Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
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)
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)
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
Gifted
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.
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.
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.