http://aer.sagepub.com/content/33/2/455Theonline version of this article can be foundat:DOI: 10.3102/000283120330024551996 33: 455
Am Educ Res J
Mary Kay Stein, Barbara W. Grover and Marjorie Henningsen
Tasks Used in Reform ClassroomsBuilding Student Capacity for Mathematical Thinking and Reasoning: An Analysis of Mathematical
Published on behalf of
can be found at:
American Educational Research Journal
Additional services and information for
Citations:
at Stanford University Libraries on June 27, 2011http://aerj.aera.netDownloaded from
American Educational
Research
JournalSummer 1996,
Vol 33,
No. 2,
pp.
455-488
Building Student Capacity
for
MathematicalThinking
and
Reasoning: An Analysis
of
Mathematical Tasks Used
in
ReformClassrooms
Mary Kay Stein
Learning Research and Development Center,University of Pittsburgh
Barbara W. Grover
Ohio University
Marjorie Henningsen
Learning Research and Development Center,University of Pittsburgh
This
article focuses on mathematical
tasks
as important vehicles or
building
student capacity
for
mathematical thinking
and
reasoning.
A
stratifiedrandom sample
of
144 mathematical tasks used during reform-orientedinstruction was analyzed
in
terms of (a) task features (number of solutionstrategies, number
and
kind
of
representations,
and
communication
re-
quirements)
and (b)
cognitive demands
(e.g.,
memorization,
the use of
procedures with [and
without]
connections to concepts,
the
"doing
of
math
ematics
").
The indings
suggest
that
teachers
were
selecting
and
setting
up thekinds of
asks
that
reformers
argue should lead
to the
development of students'thinking capacities. During task implementation, the task features tended
to
remain consistent with how they
were
set
up,
but
the
cognitive
demands of
high-level tasks
had a tendency
to
decline.
The
ways
in which
high-level tasks
declined
as
well as factors associated with task changes from the set-up
to
implementation phase were
explored.
MARY KAY STEIN
is a
Research Associate
at the
Learning Research
and
Development Center, University
of
Pittsburgh, Room
708,
3939
O'Hara
St.,
Pittsburgh,
PA
15260.
Her
specializations
are
classroom-based teaching
and
learning
in
mathematicsand teacher development.
BARBARA
W.
GROVER
is an
Associate Professor
at
Ohio University,
554
MortonHall, Athens,
OH
45701.
Her
specializations
are
assessment
and
teacher preparation.
MARJORIE HENNINGSEN
is a
Research Specialist
at the
Learning Research
and
Development Center, University
of
Pittsburgh, Room
728,
3939
O'Hara
St.,
Pittsburgh,
PA
15260.
Her
specialization
is the
study
of
mathematics classroom processesand teacher development.
at Stanford University Libraries on June 27, 2011http://aerj.aera.netDownloaded from
Stein, Grover, and Henningsen
T
he mathematics reform movement posits an ambitious set of outcomegoals for student learning. Documents published by the National Councilof Teachers of Mathematics (1989,1991), the Mathematical Association ofAmerica (1991), and the National Research Council (1989) all point to theimportance of students' developing deep and interconnected understandings of mathematical concepts, procedures, and principles, not simply anability to memorize formulas and apply procedures. Increased emphasis isbeing placed not only on students' capacity to understand the substance ofmathematics but also on their capacity to "do mathematics." In recent years,mathematics educators and philosophers have convincingly argued that fullunderstanding of mathematics consists of more than knowledge of mathematical concepts, principles, and their structure (e.g., Lakatos, 1976; Kitcher,1984; Schoenfeld, 1992). Complete understanding, they argue, includes thecapacity to engage in
the processes
of mathematical thinking, in essencedoing what makers and users of mathematics do: framing and solvingproblems, looking for patterns, making conjectures, examining constraints,making inferences from data, abstracting, inventing, explaining, justifying,challenging, and so on. Students should not view mathematics as a static,bounded system of facts, concepts, and procedures to be absorbed but,rather, as a dynamic process of "gathering, discovering and creating knowledge in the course of some activity having a purpose" (Romberg, 1992,
p.
61).What types of instructional environments might reasonably be expectedto produce these kinds of student outcomes? Most reformers agree that"classrooms must be communities in which mathematical sense-making ofthe kind we hope to have students develop is practiced" (Schoenfeld, 1992,
p.
345). According to the
Professional Standards for the Teaching of Mathematics
(NCTM, 199D, classrooms should be environments in which students are encouraged to discuss their ideas with one another, whereintellectual risk-taking is nurtured through respect and valuing of studentthinking, and where sufficient time and encouragement is provided forexploration of mathematical ideas. One also finds consistent recommendations for the exposure of students to meaningful and worthwhile mathematical tasks, tasks that are truly problematic for students rather than simply adisguised way to have them practice an already-demonstrated algorithm. Insuch tasks, students need to impose meaning and structure, make decisionsabout what to do and how to do it, and interpret the reasonableness of theiractions and solutions. Such tasks are characterized by features such ashaving more than one solution strategy, as being able to be represented inmultiple ways, and as demanding that students communicate and justifytheir procedures and understandings in written and/or oral form.This characterization of instructional environments for the developmentof mathematical thinking stands in sharp contrast to the ways in which mostclassrooms are currently organized and run. Most mathematics lessonsconsist of teacher presentation of a "mathematical problem" along with the456
at Stanford University Libraries on June 27, 2011http://aerj.aera.netDownloaded from
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
More From This User
Notes
Load more
