Constraints and opportunities when using contentspecific open-ended tasks

Peter Sullivan Monash University

After teacher learning sessions on open-ended tasks, teachers trialed such tasks in their classes, and then completed a survey, the results of which are reported here. t seems that the teachers collectively could ade!uately define open-ended tasks, could give illustrative e"amples, and could articulate #oth opportunities and constraints. $his knowledge allows teachers to plan to take advantage of opportunities and to minimise the constraints.

A %ationale for &pen-ended $asks

An assumption underlying each of the three tasks types in the $ask $ypes and Mathematics 'earning ($$M') pro*ect is that the nature of teaching and what students learn is defined largely #y the tasks that form the #asis of their actions. n this case, we argue that working on open-ended tasks (type + in our pro*ect) can support mathematics learning #y fostering operations such as investigating, creating, pro#lematising, communicating, generalising, and coming to understand procedures. $here is su#stantial support for this assumption. ,"amples of researchers who have argued that tasks or pro#lems that have many possi#le solutions contri#ute to mathematics learning include those working on pro#lem fields (e.g., Pehkonen, -../), and the open approach (e.g., 0ohda 1 ,mori, -../). t has #een suggested that opening up tasks can encourage pupils to investigate, make decisions, generalise, seek patterns and connections, communicate, discuss, and identify alternatives (Sullivan, -...). Specific studies that support use of open-ended tasks include Stein and 'ane (-..2) who noted that student performance gains were greater when 3tasks were #oth set up and implemented to encourage use of multiple solution strategies, multiple representation and e"planations4 (p. 56). 'ikewise, 7oaler (8668) compared the outcomes from working on open-ended tasks in two schools. n one school, the teachers #ased their teaching on open-ended tasks and in the other traditional te"t-#ased approaches were used. After working on an 3open, pro*ect #ased mathematics curriculum4 (p. 892) in mi"ed a#ility groups, the relationship #etween social class and achievement was much weaker after three years, whereas the correlation #etween social class and achievement was still high in the school where teachers used traditional approaches. :urther, the students in the school adopting open-ended approaches 3attained significantly higher grades on a range

of assessments, including the national e"amination4 (p. 892). $wo aspects of our pro*ect are of interest here. :irst, we wanted to know what teachers took from our professional learning sessions and how they interpreted our input. Second, we were interested in what they learned from classroom trials of e"emplars of the tasks.

$he Content-specific &pen-ended $asks that are the :ocus of our Pro*ect
n addition to the openness descri#ed a#ove, type + tasks are also content-specific in that they address the type of mathematical topics that form the #asis of te"t#ooks and the conventional mathematics curriculum. $eachers can include these as part of their teaching without *eopardising students; performance on su#se!uent internal or e"ternal mathematics assessments. $he definition that we used with our pro*ect teachers was<
Content specific open-ended tasks have multiple possi#le answers, they prompt insights into specific mathematics through students discussing the range of possi#le answers, An e"ample is< A group of / people went fishing. $he mean num#er of fish caught was /, the median was 2 and the mode was 5. =ow many fish might each of the people have caught> Such tasks allow unam#iguous focus on specific aspects of mathematics while still allowing opportunities for creativity and active decision making #y students with the advantage that one task can #e applica#le to wide levels of understanding.

$he pro*ect is?has #een e"ploring the nature of the learning #ased on such open-ended tasks, the opportunities that such tasks offer to students, and the constraints that the tasks create for teachers. After the teachers had worked with the respective task types, they completed a survey which asked them !uestions on these issues. $heir unstructured responses were inspected, categorised, and summarised, and are reported in the following.

The teachers definitions of the tasks

@e were interested to determine how the teachers interpreted the e"periences provided #y their participation in the pro*ect. &n a survey, completed after working with type + tasks, the teachers were asked<
f you were e"plaining to a group of teachers a#out to use tasks of this type, how would you descri#e this type of task>

0early all of the teacher responses referred to the possi#ility of multiple answers using terms such as 3multiple answers-multiple methods4, 3there are a num#ers of strategies for finding an answer4, 3not only one answer4 and 3e"plore a variety of outcomes4. Many responses also referred to the ways the tasks can #e suita#le for students of differing readiness, such as 3allow students to work at

their own level4, 3use strategies at their own level of understanding, and 3access to a range of a#ility levels4. Aarious teachers also commented on the emphasis that might #e placed on student responses such as 3(a need to) focus on sharing strategies4, 3making generalisations and seeing patterns4, and 3translating insights into mathematical e"pressions4. n other words, many teachers were a#le to restate to us the purposes and operation of the tasks in the language and form that we had suggested.

Some examples of the tasks that teachers valued

n the survey, the teachers were asked 3of the tasks of this type that you have tried in your class this year, which worked #est4. $hey were also invited to descri#e the 3ne"t two #est tasks4. 0ot only did no particular tasks emerge as more popular, #ut the most striking feature of the responses was the diversity of tasks that were valued. ,"amples of tasks that were mentioned #y more than one teacher were<
A closed rectangular #o" is tied up with - metre of ri##on. f the #ow takes +6 cm of ri##on, what might #e the dimensions of the #o"> Using the map on google earth, plan a walk around the school that is 9 km long. @hat might #e the missing num#ers> B B C D B E B B 6

$hese three tasks are appropriate e"emplars of this type in that there is a variety of possi#le responses to each, the range of responses can #e interrogated #y students and teachers, the students have to make choices in finding one or more solutions, and the pro#lems are not solved #y the application of a procedure. $here were also e"amples such as the following suggested<
=ow much water is wasted #y the school drinking taps over a year>

$his has some characteristics of open-ended tasks in that the students have to make active decisions on what is important and how to collect data, and there would #e sense of personal ownership. $he task also has many characteristics of type 8 tasks (see F. Clarke, this volume) in that it addresses a practical conte"t. $he task is also similar to interdisciplinary tasks, which is our fourth type. $he teachers; responses indicate that their suggestions of openended tasks are compati#le with the material they had #een presented with in teacher learning sessions.

The advantages of open-ended tasks as seen by the teachers

n our teacher learning sessions we have emphasised the following potential advantages of using open-ended tasks< there is considera#le choice in relation to strategies and solution typesG generalised responses and patterns can #e foundG there are opportunities for class

discussion a#out the range of approaches usedG and the range of solutions found can lead to an appreciation of their variety and relative efficiencies. $eachers were asked<
@hat do you see as the advantages of using this task type in your teaching>4

$he most common responses related to the choices that students make a#out their approach to tasks, such as 3how various students go a#out solving maths pro#lems4, 3every student has a chance to solve it in their own way4. Many responses related to the nature of the students; thinking such as 3encourages students to #roaden their thinking4, 3creativity4, 3opens up possi#ilities4, 3students think more deeply4, and on a slightly different note 3encourages students to persist4. $eachers also commented on the ways the tasks can #e accessed #y all students such as 3all achieve some success4, 3can cater for range of a#ilities4, and 3work at their own level4. =aving used such tasks in the classrooms, these responses suggest not only compati#ility with the perspectives that we presented to them, #ut also further interpretations that were derived from practice, with emphasis on the idiosyncratic ways that students respond, and teachers; intention to support students individually.

The constraints on the use of open-ended tasks as seen by the teachers

n the teacher learning sessions we discussed the potential constraints posed #y such tasks, especially the resistance that some students have to taking the risks that such tasks present (see Fesforges 1 Cock#urn, -.D/). n the survey, the teachers were asked
@hat makes teaching using this task type difficult> @hat are challenges in using this type of task>

$he most common response related to the issue we had addressed, that is that some students prefer more closed tasks. $eachers comments included 3some students are not risk takers4, 3challenge for the students who want to go straight to an answer4, 3re!uires thinking4, and 4the hard thinking and little direction can #e confronting for some kids4. &ther aspects of students; response that may #e connected to their unfamiliarity of such tasks were 3students who don;t want to put in any effort4, 3some find difficulty finding an entry point4, 3their need for confidence4 and 3some students don;t know where to start4. Some teachers clearly saw such tasks as more difficult noting that some students might e"perience difficulties such as 3limited mathematical knowledge4, and 3not all students have the right level of learning4. $here were pedagogical aspects mentioned such as 3not always sure

what maths will come out of it4, 3correcting the different solutions4, 3holding #ack on e"planations4, and 3#eing ready for what arises4. $here were also planning considerations mentioned such as 3finding the tasks4 and 3needs additional resources4. $hese responses clearly arise from reflection #y teachers on the use of such tasks in their own classrooms. t is possi#le that the constraints might act as a deterrent to the use of such tasks. A significant aspect of our pro*ect is to e"plore the o#stacles these constraints represent and to develop ways of working with our teachers to overcome them.

Conclusion
After participating in teacher learning sessions on this task type, on a survey teachers gave ade!uate definitions and useful e"amples, could identify the advantages of the tasks, and articulated some constraints associated with their use. @hile it is possi#le that their responses were merely reproducing what had #een said to them, their comments did seem to #e derived from their practice. $he hypothetical definitions and recommendations a#out implementation aligned with their e"perience, and it seems that teachers are #oth ready to take advantage of opportunities, and aware of the potential constraints they may e"perience.

%eferences
7oaler, H. (8668). Experiencing school mathematics: Traditional and reform approaches to teaching and their impact on student learning. Mahwah, 0H< 'awrence ,rl#aum. Fesforges, C., 1 Cock#urn, A. (-.D/). Understanding the mathematics teacher: study of practice in first schools . 'ondon< $he :almer Press. 0ohda, 0., 1 ,mori, =. (-../). Communication and negotiation through open approach method. n ,. Pehkonen (,d.), Use of open-ended problems in mathematics classrooms (pp. 2+I/8). Fepartment of $eacher ,ducation, University of =elsinki. Pehkonen, ,. (-../). Use of pro#lem fields as a method for educational change. n ,. Pehkonen (,d.) Use of open-ended problems in mathematics classrooms (pp. /+ID9). Fepartment of $eacher ,ducation, University of =elsinki. Stein, M. J., 1 'ane, S. (-..2). nstructional tasks and the development of student capacity to think and reason and analysis of the relationship #etween teaching and learning in a reform mathematics pro*ect. Educational !esearch and Evaluation" #(-), 56ID6. Sullivan, P. (-...). Seeking a rationale for particular classroom tasks and activities. n H. M. $ruran 1 J. 0. $ruran (,ds.) $aking the difference. %roceedings of the #&st annual conference of the

$athematics Educational !esearch 'roup of Adelaide.

ustralasia (pp.-5-8.).