Investigating the Impact of Field Trips on Teachers’ Mathematical Problem Posing

Abstract

This study examines the impact of field trip experiences on teachers’ mathematical problem posing. Teachers from a large urban public school system in the Midwest participated in a professional development program that incorporated experiential learning with mathematical problem formulation experiences. During 2 weeks of summer 2011, 68 teachers from eight low-achieving city schools explored city landmarks that were not only accessible to the general public but were also considered rich in mathematical connections. Field trips included museums, historical landmarks, a local airport, and an international sporting event. Following each field trip, teachers were asked to create inquiry-based mathematics problems grounded in these experiences to implement in their classrooms. This article discusses the impact field trips and accompanying professional development activities had on teachers’ ability to create problems that provide students with opportunities to engage in meaningful mathematics.

Keywords

field trips problem formulation rich mathematics problems inquiry-based mathematics problems

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Anderson

Kisiel

Storksdieck

(2006). Understanding teachers’ perspectives on field trips: Discovering common ground in three countries. Curator: The Museum Journal, 49, 365-386.

Anderson

Lucas

K. B.

(1997). The effectiveness of orienting students to the physical features of a science museum prior to visitation. Research in Science Education, 27, 485-495.

Bamberger

Tal

(2008). Multiple outcomes of class visits to natural history museums: The students’ view. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17(3), 274-284.

Bitgood

(1989). School field trips: An overview. Visitor Behavior, 4, 3-6.

Boaler

Staples

(2008). Creating mathematical futures through an equitable teaching approach: The case of Railside school. Teachers College Record, 110(3), 608-645.

Borasi

Fonzi

(2002). Professional development that supports school mathematics reform. Foundations, 3. National Science Foundation Monograph 02-084. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.

Borden

L. L.

Wagner

(2011). Show me your math. CMS Notes, 43, 10-11.

Boston

M. D.

Smith

M. S.

(2009). Transforming secondary mathematics teaching: Increasing the cognitive demands of instructional tasks used in teachers’ classrooms. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 40, 119-156.

Brahier

D. J.

(2009). Teaching secondary and middle school mathematics (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Pearson Education.

10.

Bush

G. W.

(2001). No Child Left Behind. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/nclb/landing.jhtml

11.

Clark

M. D.

(2012, October 3) Field trips might as well be ancient history: Tests, economy tether students to the classroom. The Kentucky Enquirer, pp. A1, A4. Retrieved from http://www.enquirer.com/editions/pdf/KY_CE_031012.pdf.

12.

Clarke

(1994). Ten key principles from research for the professional development of mathematics teachers. In Aichele

D. B.

Coxford

A. F.

(Eds.), Professional development for teachers of mathematics. 1994 Yearbook (pp. 37-48). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

13.

Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2010). Common Core State Standards for mathematics. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/assets/CCSSI_Math%20Standards.pdf

14.

Crespo

Sinclair

(2008). What makes a problem mathematically interesting? Inviting prospective teachers to pose better problems. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 11, 395-415.

15.

English

L. D.

(1998). Children’s problem posing within formal and informal contexts. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 29, 83-106.

16.

English

L. D.

(2003). Problem posing in the elementary curriculum. In Lester

Charles

(Eds.), Teaching mathematics through problem solving (pp. 187-198). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

17.

Getzels

J. W.

(1979). Problem finding: A theoretical note. Cognitive Science, 3, 167-171.

18.

Gonzales

N. A.

(1996). Problem formulation: Insights from student generated questions. School Science and Mathematics, 96, 152-157.

19.

Hiebert

Carpenter

T. P.

Fennema

Fuson

Wearne

Murray

Human

(1997). Making sense: Teaching and learning mathematics with understanding. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

20.

Hofstein

Rosenfeld

(1996). Bridging the gap between formal and informal science learning. Studies in Science Education, 28, 87-112.

21.

Kilpatrick

(1987). Problem formulating: Where do good problems come from? In Schoenfeld

A. H.

(Ed.), Cognitive science and mathematics education (pp. 123-147). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

22.

Knapp

(1996, January 12-14). Evaluating the impact of environmental interpretation: A review of three research studies. Proceedings of the Coalition for Education in the Outdoors Research Symposium, Bradford Woods, IN.

23.

Lesh

Post

Behr

(1987). Representations and translations among representations in mathematics learning and problem solving. In Janvier

(Ed.), Problems of representation in the teaching and learning of mathematics (pp. 33-58.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

24.

Lotan

R. A.

(2003). Group-worthy tasks. Educational Leadership, 60, 72-75.

25.

Loucks-Horsley

Stiles

K. E.

Mundry

Love

Hewson

P. W.

(2010). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics. (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

26.

Mehta

(2008, May 19). Schools can’t spare time or dimes for field trips. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from http://articles.latimes.com/2008/may/19/local/me-fieldtrips19

27.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.

28.

Popescu

(2008, February, 11). No child outside the classroom. Newsweek, 151, 12. Retrieved from http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2008/02/02/no-child-outside-the-classroom.html

29.

Schifter

Simon

M. A.

(1992). Assessing teachers’ development of a constructivist view of mathematics learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 8, 187-197.

30.

Silver

E. A.

(1994). On mathematical problem posing. For the Learning of Mathematics, 14, 19-28.

31.

Stein

M. K.

Grover

B. W.

Henningsen

(1996). Building student capacity for mathematical thinking and reasoning: An analysis of mathematical tasks used in reform classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 33, 455-488.

32.

Storksdieck

(2006). Field trips in environmental education. Berlin, Germany: Berliner Wissenschafts-Verlag.

33.

Storksdieck

Robbins

Kreisman

(2007). Results from the Quality Field Trip Study: Assessing the LEAD program in Cleveland, Ohio. Cleveland, OH: University Circle.

34.

Swan

(2005). Improving learning in mathematics: Challenges and strategies. Sheffield, England: Teaching and Learning Division, Department for Education and Skills Standards Unit.

35.

Tomlinson

(1999). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

36.

Wagner

Borden

L. L.

(2011). Qualities of respectful positioning and their connections to quality mathematics. In Atweh

Graven

Secada

Valero

(Eds.), Mapping equity and quality in mathematics education (pp. 379-391.). New York, NY: Springer.

37.

Wilson

S. M.

Berne

(1999). Teacher learning and acquisition of professional knowledge: An examination of research on contemporary professional development. Review of Research in Education, 24, 173-209.