156. ME 2009f.00101
  5. Cai, J. & Nie, B. (2007). Problem solving in Chinese mathematics education: research and practice. ZDM 39(5-6), 459-473. ME 2009e.00282 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-007-0042-3
  6. Collis, K. F., Romberg, T. A., & Jurdak, M. E. (1986). A technique for assessing mathematical problem solving ability. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 17, 206-221. https://doi.org/10.2307/749302
  7. Conaway, M. (1999, October 11). Repeated Measures Design. Retrieved February 18, 2008, from http://biostat.mc.vanderbilt.edu/twiki/pub/Main/ClinStat/repmeas.PDF
  8. Doyle, W. (1983). Academic work. Review of Educational Research, 53(2), 159-199. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543053002159
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. Hiebert, J., & Wearne, D. (1993). Instructional tasks, classroom discourse, and students' learning in second grade arithmetic. American Educational Research Journal, 30, 393-425. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312030002393
  12. Krutetskii, V. A. (1976). The psychology of mathematical abilities in school children. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.
  13. Leikin, R. (2009). Multiple proof tasks: teacher practice and teacher education Proceedings of International Commission on Mathematical Instruction, ICMI STUDY 19, Proof and proving in mathematics education, Taipei.
  14. Leikin, R. & Levav-Waynberg, A. (2007). Exploring mathematics teacher knowledge to explain the gap between theory-based recommendations and school practice in the use of connecting tasks. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 66, 349-371. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-006-9071-z
  15. Mathematics Textbook Developer Group for Elementary School (2003). Mathematics, Vol. 1, Grade 4 (in Chinese). Beijing: People's Education Press.
  16. Minke, A. (1997, January). Conducting Repeated Measures Analyses: Experimental Design Considerations. Retrieved February 18, 2008, from Ericae.net: http://ericae.net/ft/tamu/Rm.htm
  17. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) (1991). Professional standards for teaching mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM. ME 1991e.03937
  18. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM. ME 1999f.03937 for discussion draft (1998)
  19. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1994). Reflections on doing and teaching mathematics. In: A. H. Schoenfeld (Ed.), Mathematical thinking and problem solving (pp. 53-70). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. ME 1995a.00175
  20. Silver, E. A., & Stein, M. K. (1996). The QUASAR project: The "revolution of the possible" in mathematics instructional reform in urban middle schools. Urban Education 30(4), 476-522. ERIC EJ519260 https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085996030004006
  21. Silver, E. A., Ghousseini, H., Gosen, D., Charalambous, C., & Strawhun, B.T.F. (2005). Moving from rhetoric to praxis: issues faced by teachers in having students consider multiple solutions for problems in the mathematics classroom. J. Math. Behav. 24(3-4), 287-301. ME 2007c.00227 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2005.09.009
  22. Siu, M. K. (1993). Proof and pedagogy in ancient China: Examples from Liu Hui's commentary on Jiu Zhang Suan Shu. Educational Studies in Mathematics 24(4), 345-357. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01273370
  23. Smith, M. S.; Bill, V. & Hughes, E. K. (2008). Thinking through a lesson protocol: A key for successfully implementing high-level tasks. Math. Teach. M. Sch. 14(3), 132-138. ME 2009b.00200
  24. Stein, M. K. & Lane, S. (1996). Instructional Tasks and the Development of Students Capacity to Think and Reason: An Analysis of the Relationship between Teaching and Learning in a Reform Mathematics Project. Educational Research and Evaluation 2(1), 50-80. https://doi.org/10.1080/1380361960020103
  25. Stein, M. K.; Smith, M. S.; Henningsen, M. & Silver, E. A. (2000). Implementing standards-based mathematics instruction: A casebook for professional development. New York: Teachers College Press. ME 2000e.03200
  26. Stigler, J. W. & Hiebert, J. (1999). The teaching gap: Best ideas from the world's teachers for improving education in the classroom. New York: Free Press. ERIC ED343102
  27. Sun, X. (2008). An approach to mathematics interest development by using the notion of "One problem multiple solutions", Teacher Magazine 12, 54-58.
  28. Sun, X. (2009). Renew the Proving Experiences: An experiment for enhancement of a trapezoid area formula proof constructions of student teachers by 'One problem multiple solutions'. In: F.-L. Lin, F.-J. Hsieh, G. Hanna & M. de Villers (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Commission on Mathematical Instruction (ICMI), Study 19 conference: Proof and Proving in Mathematics Education, 2009, Vol.2. (pp. 178-183). Taipei Taiwan: Dept of Math., Nat'l Taiwan Normal Univ. http://140.122.140.1/-icmi19/files/Volume_2.pdf
  29. Sun, X. (2012). Exploring Proof Space: prospective teachers' multiple-proof construction of a trapezoid area formula. Paper presented at the Chinese American Educational Research and Development Association (CAERDA) 2012: International Conference: Educational Research, Policy, and Practice for the Globalizing World. Held at Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada April 12-13, 2012.
  30. Sun, X. & Chan, K. (2009). Regenerating the proving experience: An attempt for improvement original theorem proof construction of student teachers by using spiral variation curriculum. F.-L. Lin, F.-J. Hsieh, G. Hanna & M. de Villers (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Commission on Mathematical Instruction (ICMI), Study 19 conference: Proof and Proving in Mathematics Education, 2009, Vol.2. (pp. 172-177). Taipei Taiwan: Dept of Math., Nat'l Taiwan Normal Univ. http://140.122.140.1/-icmi19/files/Volume_2.pdf
  31. Watson, A. (2007).The nature of participation afforded by tasks, questions and prompts in mathematics classrooms. Research in Mathematics Education, 9, 111-126. https://doi.org/10.1080/14794800008520174
  32. Yakes, C., & Star, J. R. (2011). Using comparison to develop teachers' flexibility in algebra. J. Math. Teach. Educ.14(3), 175-191. ME 2011d.00188 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-009-9131-2
  33. Zhang J. Z. (2005). From mathematical education to educational mathematics, Beijing: Juvenile and children publishing house.