Using Novel Tasks in Teaching Mathematics: Three Tensions Affecting the Work of the Teacher (original) (raw)

Abstract

Novel (as opposed tofadmiliar) tasks can be contextsforstudents' development of new knowledge. But managing such development is a complex activityfor a teacher. The actions that a teacher took in managing the development of the mathematical concept of area in the context of a task comparing cardstock triangles are examined. The observation is made ihat some of the teacher's actions shaped the mathematics at play in ways that seemed to counter the goals of the task. This article seeks to explain apossible rationality behind those contradictory actions. The hypothesis ispresented that in managing task completion and knowledge development, a teacher has to cope with three subjectspecfic tensions related to direction of activity, representation of mathematical objects, and elicitation of students' conceptual actions.

Figures (1)

Loading...

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

References (51)

  1. Arsac, G., Balacheff, N., & Mante, M. (1992). Teacher's. role and reproducibility of didactical situations. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 23, 5-29.
  2. Balacheff, N. (1990). Towards a problematique for research on mathematics teach- ing. Journalfor.Research in Mathematics Education, 21, 258-272.
  3. Ball, D. L. (1993). With an eye on the mathematical horizon: Dilemmas of teaching elementary school mathematics. Elementary SchoolJournal, 93, 373-397.
  4. Herbst Ball, D. L., & Bass, H. (2000). Making believe: The collective construction of public mathematical knowledge in the elementary classroom. In D. Phillips (Ed.), Con- structivism in education: Yearbook of the National Societyfor the Study of Edu- cation (pp. 193-224). 'Chicago: University'of Chicago Press.
  5. Bateson, G. (1971). Steps to an ecology of mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  6. Bauersfeld, H. (1988). Interaction, construction, and knowledge: Alternative per- spectives in mathematics education. In D. A., Grouws, T. J. Cooney, & D. Jones (Eds.), Perspectives on research on effective mathematics teaching. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
  7. Bourdieu, P. (1980). The logic ofpractice. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford 'University Press.
  8. Brousseau, G. (1984). The crucial role of the didactical contract in the analysis and con- struction of situations in teaching and learning mathematics. In H.-G. Steiner (Ed.), Theory of mathematics education (pp. 110~-119). Bielefeld, Germany: Institut fi.r Didaktikk der Mathematikk.
  9. Brousseau, G. (1990). Le contrat didactique: Le milieu [The didactical contract: The milieu]. Recherches en Didactique des Mathematiques, 9, 309-336.
  10. Brousseau, G. (1997). Theory of didactical situations in mathematics: Didactique des mathematfques 1970-1990 (N. Balacheff, M. Cooper, R. Sutherland, &V. Warfield, Eds. and Trans.). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer.
  11. Brousseau, G., & Otte, M. (1991). The fragility of knowledge. In A. Bishop, S. Mellin-. Olsen, &J. van Dormolen (Eds.), Mathematical knowledge: Its growth through teaching (pp. 1336). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer.
  12. Chazan, D. (2000). Beyondformulas in mathematics and teaching: The dynamics of the higb school algebra classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.
  13. Chazan, D., & Ball, D. (1999). Beyond being told not to tell. Forthe Learming of Mathematics, 19(2), 2-10.
  14. Chevallard, Y. (1985). La transposition didactique: Du savoir savant au savoir enseigne [The didactic transposition: From the knowledge of the expert to the knowledge taught].
  15. Grenoble, France: La Pensee Sauvage.
  16. Cobb, P. (2000). Conducting teaching experiments in collaboration with teachers. In A. Kelly &' R. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 307-333). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  17. Cobb, P., & Bauersfeld, H. (Eds.). (1995). The emergence of mathematical meaning: Interaction in classroom cultures. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  18. Cohen, D. K. (1990). A revolution in one classroom: The case of Mrs. Oublier. Edu- cational Evaluation and PolicyAnalysis, 12, 327-345.
  19. Cohen, D. K., & Ball, D. L. (1999). Instruction, capacity, and improvement (CPRE Research Report No. RR-043). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Con- sortium for Policy Research in Education.
  20. Comiti, C., Grenier, D., &'Margolinas, C. (1995). 'Niveaux de connaissances en jeu lors d'interactions en' situation de'classe et modelisation de phenomenes didactiques [Levels of knowing at play during interactions in classroom situations and mod- eling of didactical phenomena].
  21. In G. Arsac, J. Grea, D. Grenier, & A. Tiberghien (Eds.), Differents types de savoirs et leur articulation (pp. 93-127). Grenoble, France: La Pens6e Sauvage.
  22. Douady, R. (1991). Tool, object, setting, window: Elements for analyzing and con- structing didactical situations in mathematics. In A. Bishop, S. Mellin-Olsen, & J. van Dormolen (Eds.), Mathematical knowledge: Itsgrowth through teaching (pp. 109-130). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer.
  23. I Doyle, W. (1983). Academic work. Review ofEducationalResearch, 53, 159-199.
  24. Doyle, W. (1986). Classroom organization and management. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 392-431). New York: Macmillan.
  25. Doyle,W. (1988). Work in mathematics classes: The context of students' thinking dur- ing instruction. Educational Psychologist, 23, 167-180.
  26. Fenstermacher, G. (1986). Philosophy of research on teaching: Three aspects. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 37-49). New York: Macmillan.
  27. Fornari, E., Larreamendy-Joems, J., Stein, M. K., & Brown, C. (1998). 'You're going to want to firid out which and prove it": Collective argumentation in a mathe- matics classroom. Learning and Instruction, 8, 527-548.
  28. Freudenthal, H. (1983). Didacticalphenomenology of mathematical structures. Dor- drecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer.
  29. Henningsen, M., & Stein, M. K. (1997). Mathematical tasks and'student cognition: Classroom-based factors that support and inhibit high-level mathematical thinking and reasoning. Journalfor Research in Mathematics Education, 28, 524-549.
  30. Herbst, P. (2002). Engaging students in proving: A double bind on the teacher. 'Jour- nalforResearch inMathematicsEducation, 33, 176-203.
  31. Herbst, P., & Chazan, D. (in press). Exploring the practical rationality of mathematics teaching through conversations about videotaped episodes: The case of' engag- ing students in proving. For the Learning of Mathematics.
  32. Hershkowitz, R., Schwarz, B., & Dreyfus, T. (2001). Abstraction in context: Episternic' actions. JournalforResearch in Mathematics Education, 32, 195-222.
  33. Krummheuer, G. (1995). The ethnography of argumentation. In P. Cobb & H. Bauers- feld (Eds.), The emergence of mathematical meaning: Interaction in classroom' cultures (pp. 229-269). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  34. Krummheuer, G.-(1998). Formats of argumentation in the mathematics classroom. In' H. Steinbring, M. Bartolini-Bussi, & A. Sierpinska (Eds.), Language and com- munication in the mathematics classroom (pp. 223-234).' Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
  35. Lakatos, I. (1976). Proofs and refutations: The logic of mathematical discovery. Cam- bridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
  36. Lampert, M. (1985). How do teachers manage to teach? Perspectives on problems in practice. HarvardEducationalReview, 55, 178-194.
  37. Lampert, M. (2001). Teaching problems and the problems of teaching. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
  38. Lampert, M., & Ball, D. (1998). Teaching, multimedia, and mathematics: Investiga- tions of realpractice. New York: Teachers College Press.
  39. LeCompte, M., & Preissle, J. (1993). Ethnography and qualitative design in educa- tional research (2nd ed.). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
  40. Mason, J. (1999). The role of labels in promoting learning from experience in teach- ers and students. In L. Burton (Ed.), Learning mathematics: From hierarchies to networks (pp. 187-208). London: Falmer Press. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1991). Professional standards for teaching mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
  41. Piaget, J., Inhelder, B., & Szeminska, A. (1960). The child's conception of geometry. New York: Basic Books.
  42. Reid, D. (2002). Conjectures and refutations in Grade 5 mathematics. Journalfor Research in Mathematics Education, 33, 5-29.
  43. Rousseau, J.-J. (1994). Social contract: Discouise on the virtue most necessaryfor a hero (R. Masters & C. Kelley, Eds., J. Bush, R. Masters, & C. Kelley, Trans.). Hanover, NH: University Press of New England.
  44. Serra, M. (1997). Discovering geometry: An inductive approach. Emeryville, CA: Key Curriculum Press.
  45. Herbst Simon, M., & Tzur, R. (1999). Explicating the teacher's perspective from the researchers' perspectives: Generating accounts of mathematics teachers' practice. Journalfor Research in Mathematics Education, 30, 252-264.
  46. I i 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.
  47. Thompson, A. G. (1992). Teachers' beliefs and conceptions: A synthesis of the research. In D. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 127-146). New York: Macmillan.
  48. I Thompson, P. (1993). Quantitative reasoning, complexity, and additive structures. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 25, 165-208.
  49. Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
  50. Voigt, J. (1985). Patterns and routines in classroom interaction. Recherches en Didac- , tique des Mathematiques,, 6, 69-118.
  51. Voigt, J. (1994). Negotiation of mathematical meaning and learning mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 26, 275-298. Manuscript received May 9, 2002 Revision received Novemnber 4, 2002 Accepted November 23, 2002