Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
American Educational Research Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to American Educational Research Journal.
http://www.jstor.org
AmericanEducationalResearchJournal
Summer1996, Vol.33, No. 2, pp. 455-488
BarbaraW. Grover
Ohio University
MarjorieHenningsen
Learning Research and Development Center,
University of Pittsburgh
Thisarticlefocuses on mathematicaltasksas importantvehiclesfor building
student capacityfor mathematical thinking and reasoning. A stratified
random sample of 144 mathematicaltasks used during reform-oriented
instructionwas analyzed in termsof (a) taskfeatures (numberof solution
strategies,number and kind of representations,and communication requirements)and (b) cognitive demands (e.g., memorization,the use of
procedureswith[and without]connectionsto concepts,the "doingof mathThefindingssuggestthatteacherswereselectingand settingup the
ematics'9").
kindsof tasksthatreformersargueshouldlead to thedevelopmentofstudents'
thinkingcapacities.During taskimplementation,the taskfeatures tendedto
remain consistentwith how they wereset up, but the cognitivedemands of
high-leveltaskshad a tendencyto decline. Thewaysin whichhigh-leveltasks
declined as well as factors associatedwith task changesfrom the set-up to
implementationphase were explored.
KAYSTEIN
is a ResearchAssociateat the LearningResearchand DevelopMARY
ment Center,Universityof Pittsburgh,Room 708, 3939 O'HaraSt., Pittsburgh,PA
15260.Herspecializationsareclassroom-basedteachingand learningin mathematics
and teacher development.
W. GROVER
is an AssociateProfessorat Ohio University,554 Morton
BARBARA
Hall,Athens,OH 45701.Herspecializationsare assessmentand teacherpreparation.
is a ResearchSpecialistat the LearningResearchand
HENNINGSEN
MARJORIE
Development Center,Universityof Pittsburgh,Room 728, 3939 O'HaraSt., Pittsburgh,PA 15260.Herspecializationis the studyof mathematicsclassroomprocesses
and teacher development.
The
Math Tasks
algorithm for solving it, followed by the assignment of a similar set of
problems for students to work through individually at their seats (Porter,
1989; Stodolosky, 1988). Students' work consists almost entirely of memorizing presented facts or applying formulas, algorithms, or procedures
without attention to why or when it makes sense to do so. In this type of
setting, "Doing mathematics means following rules laid down by the teacher;
knowing mathematics means remembering and applying the correct rule
when the teacher asks a question, and mathematical truth is determined
when the answer is ratified by the teacher" (Lampert, 1990, p. 31). Classrooms organized in this type of format do not provide the conditions
necessary for the development of students' capacity to think and reason
mathematically. Over time, students come to expect that there is one right
method for solving problems, that the method should be supplied by the
teacher, and that, as students, they should not be expected to spend their
time figuring out the method or taking the responsibility for determining the
accuracy or reasonableness of their work (Schoenfeld, 1992).
Given the numerous calls for the establishment of instructional environments characterized by an increased emphasis on problem solving, sense
making, and discourse, a closer examination of the assumptions regarding
how such environments lead to the desired student outcomes appears to be
in order.' One model that could be used to examine how instruction relates
to student learning outcomes (the student mediation model) specifies that
teaching does not directly influence student learning but, rather, that
teaching influences students' cognitive processes or thinking, which, in turn,
influences their learning (Carpenter& Fennema, 1988; Wittrock, 1986). From
this perspective, a mediating variable that is important to describe and
examine is the nature of students' thinking processes in the classroom and
how those processes are altered when teachers attempt to create enhanced
instructional environments. Are authentic opportunities for students to think
and reason created when teachers use tasks that are problematic, that have
multiple solution strategies, that demand explanation and justification, and
that can be represented in various ways? What kinds of thinking processes
do these types of tasks set into motion? If students are not being set on the
right cognitive track during classroom lessons, there is little reason to expect
that scores on measures of learning outcomes will reflect enhanced understanding or increased ability to think and problem solve.
This article investigates enhanced instruction as a means of building
student capacity for mathematical thinking and reasoning. The underlying
premise is that students must first be provided with opportunities, encouragement, and assistance to engage in thinking, reasoning, and sense-making
in the mathematics classroom. Consistent engagement in such thinking
practices should, in turn, lead to a deeper understanding of mathematics as
well as the ability to demonstrate complex problem solving, reasoning, and
communication skills on assessments of learning outcomes.
The context for the present investigation consists of mathematics
457
classroomsthat are participatingin the QUASARProject,2a nationaleducational reformprojectaimed at fosteringand studyingthe developmentand
implementationof enhanced mathematicsinstructionalprogramsfor students attendingmiddleschools in economicallydisadvantagedcommunities
(Silver& Stein,1996).The projectis based on the premisethatpriorfailures
of poor and minority students were due to a lack of opportunityto
participatein meaningfuland challenginglearningexperiencesratherthan
to a lack of abilityor potential.Beginningin the fall of 1990, mathematics
teachersat four geographicallydispersedmiddle schools have been working, in collaborationwith resource partnersfrom nearby universities,to
provideinstructionbased on thinking,reasoning,and problemsolving.Two
additionalmiddle schools were added in the fall of 1991. Two of the
QUASARschools serve studentpopulationsthat are predominatelyAfrican
American;two serve primarilyHispanicstudentpopulations,and the other
two schools serve ethnically diverse student populations. In two of the
schools, the majorityof studentsspeak Englishas their second language.
QUASAR'sreformeffortsare targetedat the school level. As such, all
teacherswho teach mathematicsat QUASARsites are involved in project
activities.AlthoughQUASARteachershave received a broad arrayof staff
development since the inception of the project,the teachers'educational
and professionalbackgroundsprior to joining the projectwere typical of
most middle school mathematicsteachers(QUASARDocumentationTeam,
1993). The majorityis elementary certified and has taken few, if any,
mathematicscoursesbeyond high school (otherthan mathematicsteaching
methods courses in college). At the time of the final year of instruction
representedin the currentstudy, the averageyears of teachingexperience
was slightlyover 13 (the range was from one year'sexperienceto over 20
teachersare
years'experience).Comparedto the nationalaverage,QUASAR
more ethnicallydiverse.
Conceptual Framework
Investigationof the relationshipbetween instructionand students'thinking
in projectclassroomswas guided by the conceptualframeworkshown in
Figure 1. The frameworkproposes a set of differentiatedtask-related
variablesas leadingtowardstudentlearningand proposessets of factorsthat
may influence how the task variablesrelate to one another.The present
investigationfocused on the variablesthat appearin the shaded areas.
MathematicalTasks
The examinationof instructionand thinkingprocesses was framedby the
concept of mathematicaltasks, a close relativeof academic tasks, a constructthathas been extensivelyemployedto studythe connectionsbetween
teaching and learningin classroomsmore generally.As the firstindividual
458
Math Tasks
TASK as representedin
curricular/instructional
MATHEMATICAL
ATHEMATICAL
teacherin the
classroom.
implensent by
classroom
*Enacmentof Task
materials.*Task
Features
*CognitiveDemands
INFLUENCINGSET
TeacherGoals
TeacherSubjectMatter
TeacherKnowledgeof
STUDENT
LEARNING
Features
INFLUENING
ClassroornNorms
TeacherIntruto
Habits&
StudentLarnig Habits&
Matb Tasks
Math Tasks
Methodology
DataSources
Narrative summaries. Narrative summaries of classroom observations
written by trained and knowledgeable observers formed the basis of the data
used for our analysis. Each school year from Fall 1990 to Spring 1993, three
3-day observation sessions (Fall, Winter, and Spring) were conducted in
three teachers' mathematics classrooms at four project sites.4 An observer
took detailed field notes focusing on the mathematics instruction and
students' reactions to the instruction; simultaneously, a camera operator
videotaped the lesson. Following the observations, the observer used both
the videotaped lesson and his or her field notes to complete the project's
Classroom Observation Instrument (COI).5 As part of that instrument, the
observer provided descriptions and sketches of the physical setting of the
room, a chronology of instructional events, and responses to questions
associated with five themes: mathematical tasks, classroom discourse, the
intellectual environment, management and assessment practices, and group
work (if it occurred).
In the COI, a mathematical task is defined as a segment of classroom
work that is devoted to learning about a particular mathematical idea. The
observers were instructed to segment the instructionaltime of each observed
lesson into the main mathematical tasks with which students were engaged
and to append artifactsassociated with these tasks to the write-up. The two
tasks that occupied the largest percentage of class time were designated as
Task A and Task B. In the mathematical tasks section of the COI, the
463
Math Tasks
level classes they taughtand whether their classes were representedelsewhere in the sample(e.g., where possible, a teacherwhose classeswere not
representedin the sample for 1990-1991 was selected in 1991-1992 or
1992-1993).Two of the three observationsfrom the fall, two of the three
fromthe winter,and two of the threefromthe springwere randomlychosen
for each of the selected teachers,7(see Table 1). Thus, 12 observationswere
selected from each site for each year, resultingin 144 observationsoverall
(12 observationsx 4 sites x 3 years). In each of the observations,the task
that accounted for the greatestamount of class time was used as the task
for analysis(Task A).8These 144 tasks constituted23%of the entire data
pool.
Thissamplingprocedureresultedin an equaldistributionof tasksacross
seasons (48 per season), across sites (36 per site), and acrossyears (48 per
year). During the first year of the project (1990-1991), all observations
occurredin sixth grade classrooms;duringthe second year of the project
(1991-1992),the emphasiswas on seventh grade classroomsand nearlyall
observationswere at that grade level, with a few at the sixth grade level;
during the final year of the project, the emphasis was on eighth grade
classrooms,and, thus, the majorityof observationswere at thatgradelevel,
with a few in sixth and seventh grade classrooms. This distributionis
reflectedin our sampleas follows:for 1990-1991,100%of the tasksarefrom
sixth grade classes;for 1991-1992,96%are fromseventhgradeclasses, and
4%are from sixth grade classes; and, for 1992-1993,71%of the tasks are
from eighth grade classes, 17%from seventh grade classes, and 13%from
sixth grade classes. Overall,39%of the sample tasks are from sixth grade
classes, 38%fromseventh gradeclasses and 24%fromeighthgradeclasses.
Coding
Coding procedure. The completed COIs which contained the 144 tasks
described above were coded using a system designed specifically for the
Table1
Exampleof Selected Observations for a Given Site for a GivenYear
1990-1991
Site 1
Teacher 1
Teacher2
Fall
Obs. 1
Obs. 3
Obs. 2
Obs. 3
Winter
Obs. 2
Obs. 3
Obs. 1
Obs. 3
Spring
Obs. 1
Obs. 2
Obs. 1
Obs. 3
465
Math Tasks
468
Math Tasks
observationdate,gradelevel), codes forthe fourcategoriesdescribedearlier
under"CodingProcedure"were enteredinto a 4th Dimension Version3.0.5
(4th Dimension, 1985-1993)computerdatabase.Writtentext thataccompanied codings of "other"were also entered when appropriate.Using Systat
5for the Macintosh(Systat,1989), initialanalysisreportedthe frequencies
and percentagesfor each possiblecode acrossall 144tasksacrossall 3 years.
These resultswere reviewedwith respectto patternsthatemerged,potential
explanationsfor the results,and possible approachesto reportingthe data.
In orderto analyzethe relationshipsbetween the set up and implementationof the featuresand the cognitivedemandsof the tasks,four matrices
were generated:three of the matricesorganizedinformationrelatedto the
set-up and implementationversions of questionsabout solution strategies,
representations,and communication;one of the matricesorganizedinformation related to the set-up- and implementation-versions
of the questions
aboutcognitivedemands.Foreach pairof items,the row headingslistedthe
possible responses for task set up; the column headingslisted the possible
responsesfor task implementation.In each cell, the appropriatefrequencies
and percentswere recorded.The percentagesin the cells along the diagonals of each matrixreflectedthe extent of agreementbetween the way in
which the task was set up and the way in which it was implemented(e.g.,
the percentageof tasks in which studentsused multiple-solutionstrategies
when the task as set up allowed for multiple-solutionstrategies).The offdiagonal cells reflectedthe extent to which aspects of the task as set up
changed when implemented and what those changes were (e.g., the
percentageof tasks in which studentsused single-solutionstrategieswhen
the task as set up allowed for multiple-solutionstrategies).In addition,a
listing of text descriptions associated with the code of "other"for the
cognitive demands questions was printed out and examined. The four
matricesand the text listingswere used as the bases for discussionsabout
the identification,meaning, and interpretationof the patterns and the
relationshipsbetween task set up and implementationthat emerged.
Results
The discussion of results is presented in four main sections. First, a
descriptivesummaryof the basic attributesof the mathematicaltasks used
in projectclassroomsis provided.The next three sections addresseach of
the researchquestions.Findingsrelatedto the extent to which the tasksas
set up by teachersincludedthe kindsof featuresand cognitivedemandsthat
are typicallyassociatedwith the developmentof students'abilityto think
and reason mathematicallyare presented.This is followed by a discussion
of the findings related to the extent to which the implementationof the
mathematicaltasksremainedconsistentwith the mannerin which the tasks
were set up. The section concludes with a discussion of the results of
analysesthatexploredthe factorsthatappearedto be associatedwith high469
Math Tasks
sions in which students were expected to contribute as individuals. This
contrasts sharply with conventional mathematics classrooms in which students typically work independently.
Task Set Up
Figures 2 and 3 illustrate the extent to which the mathematical tasks as set
up by project teachers possessed the kinds of features and cognitive
demands that mathematics education researchers and reformers would
identify as being associated with the development of student capacity to
think and reason mathematically.
As shown in Figure 2, the tasks tended to embody the kinds of features
that reformers have suggested should be used in classroom instruction if the
goal is to produce student learning outcomes such as the ability to understand mathematics and to think and reason in complex ways. Approximately
two thirds of the tasks could be solved in multiple ways, whereas about one
third lent themselves to only one solution path. The inclusion of many tasks
that have multiple-solution strategies would be seen as one way of helping
students to develop the view that mathematics involves making decisions
100%
90%
80%
67%
(n=97)
70% -
67%
(n=96)
61%
(n=88)
50%
40%
30%.
34%
32%
39%
(n=56)
(n=48)
(n=46)
20%
10%
1%
(n=l)
Single Multiple Cannot
Discern
Single Multiple
Solution Strategies
Representations
No or Explanations
Few
Required
Explanations
Required
Communication
about how to go about solving problems,not simply employing teachersuppliedprocedures.Similarly,two thirdsof the taskswere set up to include
the use of multiplerepresentations,while about one thirdwere set up as
tasks thatwere to be solved using only one representation.Althoughmore
representationsdo not necessarilylead to greaterunderstanding,numerous
cognitive advantagesassociated with the establishmentof links among
variousways of representinga problemhave been proposed.Finally,Figure
2 shows that the majorityof the tasks (61%)were set up to include the
requirementthat students produce mathematicalexplanationsor justifications.Thisrepresentsa fairlyradicaldeparturefromconventionalclassrooms
in which tasks are generallyset up to requireonly an answer. Although
teachers in traditionalclassrooms may ask to "see students'work," this
usuallymeans a displayof proceduralsteps used to arriveat an answer,not
an explanationor justification.
Figure3 illustratesthe types of cognitivedemandsthat the tasks were
set up to requireof students.
As shown in the figure, nearlythree quartersof the tasks (74%)were
set up to demand that the students engage in high-level cognitive processes--either the active "doing of mathematics"(40%) or the use of
procedureswith connectionto concepts, meaning,or understanding(34%).
These findingssuggestthatprojectteacherswere attemptingto develop their
students' capacities to engage deeply with the mathematicsthey were
learning.Eighteenpercent of the tasks demanded the use of procedures
withoutconnectionsto concepts,meaning,or understanding.In this regard,
it is importantto note that mathematicseducatorsagree that some practice
on routine skills, as well as thoughtfulinquiryinto complex problems,is
needed. Consequently,all classroomwork on procedures,even if unconnected to concepts or understanding,should not necessarilybe viewed as
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40% (n=58)
40%
34% (n=49)
30%
18%
20%
10%
(n=26)I
2% (n=3)
1%(n=2)
3% (n=5)
0%
NonMemorization
Mathematical
Procedures
without
Connections
Procedures
with
Connections
Doing
Mathematics
Other
Math Tasks
negative. The challenge is to achieve some mixture of routine skill and
understandingand, even more difficult,to integrateproceduralskills with
high-level thinking.Returningto Figure3, only two tasks out of 144 were
classifiedas demandingmemorization,and only three taskswere judgedto
requireno mathematicalcognition.
Overall,the above findingssuggest thatprojectteacherswere selecting
and setting up the kinds of tasks that most reformerswould argue should
lead to the building of students' capacities to think and reason about
mathematicsin complex ways. The featuresof the tasksembodiedmany of
the characteristicsthat should lead students to develop a more interconnected, dynamic, and flexible view of the domain. And the cognitive
demandsshould directstudents'attentionto complex and meaningfulways
of processingmathematicalinformation.
TaskImplementation
In thissection,discussionfocuses on the extentto which the implementation
of the mathematicaltasks remainedconsistentwith the ways in which the
tasks were set up. Tables 2, 3, and 4 illustratethe ways in which the task
features(numberof solutionstrategies,numberand kind of representations,
and communicationfeatures)changedor remainedthe same fromset up to
implementation.Table 5 reportssimilarinformationfor the cognitive demands of the task. Percentagesin each table are based on row totals (i.e.,
the sum of row percentagesequal 100%).
Solutionstrategies.Table2 shows the relationshipbetween the number
of solutionstrategiesof tasksas they were set up and the numberof solution
strategiesactuallyused during implementation.The bold numbersin the
diagonalrepresentthe tasksthatremainedconsistentfromtaskset up to task
implementation.
As the percentageson the diagonalindicate,there was an overallhigh
consistency between task set up and task implementation.Most notably,
87%of the tasksthatwere set up as single-methodtasksdid indeed lead to
students'use of a single-solutionstrategyduringthe implementationphase.
Table2
in
Number
of
Solution
Change
Strategies FromSet Up
to Implementation
Implementation
Set up
Single
Multiple
Cannotdiscern
Single (n = 46)
87% (40)
11%(5)
Multiple (n = 97)
2%(1)
12% (12)
69% (67)
19% (18)
100%
Cannot discern (n = 1)
473
SingleSymbols only
SingleNonsymbolic
Multiple
Cannot
discern
87% (20)
0
1% (1)
0
4% (1)
88% (22)
4% (4)
0
0
12% (3)
88% (84)
0
9% (2)
0
7% (7)
0
474
Math Tasks
noteworthy given the fact that the majority of the 144 sampled tasks started
out as multirepresentational. As noted under task set up, two thirds of the
sampled tasks required that students use more than one representation.
As stated earlier, however, more representations do not necessarily
translate into deeper understanding. The crucial factor is whether and how
representations become connected or linked to one another. For the 84 tasks
(Table 3, row 3, column 3) that began as multiple-representation tasks and
remained so during implementation, 69 (82%) were found to have incorporated some connections between at least two different representations. Thus,
evidence exists that students in project classrooms were using or being
exposed to not only multiple representations per se but also representations
that were linked to one another. Although the meaningfulness of the
linkages was not always deep, the fact that a majority of tasks were
implemented in such a way to include connected, multiple representations
illustrates that the instruction in project classrooms went far beyond total
reliance on symbolic manipulations.
Communication. The extent to which the communication requirements
of tasks actually translated into the production of explanations and justifications by students is illustrated in Table 4.
As shown in the first cell of the table, tasks that were set up to require
no or few explanations and justifications did not change much during
implementation: Students produced no or few explanations to the majority
(82%) of tasks that did not require them. Requiring explanations as part of
the task at set up, however, did not necessarily guarantee that explanations
were produced during implementation. In 23%of the cases in which the task
set up required students to explain or justify their thinking, no or few
explanations were actually produced during the implementation phase.
Thus, it appears that requesting explanations as part of the task does not
Table4
Change in CommunicationRequirementsFromSet Up
to Implementation
Implementation
Set up
No or few explanations/
justificationsrequired
(n = 56)
Mathematicalexplanation/
justificationrequired
(n = 88)
No or few
explanations/
justifications
produced
Mathematical
explanations/
justification
produced
Explanations,but
nonmathematicalor
nonsupportive
of answer
82% (46)
13%(7)
5%(3)
23%(20)
74%(65)
3%(3)
475
0
E
"E
E
0
0
CC
E
-0
,, ,,
o0
Ci
"0"
C
C.)
-5
U,
/
.cu$
~
I
V:
v,
II
Math Tasks
were found to be associated with high-level tasks that declined into less
demanding cognitive classroom activity and high-level tasks that remained
at high levels during implementation.
Figure 4 presents an overview of the kinds of factors associated with
those tasks that declined. If a task was judged to have required high-level
cognitive thinking at the set-up phase but to have been implemented in such
a way that students did not actually engage in high-level thinking and
reasoning, coders were instructed to select as many factors as applied from
a list of possible classroom, teacher, and student factors that may have been
associated with the decline. The bars in Figure 4 identify the percentage of
tasks in which each particular factor was judged to be an influence in the
decline.
Overall, 61 tasks exhibited a decline from the set-up phase to the
implementation phase. A total of 155 factors was selected across these 61
tasks, meaning that, on average, approximately 2.5 factors were selected as
influencing the decline for each task. As shown in Figure 4, the factor most
often chosen (i.e., in 64% of the tasks) was that the problematic aspects of
the task somehow became routinized, either through students' pressing the
teacher to reduce task ambiguity and complexity by specifying explicit
procedures or steps to perform or by teachers' taking over the challenging
aspects of the task and either performing them for the students or telling
100%
90%
80%
70%
""70%64%(n=39)
60% .
61%(n=37)
50%
44
44% (n=27)
40%
38%(n=23)
30%
20% .
0%
21%(n_=
18%(n=11)
Too much
or too
little time
Lack of
accountability
Classroom
management
problems
Other
Math Tasks
100%
90%
-2%(n=37)
71%(n=32) 71%(n=32)
80% 70%
64%(n=29) 58%(n=26)
60% 50%
40%
27%(n=12)
30% ..
20%
13%(n=6)
9%(n=4)
10%
,1
1!I
II
IF- Other I,
Math Tasks
Math Tasks
485
References
Anderson, L. M. (1989). Classroom instruction. In M. C. Reynolds (Ed.), Knowledge
base for the beginning teacher (pp. 101-115). Washington, DC: American
Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.
Bennett, N., & Deforges, C. (1988). Matching classroom tasks to students' attainments.
Elementary School Journal, 88 (3), 221-234.
Brown, C. A., & Rothschild, L. W. (1993, April). Teachers constructing meaning in
school-based mathematics reform: Thecase of technology. Paper presented at the
Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta.
Carpenter, T., & Fennema, E. (1988). Research and cognitively guided instruction. In
E. Fennema, T. P. Carpenter, & S. J. Lamon (Eds.), Integrating research on
teaching and learning mathematics (pp. 2-19). Madison: University of Wisconsin, National Center for Research in Mathematical Sciences Education.
Cohen, D. K., Peterson, P. L., Wilson, S., Ball, D., Putnam, R., Prawat, R., Heaton,
R., Remillard,J., & Wiemers, M. (1990). Effectsof state level reform of elementaryschool mathematics curriculum on classroompractice (Elementary Subject Center Series No. 25). E. Lansing:Michigan State University, Center for the Learning
and Teaching of Elementary Subjects & the National Center for Research on
Teacher Education.
Doyle, W. (1983). Academic work. Review of Educational Research, 53, 159-199.
Doyle, W. (1988). Work in mathematics classes: The context of students' thinking
486
Math Tasks
during instruction. Educational Psychologist, 23 (2), 167-180.
Doyle, W., & Carter,K. (1984). Academic tasks in classrooms. Curriculum Inquiry,
14, 129-149.
Fitzgerald, W., Winter, M. J., Lappan, G., & Phillips, E. (1986). Middle grades
mathematics project: Factors and multiples. Menlo Park, CA: Addison Wesley.
4th Dimension Version 3.0.5. [Computer program]. (1985-1993). Cupertino, CA: AC
IUS.
487
ManuscriptreceivedAugust10, 1994
AcceptedFebruary3, 1995
488