Rethinking Mathematical Tasks

Ban Heng Choy & Jaguthsing DindyalMathematics teachers invariably use a multitude of tasks in their day-to-day practice. Indeed, “mathematical tasks provide tools for promoting learning of particular mathematical concepts and are, therefore, a key part of the instructional process” (Simon & Tzur, 2004, p. 93) Further, the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM, 1991) postulated that tasks “convey messages about what mathematics is and what doing mathematics entails” (p. 24). Over the years, several terms have been used to describe mathematical tasks, such as worthwhile mathematical tasks (NCTM, 1991), challenging tasks (Sullivan et al., 2014), high-level tasks (Henningsen & Stein, 1997), open-ended tasks (Zaslavsky, 1995), and rich mathematical tasks (Grootenboer, 2009). While acknowledging the benefits of using such tasks, research has also surfaced some shortcomings. Stein, Grover, and Henningsen (1996) cautioned that “When employing the construct of mathematical task, however, one needs to be constantly vigilant about the possibility that the tasks with which students actually engage may or may not be the same task that the teacher announced at the outset”(p. 462). In this round table presentation, we will discuss the affordances that mathematical tasks such as those stated above offer to teachers, as well as other alternatives that are available to teachers for enhancing students’ learning of mathematics. We will provide some examples from one of our on-going projects for further discussion.
Rethinking Mathematical Tasks

Reviewing of research papers

Research papers will be blind reviewed by a panel of peers approved by the conference committee. The main purpose of the refereeing process is to contribute to the growth and development of quality practice in mathematics education research. Thus reviewers are asked to assist authors by providing helpful feedback and to comment on the suitability of papers for presentation at the conference. Accordingly, it will not be assumed that published papers presented at the conference will be as polished as articles in scholarly journals. Referees will be asked to assess papers being reviewed against the accepted norms for scholarly works presented at MERGA conferences, as set out above.

Each conference proceedings’ Editorial Team will exercise discretion over the reviewing process.

Reviewers’ comments will be returned to the authors. Authors whose papers are not accepted for publication may be invited by the editorial panel to present their paper at the conference, with an abstract (only) being published in the proceedings. Papers may be rejected outright, with no opportunity for presentation at the conference in an alternative form.

The MERGA website has detailed advice about criteria for reviewing of MERGA papers, review forms, and examples of strong and poor reviews of different types.

Rethinking Mathematical Tasks

Rethinking Mathematical Tasks

Short Communications

Presentation of short communications

Beth Southwell Practical Implications Award

Recent Winners

Applying for entry into the BSPIA

Judging of the BSPIA

History of the Award

Research Papers

Research papers can take two major forms:

i. Empirical investigations

ii. Theoretical or position papers

Originality

Reviewing of research papers

Presentation of research papers

Research Symposia

Early Career Research Award

Recent Winners

Applying for the Award

Early Bird Review Process