Sunteți pe pagina 1din 18

Contemporary Integrated Mathematics 2015: Position paper

1. Preamble
Mathematics permeates everyday life; whether comparing the price of toilet paper in
supermarket aisles, or modifying a golf swing to counteract a swirling breeze. However to
some, these manifestations may seem irrelevant; a sentiment often echoed in the classroom
(Boaler, 2009). Therefore, it is the teachers responsibility to highlight useful mathematics
connections and demonstrate these to students in meaningful and memorable ways. This
notion follows Osborne, Williams, Tytler, Cripps & Clark (2008) who proposed that,
significant for mathematics, is relevance and the need to engage students in mathematics
that links with their lives and interests and broader aspirations. Contemporary Integrated
Mathematics (CIM) is a philosophy that fulfils these ideals by facilitating conceptual
mathematics understanding whilst creating curious, motivated and autonomous learners.

2. Core purpose
The following position paper proposes mathematical thinking as not exclusive to
mathematics, but rather as fundamental to an array of cognitive processes including problem
solving and analysis (Schoenfeld, 1992) and integral to additional learning areas of Science
and English (Curriculum, pg.7). Aptly capturing the CIM philosophy is Mason, Burton &
Staceys (2010) proposition that thinking mathematically rests on five important
assumptions that:
(1) Anyone can think mathematically (Attitudes & Motivations, pg.5)
(2) Mathematical thinking can be improved by practice with reflection (Assessment,
pg.13)
(3) Mathematical thinking is provoked by contradiction, tension and surprise (Practice,
pg. 8)
(4) Mathematical thinking is supported by an atmosphere of questioning, challenging
and reflecting (Practice, pg.8 & Assessment, pg.13)

(5) Mathematical thinking helps in understanding oneself and the world


This paper will demonstrate how these skills are acquired through CIM and its subsequent
value to all students at Affluent Boys Primary (ABP).

3. Relevance to Affluent Boys Primary


The 23 year 6 students at ABP form a typically high achieving class full of bravado and
enthusiasm; factors holding potential if channelled in appropriate ways e.g. encouraging
apathetic students (Galton & Williamson, 2003). It must be noted however, that behind this
buoyant veneer lies areas of mathematics concern born from factors including: low intrinsic
motivation and a lack of integrated learning. The latter, a primary catalyst for this position
paper, is increasingly maligned by parents for not preparing ABP students adequately to realworld scenarios and prospective academia. As with most cross-sections of classroom
proficiency, abilities within the class vary greatly; from those who operate at the expected
year level (13 students) hover below (4), above (5) and gifted (1). With CIM, this variation
will not only be catered to, but embraced with appropriate methodologies (Diversity, pg.10).

4. Positive Change
Whilst recognising the current issues at ABP is an important step towards improving them, it
is not the determinant for CIM. Rather, this proposal seeks to inspire and empower students
by:
(1) Re-invigorating the way mathematics is perceived and taught at ABP (Attitudes &
Motivations, pg.5).
(2) Giving students and educators new appreciation of mathematics through current
pedagogy ideals of CIM (Practice, pg.8)

However, this change will require consistent and specific efforts through:
(1) Implementing curriculum content across learning areas (Curriculum, pg.7)

(2) Facilitating inquiry via teacher-mediated questioning (Practice, pg.8)


(3) Encouraging open self-evaluation (Assessment, pg.13)
Fortunately, ABP can support these adjustments from a resource standpoint (Resources,
pg.12), however CIM challenges that more significant than any material provision is that
which comes at no financial cost: attitude.

5. Attitudes and Motivations


Reward-focused incentive systems have long been part of the currency of schools (Deci,
Koestner & Ryan, 2001) and ABP is no different; highlighted by reward points issued to
students conditionally. Typically intended to motivate or reinforce student learning, recently
these systems have been questioned by research demonstrating the negative effects of
extrinsic rewards on students' intrinsic motivation to learn (Deci et al, 2001). Some studies
have suggested that, rather than being encouraging motivators, rewards actually weaken selfmotivation (Deci et al, 2001). Additionally, with ABP demographic considerations of familial
incentives contingent upon academic performance, one can appreciate how extrinsic
motivation outside the school domain may further compound these issues. Therefore,
activities within CIM are built around improving intrinsic motivation by implementing
constructivist activities (Practice, pg.8); allowing students to take ownership of their learning
and instil independence aligned with self-determination theory (SDT) (Ryan & Deci, 2000).
Adopting SDT allows students to:
(1) Develop intrinsic motivation
Intrinsic motivation refers to behaviours in the absence of external impetus that are inherently
interesting and enjoyable (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Importantly, when people are intrinsically
motivated they play, explore, and engage in activities for the inherent fun, challenge, and
excitement of doing so (Niemiec & Ryan, 2009). Fittingly, these elements align with the
constructivist activities of CIM (Practice, pg.8).

(2) Facilitate autonomy


Autonomy refers to the experience of behaviour as volitional and reflectively self-endorsed
(Niemiec & Ryan, 2009). For example, students are autonomous when they readily devote
time and effort to their studies. Appropriately, these skills are pertinent to year 6 students at
ABP as their lives transition to that of increased independence (Pallas, 1993).
Motivation is fundamental towards creating students who believe thinking mathematically
is something anyone can achieve (Middleton & Spanias, 1999). CIM forges this idea through
mathematical approaches posed within contexts relevant to the students; in contrast to the
traditional mathematics to which they are mostly familiar (Roulet, 1998). Notably, teachers
themselves are highly influential to student learning, thus making them a critical aspect of
promoting positive affect (Alston, Goldin, Jones, McCulloch, Rossman & Schmeelk,
2007). Grootenboer & Zevenbergen (2008) proposed a teachers well-developed
mathematical identity includes significant mathematical knowledge and skills, but also a
positive attitude towards the subject and satisfaction in undertaking mathematical practices.
Therefore, CIM encourages teachers who are:
(1) Confident with all mathematics curriculum content
(2) Able to teach mathematics in a variety of ways to accommodate different learning
styles e.g. visual, kinaesthetic (Fleming, 2001), affective or physiological (Reiff, 1992)
(3) Willing to bring a productive disposition (Watson & Sullivan, 2008) to the
mathematics classroom irrespective of ones own experience of mathematics (Opfer &
Pedder 2011)
These factors contribute to positive affect within mathematics classrooms, which has the
potential to assist the students participation in and enjoyment of mathematics (Page & Clark,
2015). This ideology also supports the current shift towards promoting student wellbeing
in all teaching and learning (Clarkson & Coleman, 2010).

Teacher Modelling
Modelling attitudes of enthusiasm and positivity is paramount if one expects the same from
their students (Cobb & Bauersfeld, 1995). Furthermore, Jaworski (1996) found that students
had ownership of their mathematics when teachers viewed mathematics as a field for
inquiry, rather than a pre-existing subject to be learned.
Therefore, the CIM teacher will:
(1) Demonstrate enthusiasm towards mathematics
(2) Create a classroom conducive to inquiry (Practice, pg.8)
(3) Show a willingness to discover with students
Jones, Wilkins, Long & Wang, (2012) suggested a positive correlation between achievement
in mathematics and beliefs and interests; something CIM encourages through the teachers
own disposition and a creatively framed curriculum.

6. Curriculum
Hudson, Henderson & Hudson (2015) contended that traditional framing of the curriculum
had an oppressive impact on learners in ways that suppressed creativity and limited the
exercise of learner autonomy. Thus, whilst fundamental to the CIM curriculum approach is
strong content coverage, so too is the freedom to discover information in organic ways, not
always governed by a guiding document. With this, the ensuing example demonstrates the
open integration abilities of CIM in one content field (graphs), whilst foreshadowing the
greater integration potentials of CIM. Below is an array of content descriptors from
Mathematics (A-C), Science (D-F) and English (G). By utilising the breadth of year levels
within Mathematics (A-C), the same task can be used to accommodate all ability levels by
isolating process (circled) (Noble, 2004), framed within constructivist activities (Practice,
pg.8). Explicit linkage of content across subject areas (boxed) highlights the usefulness of
graphs in different contexts and for different purposes within the same activity. Importantly,

regarding factors of inclusiveness and motivation, students should be seen as doing the same
task (Noble, 2004).

7. Practice
Posing Problems
Mathematical problem solving is at the heart of mathematics education (Guberman & Leikin,
2013). This notion resonates throughout CIM, demonstrated by providing activities
promoting the solving of problems; facilitating mathematical reasoning and conceptual
understanding (Blum & Niss, 1991). Davydov (1996) claimed that in order to develop
students mathematical reasoning, the tasks should be neither too easy nor too difficult, and
that learners should approach tasks through meaningful activity. Subsequently, the CIM
mathematics classroom at ABP will feature:

(1) Tasks that span curriculum (Curriculum, pg.7) with ability-level considerations
(Diversity, pg.10)
(2) Tasks that facilitate meaningful activity and conceptual understanding (Conceptual
Construction, below)
(3) Scaffolding to support student problem solving (Diversity, pg.10)
According to Schoenfeld (1985), a challenging mathematical task should be motivating, not
include readily available procedures, require an attempt, and have several approaches to a
solution. Whilst this idea provides impetus to CIM practice, Thompson (1985) argued that
teachers first need to attain experience in mathematical problem solving from the
perspective of the problem solver before they can adequately deal with its teaching.
Therefore, it is paramount the CIM teacher has sound mathematical basis to facilitate inquiry
(mentioned in Attitudes & Motivations, pg.5).
Conceptual Construction
Constructivist philosophies feature strongly within CIM; affording students the freedom to
build their own concepts through interactions with ideas, materials and peers (Booker, Bond,
Sparrow & Swan, 2014). Importantly, this freedom also emulates that which ABP students
will likely encounter in the future. This freedom however, should not be mistaken for freereign within the classroom (Simon, 1995). Rather, the CIM teachers job is to carefully assist
student independence within constructivist mathematics by:
(1) Posing mathematical concepts in problem solving scenarios (above)
(2) Giving students materials to support exploration (Resources, pg.12)
(3) Encouraging student inquiry through questioning

Flexibility

Significant to CIM is the ability to accommodate unforseen scenarios and facilitate


combinations of learning outcomes. The CIM approach is not a traditional content/outcome
based approach (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005), nor it considered a backwards by design
philosophy (Wiggins & McTighe, 2001). Rather, the flexibility of CIM supports learning
outcomes through catalysts including:
(1) Constructing a bridge from straws
(2) Building a catapult
(3) Social interaction games based upon mathematical language (Mercer & Sams,
2006).
Diversity
Irrespective of proficiency, all students must be catered for within the CIM classroom (Davis
& Rimm, 1989). The CIM teacher addresses variation in student abilities by:
Below Year Level
(1) Scaffolding
(2) Adjusting curriculum (content & process)
(3) Re-working misconceptions
(4) Providing supplementary resources
At Year Level
(1) Scaffolding to challenge potentials beyond current level (ZPD)*
Above Year Level
(1) Acceleration** (of content)
(2) Differentiation*** (of process)
(3) Encouraging the assistance of peers (ZPD)*

Gifted

(1) Acceleration** (of content)


(2) Differentiation*** (of process)
(3) Encouraging the assistance of peers (ZPD)*
(4) Facilitating social interactions
*Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) is the distance between a child's problem-solving
capability when working alone and with the assistance of a more advanced partner, such as a
teacher or peer tutor (Sanders & Welk, 2005).
**Pressey (1949) originally proposed acceleration as implementing content above age
level.
***Teachers modify content towards providing different avenues to acquiring, processing
or making sense of ideas, and to developing products (Tomlinson & Allan, 2000).

8. S.T.E.M.
There is evidence that identity formation for youth in Australia is focused more strongly on
self-realisation, and contributing to the future (Osborne et al, 2008). Pertinent to this notion is
STEM (an acronym for science, technology, engineering and mathematics), which is a
movement demonstrating the integrated nature of these disciplines and their relevance to
professional pathways. An alignment of skills and knowledge in these areas will be
essential to meeting the challenges of the new century, through scientific advances,
technological innovation, and mathematics as a tool underpinning these (Osborne et al,
2008). Thus, STEM is a great way to highlight practical integration potentials of mathematics
and will be demonstrated in the form of a maths/science demonstration coinciding with
World Maths Day, Wed, March 2, 2016.

This platform will assist in:

(1) Validating the CIM approach to stakeholders


(2) Demonstrating the usefulness of mathematics for future careers (particularly in
science & technology fields)
(3) Showcasing mathematics as interesting, enjoyable and challenging

9. Resources
Manipulative materials, including MAB blocks, are an integral part of the CIM classroom,
especially when consolidating base ten concepts (Swan & Marshall, 2010). However, student
interaction with these materials must be moderated by the teacher in respect to what the
students are doing in relation to the materials, with Ball (1992) noting that some
manipulatives can be distracting and open to misinterpretation. Supporting this teacher
mindfulness, Cobb, Wood, Yackel & McNeal (1992) propose symbol manipulation acts do
not necessarily carry the significance of acting mathematically on mathematical objects, and
because there is often nothing beyond the symbols to which the teacher and students publicly
refer, a mathematical explanation involves reciting a sequence of steps for manipulating
symbols. Therefore, becoming a largely self-contained activity that is not directly related to
students out-of-school activities (Confrey, 1990). Rather, CIM endorses that when ideas
are communicated, particular care is taken in formulating language to keep track of what is
happening with materials or representations which will eventually allow formal symbolic
recording, mental operations or approximations to be conducted confidently (Booker, Bond,
Sparrow & Swan, 2014). CIM therefore presents a culture where students and teacher
constitute a community of validators, where explanations are challenged beyond those which
merely describe manipulation of materials (Bussi, 1991). Therefore it is necessary for
educators, when incorporating materials within CIM, to:

(1) Plan for direction within activities in allowing resources to facilitate meaningmaking
(2) Understand each materials potential (and limitations) in facilitating mathematical
concepts
(3) Continually ask questions of students about what they are doing and why they are
doing it (Schoenfeld, 1992)
The CIM classroom incorporates real life context scenarios, with resources used within the
classroom supporting these scenarios. Items including maps, compasses, tape measures and
weight scales will allow students to interact with items with a contextual basis. Whilst
reflecting those found within real life contexts, these resources alone do not guarantee
learning, nor especially conceptual understanding. Therefore the teacher must be vigilant in
providing opportunities not only to engage with such materials, but ensure students are
developing conceptual understanding of mathematics whilst doing so. Such identification will
be aided by the appropriate assessment strategies.

10. Assessment
Recent identification of teachers mathematical pedagogical content knowledge indicates that
although teachers recognise and predict students responses to questions, they have difficulty
in identifying the next steps to take to develop students understanding (Watson, Callingham,
& Donne, 2008). This difficulty is attributed in part to not knowing whether a student
answered a particular question by using a high-level cognitive process, such as analysis or
synthesis, or by using the relatively low-level process of knowledge recall (Bloom, 1956).
Subsequently, conceptual understanding must be gathered by student feedback through
focused questioning. With CIMs focused assessment plan, these steps will become clearer.
Formative

Formative assessment is pivotal to CIM as the educator must gain reliable feedback about all
students understanding, but particularly those working below grade level. As mathematics
often requires sequential construction to form concepts, if a student has missed content or
developed misconceptions, these must be highlighted during lessons in order to best correct
these understandings (Harrison & Howard, 2009).
Self-evaluative
Finally, and pivotal to the ethos of CIM, is self-assessment; further empowering students to
take ownership of their work (Towler & Broadfoot, 1992). This process provides
opportunities for self-correction and, as a classroom community of problem-solvers, allows
students to develop their ability to produce several solutions to one problem (Goos, 2004)
and thus improve their potential for flexible monitoring of mathematical discussion in their
classes (Leikin & Dinur, 2007); aligning with the year 6 content descriptor Participate in
and contribute to discussions, clarifying and interrogating ideas, developing and supporting
arguments, sharing and evaluating information, experiences and opinions (ACELY1709).

11. References
Alston, A., Goldin, G., Jones, J., McCulloch, A., Rossman, C., & Schmeelk, S. (2007). The
complexity of affect in an urban mathematics classroom. In Proceedings of the 29th
Annual Conference of PME-NA.
Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority [ACARA]. (n.d.). The
Australian curriculum: Maths/Science/English. Retrieved on 12th May 2015 from
http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/Maths/Science/English.
Ball, D. (1992). Magical hopes: Manipulatives and the reform of math education. American
Educator, Vol. 16, No. 2, pp. 14-18.
Boaler, J. (2009). The elephant in the classroom. London: Souvenir Press.

Booker, G., Bond, D., Sparrow, L., & Swan, P. (2014). Teaching primary mathematics.
Pearson Higher Education AU.
Bloom, B., & Krathwohl, D. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification
of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive Domain.
Blum, W., & Niss, M. (1991). Applied mathematical problem solving, modelling,
applications, and links to other subjectsState, trends and issues in mathematics
instruction. Educational studies in mathematics, Vol. 22, No. 1, pp. 37-68.
Bussi, B. (1991). Social interaction and mathematical knowledge. In Proceedings of the
Fifteenth Annual Meeting of the International Group for the Psychology of
Mathematics Education. Vol. 1, pp. 1-16.
Clarkson, J., & Coleman, R. (2010). Inclusive design. Journal of Engineering Design
Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 127-129.
Cobb, P., & Bauersfeld, H. (1995). The emergence of mathematical meaning: Interaction in
classroom cultures. Psychology Press.
Cobb, P., Wood, T., Yackel, E., & McNeal, B. (1992). Characteristics of classroom
mathematics traditions: An interactional analysis. American educational research
journal, Vol. 29, No. 3, pp. 573-604.
Confrey, J. (1990). A review of the research on student conceptions in mathematics, science,
and programming. Review of Research in Education. pp. 3-56.
Davis, G. & Rimm, S. (1989). Education of the gifted and talented. Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Davydov, V. (1996). Theory of developing education. Intor (In Russian): Moscow
Deci, E., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. (2001). Extrinsic rewards and intrinsic motivation in
education: Reconsidered once again. Review of Educational Research, Vol. 71, No. 1,
pp. 1-27.

Fleming, N. (2001). Teaching and learning styles: VARK strategies. Christchurch, New
Zealand.
Galton, M., & Williamson, J. (2003). Group work in the primary classroom. Routledge.
Goos, M. (2004). Learning mathematics in a classroom community of inquiry. Journal for
Research in Mathematics Education, pp. 258-291.
Grootenboer, P., & Zevenbergen, R. (2008). Identity as a lens to understand learning
mathematics: Developing a model. Navigating currents and charting directions, pp.
243-250.
Guberman, R., & Leikin, R. (2013). Interesting and difficult mathematical problems:
changing teachers views by employing multiple-solution tasks. Journal of Mathematics
Teacher Education, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 33-56.
Harrison, C., & Howard, S. (2009). Inside the primary black box: Assessment for learning in
primary and early years classrooms. Granada Learning.
Hudson, B., Henderson, S. & Hudson, A. (2015) Developing mathematical thinking in the
primary classroom: liberating students and teachers as learners of mathematics.
Journal of Curriculum Studies, Vol. 47, No. 3, pp. 374-398.
Jaworski, B. (1996). Investigating mathematics teaching: A constructivist enquiry. No. 5.
Taylor & Francis.
Jones, B., Wilkins, J., Long, M., & Wang, F. (2012). Testing a motivational model of
achievement: How students mathematical beliefs and interests are related to their
achievement. European journal of psychology of education, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp. 1-20.
Leikin, R., & Dinur, S. (2007). Teacher flexibility in mathematical discussion. Journal of
Mathematical Behaviour, Vol. 26, pp. 328347.
Mason, J., Burton, L., & Stacey, K. (2010). Thinking mathematically. Harlow: Prentice Hall.

Mercer, N. & Sams, C. (2006). Teaching children how to use language to solve maths
problems. Language and Education. Vol. 20, No. 6, pp. 507-528.
Middleton, J., & Spanias, P. (1999). Motivation for achievement in mathematics: Findings,
generalizations, and criticisms of the research. Journal for Research in Mathematics
Education, pp. 65-88.
Niemiec, C., & Ryan, R. (2009). Autonomy, competence, and relatedness in the classroom:
Applying self-determination theory to educational practice. Theory and Research in
Education, Vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 133-144.
Noble, T. (2004). Integrating the revised Bloom's taxonomy with multiple intelligences: A
planning tool for curriculum differentiation. The Teachers College Record, Vol. 106,
No. 1, pp. 193-211.
Opfer, V., & Pedder, D. (2011). Conceptualizing teacher professional learning. Review of
educational research, Vol. 81, No. 3, pp. 376-407.
Osborne, J., Williams, G., Tytler, K., & Cripps Clark, J. (2008). Opening up pathways:
Engagement in STEM across the primary-secondary school transition. Department of
Education, Employment and Workplace Relations.
Page, S., & Clark, J. (2015). Modelling teachers promotion of powerful positive affect in the
primary mathematics classroom. Transforming the Future of Learning with Educational
Research, Vol. 51.
Pallas, A. (1993). Schooling in the course of human lives: The social context of education
and the transition to adulthood in industrial society. Review of educational Research,
Vol. 63, No. 4, pp. 409-447.
Pressey, S. (1949). Educational acceleration: appraisals and basic problems. No. 31. Ohio
State University.
Reiff, J. (1992). Learning styles. What Research Says to the Teacher Series.

Roulet, G. (1998). Exemplary mathematics teachers: Subject conceptions and instructional


practices. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Canadian Mathematics
Education Study Group, University of British Columbia, pp. 123-131.
Ryan, R., & Deci, E. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic
motivation, social development, and well-being. American psychologist, Vol. 55, No.1,
pg. 68.
Sanders, D., & Welk, D. (2005). Strategies to scaffold student learning: Applying Vygotsky's
zone of proximal development. Nurse Educator, Vol. 30, No. 5, pp. 203-207.
Schoenfeld, A. (1992). Learning to think mathematically: Problem solving, metacognition,
and sense making in mathematics. In D. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of Research on
Mathematics Teaching and Learning. New York: Macmillan.
Schoenfeld, A. (1985). Mathematical problem solving. Orlando, Fla.: Academic Press.
Simon, M. (1995). Reconstructing mathematics pedagogy from a constructivist perspective.
Journal for research in mathematics education. pp. 114-145.
Swan, P., & Marshall, L. (2010). Revisiting Mathematics Manipulative Materials. Australian
Primary Mathematics Classroom, Vol. 15, No.2, pp. 13-19.
Thompson, A. (1985). Teachers conceptions of mathematics and the teaching of problem
solving. In E. Silver (Ed.), Teaching and learning mathematical problem solving:
Multiple research perspectives. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. pp. 281
294.
Tomlinson, C. & Allan, S. (2000). Leadership for differentiating schools and classrooms.
Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Towler, L., & Broadfoot, P. (1992). Self-assessment in the primary school. Educational
Review, Vol. 44, No. 2, pp. 137-151.

Watson, J., Callingham, R., & Donne, J. (2008). Proportional reasoning: Student knowledge
and teachers pedagogical content knowledge. Navigating currents and charting
directions. pp. 563-571.
Watson, A., & Sullivan, P. (2008). Teachers learning about tasks and lessons. Sense
Publishers: Rotterdam.
Wiggins, G., McTighe, J. (2001). What is backward design? Understanding by Design. (1st
ed.), Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.
Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design. ASCD.

S-ar putea să vă placă și