1

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

Overview

Beautiful, Beautiful Math (BBM), an approach to teaching mathematics I

developed, uses the arts as “objects of inquiry” at the beginning of mathematics units

and lessons. By examining a visual work of art, students explore the patterns in the art

that align with the specific mathematical topic they are studying. Built into this

process is an emphasis on high-order thinking, defined as “that which involves

combining new information with prior knowledge to find answers to perplexing, non-

routine problems.” Additionally, this juxtaposition of math and the arts is intended to

be inherently engaging and motivating.

The research question informing this dissertation study is: “How can objects of art

be used as effective catalysts for higher-order thinking in mathematics lessons?” To

answer this question I examined the way three teachers designed their BBM problems

and lessons, and the pedagogical strategies they used when implementing BBM to

enhance learning opportunities for students, using action research as my methodology.

Three key assumptions about learning, about math, and about arts integration form

the basis of BBM. In this study, constructivist and cognitive research principles form

the foundation for understanding how learning takes place (Von Glasersfeld, 1995;

Zull, 2002). I focused on the Common Core State Standards, especially those problems

developed for the Standards for Mathematical Practice, as descriptions of the kinds of

mathematical tasks teachers need to design for their students (Conley, Drummond, de

Gonzalez, Rooseboom, & Stout, 2011; Hess, 2013; Kendall, 2011) and Webb’s Depth

of Knowledge (DOK) taxonomy to provide a foundation for measuring the cognitive

 2

rigor of the mathematical problems (Webb, 2002b). Finally, I used a substantive arts

integration model in BBM, one in which students learn about mathematics while at the

same time learning about a visual work of art (Easton, 1997).

Higher-Order Thinking Skills Promoted through Beautiful, Beautiful Math

BBM is informed by Farrington’s factors of engagement and motivation

(Farrington et al., 2012). Additionally, it aims to enhance the retention of knowledge

through Hardiman’s techniques of pictorial representation, elaboration, generation (the

creation of new meaning), and effort after meaning (struggling to make meaning)

(Hardiman, 2012). BBM makes use of the arts to push students toward higher-order

thinking. By using a work of art as an object of inquiry, BBM brings purposeful

mathematical inquiry to the forefront, requiring students to grapple immediately with

both the artistic and the mathematical elements. Specifically, when students grapple

with the mathematics in a work of art in BBM, they are expected to use several criteria

from Webb’s Strategic Thinking and Extended Thinking, which include: planning

using evidence; making conjectures; citing evidence and developing logical arguments

for concepts; working on very complex tasks; and combining and synthesizing ideas

into new concepts (Webb, 2002a) .

To give an image of what this looks like in practice, in what follows, I have

included a sample BBM lesson, designed by a teacher I worked with prior to this

dissertation study, which focuses on a painting by Ralston Crawford of the Bronx-

Whitestone Bridge. Although this painting appears at first to be highly realistic, it is

actually carefully constructed to seem realistic while at the same time the angle of the
 3

vanishing point in the perspective (in mathematical terms, the angle of elevation) has

been increased dramatically. By determining these angles using the Law of Sines and

the Law of Cosines, students learn that, given the height of the tower, the painted

bridge could not actually exist in real life. Instead, the angle in the painting makes the

tower appear much more dramatic by appearing to loom over the viewer in the distance

than it does in real life. Below is an actual photograph of the Bronx-Whitestone Bridge

next to Crawford’s painting; I have also included a reverse image of the photograph,

which may assist in comparing the painting with the photograph.

Figure 1.1: Reversed Photograph, Ralston Crawford’s Painting & Actual Photograph

The lesson plan format used for this BBM lesson is Expeditionary Learning

Workshop 2.0, a format I have used with many teachers in my coaching work,

including some of the teachers participating in this dissertation study.

 4

Figure 1.2: Beautiful, Beautiful Math Lesson on Crawford’s Whitestone Bridge

Learning targets assessed:

 I can use evidence from close observation to support my hypotheses about
visual works of art.
 I can apply the concepts of trigonometry to analyze different perspectives
found in art.

Component Description
Engage and Today’s problem that students will grapple with:
Grapple
Ralston Crawford Whitestone Bridge (1939-40). Please look
3 minutes carefully at the painting. Just observe it closely. Please consider
these questions:
 What is going on in this painting?
 What do you see that makes you say that?
 What else can you find?

Discuss Students will share their thinking in (circle one): pairs, small
groups, whole class
2 minutes
At your table

The discussion protocol is: small groups will discuss the

answers to the three questions.
 What is going on in this painting?
 What do you see that makes you say that?
 What else can you find?

Focus 1 Share just a couple of observations with the group. (See if anyone
talked about view point, line of sight, angle of elevation)
5 minutes
Provide a quick explanation about the painting – 1939, brand new
NYC icon was dedicated – Bronx-Whitestone Bridge. Inspired
many genres, including poems and paintings.

Engage and Today’s problem that students will grapple with:

Grapple 2
Can you use trigonometry to create an identical photograph?
 5

2 minutes

Discuss Students will share their thinking in (circle one): pairs, small
groups, whole class
3 minutes
At your table

The discussion protocol is: small groups will discuss what are
some strategies as well as what we need to know to solve the
problem.

Focus 2 Today’s learning target(s): Share the learning targets.

10 minutes  I can use evidence from close observation to support my

hypotheses about visual works of art.
 I can apply the concepts of trigonometry to analyze
different perspectives found in art.

Address the questions that students have. You may need to review
scale map. Give students the height of the tower – 377ft. Review
from previous day how to find theta (the angle of
elevation/depression) given trig ratios of a triangle.

Apply Now find the angle of elevation. Students will need to figure the
scale and use it to find the distance to where a person was
10–15 minutes standing or driving in the car. Then students will need to find the
angle of elevation. Students will need to subtract the height of the
tower with the height of the person or the car that they are in.
Students will work: individually, in pairs, in small groups (circle
one)
They will be: in the same groups as before, new groups (circle
one)
The graphic organizer for this work is: the picture of the
painting

As I circulate, I expect to:

 Provide this type of differentiated support:

Any assistance dealing with finding scale, using the scale, using
trigonometry to solve for theta, calculator errors

 Assess for these skills/concepts:

Make sure that all students can create scale, find angle of
elevation.
 6

Synthesize Students will synthesize in: small groups, as a whole class (circle
one)
5-10 minutes
The protocol for students to share their thinking is:

WHAT: We will reflect on progress toward the learning

target(s) by:
Issues that came up when we were doing the calculations.

SO WHAT: Generalizations I expect students to be able to

make:
Reflect on the guided question: Can you create identical
photograph? Share with students side by side view of the painting
and the photograph. What makes the painting more or less
appealing to you than a photograph?

NOW WHAT: Transference the students or I need to explain

includes:
How do your initial observations about the painting take on a new
meaning from the mathematical calculations you’ve just done?

Additional work I plan to assign is: angle of elevation and angle

of depression word problems

I’ll collect the following work/reflections from students to

determine my next instructional steps:
Student calculations
 7

My Interest in Beautiful, Beautiful Math

Nearly three years ago, a friend asked me, “What do you see yourself doing five

years from now?” I answered immediately that I would like to figure out a way that

teachers could use art to teach mathematics. As I reflected on my statement later, I

realized that this would bring two separate parts of my own life together. I have a

bachelor’s degree in art history from Bryn Mawr College and a master’s degree in the

same discipline from Oberlin College. Because I also had minored in mathematics as a

undergraduate, I was able to later take more coursework for the credits necessary to

teach mathematics, a subject which I taught for over twenty years. During my years of

teaching and coaching, there was only rarely time for museum and gallery visits.

Because of my early training in art history, however, I have hundreds, if not thousands,

of images of works of art stored in my long-term memory. Periodically when working

on mathematics, one of those objects would appear that perfectly illustrated that

particular mathematical problem or concept. Despite these occasional glimpses into an

art-math connection, until my friend’s question, I rarely thought about using art to

actually teach math.

The idea for Beautiful, Beautiful Math came to me after years of observing many

otherwise perfectly capable students struggle to learn mathematics. They found it

tiresome, too abstract, and far removed from their daily experiences. These same

students frequently gravitated toward the arts, however. I was amazed that visual,

musical, and kinesthetic patterns made complete sense to them, while they found math,

“the science of patterns,” eluded them. I began to look for ways to combine the arts

with mathematics, and to my own surprise, I found connections everywhere. This

 8

research study has been a way for me to examine these ideas more closely and

thoughtfully.

While it had been many years since I had actually used my art history degrees, I

had become more and more worried that the arts were being let out of too many

students’ experiences. At the same time, test scores in the United States were

precariously low, especially in mathematics, and the call for better teaching and new

approaches was heating up. Was there some way of putting these two disciplines

together in a way that enhanced students’ learning of both?

I began looking at visual works of art with a new, math lens, and was surprised

that so many works of visual art displayed patterns that could be representative of

mathematical properties. Perhaps this should not have surprised me too much, since

one definition of mathematics is “the science of patterns,” and visual art uses patterns

of line, form, space, texture, color, etc. There appeared to be a wealth of possibilities

here.

At the same time, I began experimenting with local teachers using the arts in math

classes through a three-day institute offered to Expeditionary Learning Teachers in the

Western New York area. I also facilitated a master class at Expeditionary Learning’s

National Conference in Boston, another workshop at the Deeper Learning Conference

in San Diego, and a special workshop for Expeditionary Learning staff at our Staff

Retreat. These experiences helped me develop a stronger understanding of the

information and background experiences teachers need to be able to develop a basic

understanding of BBM. Their feedback from their own workshop experiences and their
 9

early attempts at implementing BBM lessons within their own classrooms were

encouraging.

I hope to spread these ideas much further, through workshops and consulting. In

order to do so, however, I realized that I needed more evidence of how BBM lessons

could impact students’ higher-order thinking and more information about what the

specific design elements were that helped ensure that higher-order thinking. This

dissertation study was undertaken to address these needs, with the ultimate goal of

improving students’ mathematics learning and experiences.

Problem Addressed and Its Importance

Ever since the Russians launched Sputnik in 1957, Americans have been

concerned with students’ low levels of mathematics achievement (Kilpatrick, 1997). A

Nation at Risk (Gardner, 1983), the TIMSS reports of 1997 and 2003 (Mullis, Martin,

Gonzalez, & Chrostowski, 2004), and the United States’ rankings on the PISA data

(Thomson, De Bortoli, Nicholas, Hillman, & Buckley, 2010), in addition to lower

scores on the SAT and ACT college entrance exams (Powell & Steelman, 1996), have

created further anguish throughout many media outlets. At the same time, it has

become clear that students will need much more mathematics to compete for jobs in

our new global and highly technological world. This media attention, together with our

growing understanding of the increasing need for mathematics in the future workplace,

has led to increased attention to students’ mathematics achievement by governmental

agencies as well as organizations such as the National Council of Teachers of

Mathematics. Most recently concerns about poor student performance led to the

Common Core State Standards (CCSS), a national effort to create more focused and
 10

rigorous math and literacy learning standards, which have now been adopted by the

overwhelming majority of states in the United States (Initiative, 2012). The goal of the

CCSS is to demand the kind of thinking that will lead to students’ future success in

college and careers (Conley et al., 2011).

The teacher, however, remains the most critical factor in determining whether

students’ mathematics achievement moves forward or stagnates (Fullan, 2011). While

many math education experts favor the Common Core State Standards, its

implementation remains inconsistent and problematic (Kendall, 2011). Without the

proper tools, including excellent curricular materials and pedagogical strategies,

teachers must determine how best to interpret and teach the new standards on their

own; this often results in teaching that is overwhelming and confusing for students

(Carmichael, Martino, Porter-Magee, & Wilson, 2010).

Research shows that students learn mathematics best in classrooms that are

supportive, where the mathematics problems are complex and meaningful, and where

students are engaged in higher-order thinking, through grappling, discussing, and

explaining their reasoning (Banilower, Boyd, Pasley, & Weiss, 2006; Gutierrez, 1996;

Kitchen, DePree, Celedon-Pattchis, & Brinkerhoff, 2007; Smith & Stein, 2011; Stein &

Coburn, 2008). No matter how thorough and rigorous the new mathematics standards

are, no matter how many sticks and carrots are given to shift teacher performance,

students will not learn more rigorous math and adopt higher-order thinking skills until

their teachers are provided with materials and strategies that are specifically designed

to teach more rigorous content and thinking skills by creating more supportive

classrooms, with complex and meaningful problems, and in which students are
 11

themselves directly engaged in higher-order thinking. My research is one small step on

the path of developing curricular materials and pedagogical strategies that impact

students’ abilities to learn rigorous mathematics deeply.

Research has also consistently shown that students achieve at significantly higher

levels in arts-integrated classes that focus on higher-order thinking than in those

without arts-integration (G. Burnaford, 2007; G. E. Burnaford, Aprill, & Weiss, 2013;

DeMoss & Morris, 2002; Gullatt, 2007; Hallmark, 2011; Ingram & Riedel, 2003;

Mishook & Kornhaber, 2006; Rinne, Gregory, Yarmolinskaya, & Hardiman, 2011;

Russell & Zembylas, 2007). Finding a way to incorporate strong arts-integration with

mathematics provides a way to motivate more students in math and have them engaged

in more higher-order thinking, which could ultimately lead to stronger student math

achievement outcomes.

Action Research

Action research, the research paradigm I chose for my dissertation study, is less

defined in terms of hard and fast methods (Lyotard, 1979; Reason & Bradbury, 2008).

In this section, I will briefly describe both the process of doing action research and the

products produced through this process, while returning to a more in-depth discussion

of this research approach in Chapter Three.

“Action research is a family of practices of living inquiry that aims, in a great

variety of ways, to link practice and ideas in the service of human flourishing. It is not

so much a methodology as an orientation to inquiry that seeks to create participative

 12

communities of inquiry in which qualities of engagement, curiosity and question

posing are brought to bear on significant practical issues” (Reason & Bradbury, 2008).

In action research, the researcher’s questions are frequently of personal or professional

importance. Additionally, the researcher is not trying to change others, but is looking

to change him or herself with others. Often action researchers are “insiders,”

employees or members of the organization they are studying, and are in a unique

position to identify both the problems and potential ways to improve the identified

research problem (Reason & Bradbury, 2008).

Action research is closely aligned with Zull’s inquiry cycle of learning, one that

takes place in the human brain every day: something engages us; we grapple with that

idea and hypothesize about it; we test our idea to see if our ideas or theories hold up;

we determine next steps and then repeat the inquiry cycle (Zull, 2002). What sets

action research apart from our general cycle of learning is the deliberate, systematic,

and ongoing way the researcher collects, reflects on, and analyzes the data. This cycle

can be described as first developing a plan of action to improve something; we then act

to implement the plan and observe the effects of this action; next we reflect on these

effects to determine further planning; finally, we begin the cycle again (Herr &

Anderson, 2005).

Generalizability is not the point of action research. The ultimate test of action

research is whether its results are actually used and whether lives have been changed

for the better. Action researchers strive for authenticity, meaning that the findings of a

research study not only ring true for others in the field, but also allow people to act

creatively when faced with similar practical issues in their lives (Reason & Bradbury,
 13

2008). By connecting generalizable ideas and objective knowledge with concrete

actions, particular practices, and day-to-day activities (Ariizumi, 2005), action research

practices help build a process which leaves a given situation better than before the

research began.

My research study has been informed by an action research paradigm in which the

research literature is in dialogue with the data (Herr & Anderson, 2005). This study has

from the beginning been grounded in research, as the goals and research questions

outlined here are based upon what I learned from the review of the literature. It

differs, however, from other types of research in that I was not attempting to find

causal links from specific variables to teacher implementation or student achievement

outcomes. Instead, I explored the relationship between specific elements of the BBM

lessons that appeared to increase students’ use of higher-order thinking skills.

Additionally, this research took on a cyclical, participatory form, as these specific

elements were examined in cooperation with the teacher participants, and we used what

we learned from the first set of BBM lessons to design and implement additional

lessons. Finally, this action research study differed from other types of research in that

it culminated with a tangible product, a series of BBM lessons and problems based on

works of art from Rochester’s Memorial Art Gallery (MAG), which can be accessed

from both the Beautiful, Beautiful Math and the MAG’s websites. Teachers will be

able to directly implement these lessons and problems or use them as models to design

their own BBM lessons.

 14

Theoretical Framework

Zull’s inquiry cycle (Zull, 2002), described earlier, is also closely connected to the

theory of constructivism, the central learning theory upon which this research study is

built. Jean Piaget’s descriptions of his experiences and experiments with children, in

which his children actively constructed their own learning, led him to the key concept

that each of us must construct be recognized meaning for ourselves, and has thus been

recognized by many as the founder of the constructivist theory of learning (Von

Glasersfeld, 1995). Fosnot describes the implications of this philosophy on teaching

by stating: “…a constructivist view of learning suggests an approach to teaching that

gives learners the opportunity for concrete, contextually meaningful experience

through which they can search for patterns; raise questions; and model, interpret, and

defend their strategies and ideas” (Fosnot, 2013).

Constructivism is often confused with Dewey’s belief in “hands-on” learning and

discovery learning. Constructivism is different from these practices in that people must

actively create their own knowledge and, furthermore, to do so they must connect this

new knowledge to their previous knowledge. As Pelech and Pieper explain, “Learning

involves active restructuring of how one thinks” (Pelech & Pieper, 2010). Just as with

Dewey’s philosophy, transforming constructivism into a pedagogical practice has

required much new thinking on the part of educators. Fosnot warns us that it is

extremely easy to slip into “fuzziness,” even with more rigorous expectations of

teaching (Fosnot, 2013).

My research was further enhanced by building upon the theoretical work of Nel

Noddings and bell hooks, who stress the importance of creating school communities
 15

which foster both intellectual abilities and social connections (hooks, 2003; Noddings,

2013). The ability of a teacher to form a strong classroom community was key to the

successful implementation of the BBM lessons studied in this dissertation.

Additionally, these BBM lessons moved teachers to create a more interdisciplinary

practice, which both hooks and Noddings describe as more life-enhancing than when

disciplines remain in their individual silos.

Research Questions

The overarching research question informing this dissertation study is: How can

objects of art be used as effective catalysts for higher-order thinking in mathematics

lessons? In this study, “lessons that involve students in higher-order mathematical

thinking” will be operationally defined as math lessons that (a) actively engage

students, (b) incorporate tasks requiring high levels of Webb’s Depth of Knowledge

(DOK, see below), and (c) require students to utilize academic math vocabulary.

My supporting research questions are:

1. What do exemplary Beautiful, Beautiful Math (BBM) lessons look like?

2. To what extent do BBM lessons result in students’ higher-order thinking in

mathematics?

3. What are key design features and other implementation factors that need to be

in place to increase the potential of BBM lessons to have the desired outcomes?

Webb’s Depth of Knowledge (DOK) levels are especially important to this

research study. Originally developed to analyze whether assessment items were

aligned with the rigor of a state’s standards, Webb’s taxonomy can be used by
 16

educators to determine the level of cognitive demand required to complete a given task

in mathematics (Hess, 2013; Webb, 2002b):

 DOK 1 (Recall): Complete a routine mathematical calculation, perform routine

procedures such as measuring length;

 DOK 2 (Skill/Concept): Solve routine multiple-step problems, organize, represent

and interpret data;

 DOK 3 (Strategic Thinking): Use concepts to solve non-routine problems;

 DOK 4 (Extended Thinking): Apply a mathematical model to illuminate a

problem or situation, design a mathematical model to inform and solve a practical

or abstract situation.

The Intervention

To address my research questions, I designed several BBM lessons in collaboration

with teachers, and studied their implementation of these BBM lessons in their

classrooms. Specifically, I worked with three teachers, one who taught grades 1 – 6 at a

small independent school and two teachers who taught grade 11 in a technology-

focused public high school in an urban district. Each teacher and I collaboratively

designed two BBM lessons for their classes based on the Common Core State

Standards they were teaching. Each of these lessons ranged from one to three days in

duration, depending on the topic being taught.

As we began to identify key design features we believed were responsible for

making the strongest BBM lessons, we put special emphasis on those features in

designing the next BBM lessons. Based on the analysis of the BBM lessons’
 17

implementations, and findings for the research questions more generally, I then revised

each BBM lesson and made it available in a form that could be used by other teachers

(see Appendix G).

Data Sources

Data sources used to answer the research questions included the following for each

BBM lesson:

 Lesson plan;

 Videos of the lesson being implemented;

 Observation records of the lesson implementation, using the Protocol for the

Assessment of Quality Teaching (PAQT, Gallagher, 2013);

 Student work;

 Audio-recordings of the planning sessions, and post-lesson debriefing interviews

with the teacher.

In addition, I observed and created a PAQT record for a “baseline lesson” for each

teacher and conducted a final teacher interview with each teacher after all the BBM

lessons had been implemented. I also kept a researcher’s journal to capture my

observations, insights and hypotheses throughout the study.

I chose to use the Protocol for the Assessment of Quality Teaching observation tool

(PAQT), developed by Gallagher (2013), which is included in Appendix A and

described in more detail in Chapter Three, for two key reasons: 1) It focuses on

student outcomes rather than just teacher moves, which is the focus of most

observation tools; 2) its three observable measures - student participation/engagement

with the task, the level of critical thinking required by the task (based on Webb’s Depth
 18

of Knowledge), and the academic language students are using in their discussions and

written work – combine to determine how strongly students are using higher-order

thinking during a particular lesson (Gallagher, 2013).

Data Analysis

In the spirit of action research, my data analysis was iterative and somewhat

integrated with the development of the BBM lessons themselves, as I wanted

preliminary insights from the first set of BBM lessons to inform the later BBM lessons

– especially with respect to research sub-question 3.

Once all BBM lessons were completed, though, I began a more systematic data

analysis. This process started with a careful reconstruction of each BBM lesson that

involved creating a combination of lesson plan and PAQT records (as reported in

Appendix D). I then wrote a holistic narrative description of each teacher’s

experiences with BBM (as reported in Chapter Four).

To address my first research sub-question, I analyzed the individual BBM lessons

and their PAQT scores to determine which ones could be considered “exemplary” BBM

lessons. To address my second research sub-question, I first of all compared the PAQT

scores for each teacher’s “typical” baseline lesson with the PAQT scores for each of

their BBM lessons. I also examined which of the eight Common Core Standards for

Mathematical Practice were addressed in each baseline and BBM lesson, using

established criteria (see Appendix E.2).

To address my third research sub-question, I used an iterative process that began

with examining with the teacher in each post-lesson interview the extent to which the

lesson enabled students to engage in higher-order math thinking, as well as what s/he
 19

thought may have affected those outcomes. In the spirit of action research, significant

insights from these conversations were shared with all teachers at the beginning of their

new planning session so they could inform the design of their next BBM lesson. Once

all BBM lessons were completed, I examined all of these examples to identify

commonalities and differences, and to articulate some preliminary findings regarding

key design features and implementation factors that seemed necessary to ensure the

desired outcomes. These preliminary findings, collected from across the sample of

teachers were then validated as part of the final interview with each teacher, and further

refined after I completed the lesson plan and PAQT reports and narrative descriptions

of the BBM lessons developed in this intervention.

Preview of Findings

This study developed and documented six BBM lessons, four of which could be

considered exemplary. Chapter Four provides a narrative account of these lessons that

can provide an image of what BBM may look like in practice for other teachers.

Additionally, instructional materials to encourage other teachers’ use of the four

exemplary BBM lessons are now available at the Memorial Art Gallery and have been

included in Appendix G of this dissertation.

This study also shows that BBM lessons can indeed increase the level of student

engagement in higher-order thinking in mathematics, as measured by the engagement,

cognitive demand, and academic language measures of the PAQT observation tool.

All six BBM lessons showed an increase in all three dimensions compared to baseline

lessons, even for the non-exemplary BBM lessons. Yet the four lessons that truly
 20

embodied the BBM approach showed markedly higher cognitive demand and academic

language scores, as well as provided students with rich opportunities to practice several

Common Core Standards for Mathematical Practice.

As a result of this study, I have also been able to identify some important elements

that teachers interested in using BBM need to take into consideration in order to

achieve outcomes similar to those of the exemplary BBM lessons documented in this

study. There are indeed conditions that seem critical to the success of BBM lessons, in

each of the following domains:

 Choosing an appropriate work of art as the “object of inquiry” for the lesson;

 Devising rich mathematical tasks around the chosen work of art;

 Employing conducive teaching practices;

 Creating a supportive classroom climate.

The specific design features and conditions the study identified within each of

these domains are reported in Chapter Five. From these findings, I have also

developed a list of concrete recommendations for teachers interested in using BBM,

reported in Chapter Six.

In sum, findings from this dissertation indeed confirmed the potential of BBM

lessons to provide valuable learning opportunities for math students as well as the

feasibility for teachers to make use of this approach successfully with appropriate

training.
 21

Contributions and Implications

The major contribution of this study is providing math teachers with a new

approach to use the visual arts to design problems requiring the use of higher-order

thinking skills. Gallagher’s research highlights the difficulty teachers have in

designing tasks that require higher-order thinking (Gallagher, 2013). She found that

only 2% of the lesson segments she observed had tasks at Webb’s extended thinking

(DOK4). Students rarely had opportunities to apply concepts in novel situations,

synthesize material, or analyze, critique, or provide justification for their ideas.

Additionally, there was a prevalence of one-word answers in the academic vocabulary

category; academic language was often limited to one sentence and rarely (less than

10% of the time) did the teacher expect students to engage in multi-directional

communication where students were in control of their conversations.

This research was designed to help identify the key design features necessary for

the BBM approach to increase students’ use of higher-order thinking skills in

mathematics lessons. Although limited in scope, my research also provides insights

into ways of increasing students’ higher-order thinking that have the potential to

inform the wider research community, including ways of engaging students in

extended thinking and rigorous mathematical discourse.

This research culminated with a set of lessons and problems that draw on the

visual arts holdings of the Memorial Art Gallery in Rochester, New York, and are

accessible to mathematics teachers throughout the greater Rochester area. I had hoped

to provide teachers with the tools and strategies needed to help students succeed at

more rigorous mathematical tasks. That goal was clearly met for the three teachers
 22

involved in this study. There were, however, additional positive impacts that had not

been foreseen.

The participating teachers had not been deeply involved in the arts prior to this

work, yet each of them discovered the visual arts to be full of both rich mathematical

problems and to be personally rewarding as well. They now look at the visual arts

differently, and they feel like they have become members of the art world. Indeed,

they found themselves transformed and enriched by experiencing many different works

of visual art.

I found many of my own long-held values shifted because of this study as well. I

was deeply moved by the teachers’ experiences of finding membership in the world of

visual art, and I felt renewed and refreshed by the strength of their work and their

passion. Many of my beliefs about lesson design shifted significantly, and I found

myself focusing more on the quality of the mathematical problems and much less on

the specifics of lesson design and classroom activities.

Finally, I found that the students themselves were deeply intrigued by the

mathematics found in art objects. They worked intensely and diligently on these

problems in ways that truly evoked the work of professional mathematicians, while at

the same time being excited about the works of art. It was evident in this study that

students need the arts on many different levels, just as we adults do, too.

Organization of this Dissertation

This first chapter provided an overview of this research study, including a

statement of the problem, a first articulation of the research questions and goals of the
 23

study, the identification of action research as its chosen methodology and constructivist

theory as its theoretical foundation, and a preview of the findings.

Chapter Two provides a review of the literature that most informed this proposed

study. It begins with my assumed definitions of higher-order thinking and arts

integration. Two important parts make up this review of the literature: 1) research

related to program-focused studies; and 2) meta-analyses of arts-integrated programs.

In this chapter I also provide some information about the Common Core Standards for

Mathematical Practice that informed the BBM lessons created in the intervention.

Chapter Three provides a detailed explanation of the research design. After a

description of the tenets of action research and its applicability to this study’s research

questions, I provide a detailed explanation of the research questions, methods of data

collection, and the methods of data analysis. I also include a description of the context

of the study and participant recruitment.

Chapter Four includes detailed narratives of each teacher’s experiences with

Beautiful, Beautiful Math. Each teacher’s individual experiences are reconstructed by

describing their baseline lesson, planning sessions, BBM lessons, and final interview.

Chapter Five reports an analysis and discussion of the data, including the narratives in

Chapter Four. In this chapter, I examine the similarities and differences between the

teachers’ baselines and their BBM lessons. I also describe the key differences between

the four exemplary BBM lessons and the two BBM lessons found to be not exemplary.

This provides me with evidence to identify those key design features necessary for

BBM lessons to be implemented successfully. I also examine the teaching methods

 24

needed to implement BBM lessons and the background factors necessary to support

them.

Chapter Six concludes this dissertation by describing actions taken as a result of

this research. Here I provide concrete recommendations to assist teachers who want to

create BBM lessons and point to the instructional materials as a tangible product that

resulted from this action research study. I also discuss the implications of this study in

general and in my future work in particular. Finally, I recap the study’s findings and

highlight additional insights I gleaned from this study as well as its limitations.

Additional documents that support this dissertation are reported in the Appendices.

These documents include: the PAQT observation tool and supporting rubrics

(Appendices B-C); the complete set of BBM lesson plans combined with PAQT scores

(Appendix E); a table summarizing my data collection and analysis design (Appendix

D); the Standards for Mathematical Practice and supporting rubrics (Appendix F); and

the revised instructional materials for the four exemplary BBM lessons I created for

use by other teachers (Appendix G).