Mathematics Teachers’ Dilemma in Choosing Linguistically Framed Tasks for Instructional Discourse: A Qualitative Study
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Purpose – This study investigates the factors influencing high school mathematics teachers’ decision-making processes in selecting linguistically framed tasks (LFTs) for instructional purposes. Since LFTs are widely embedded in curriculum materials and standardized assessments, understanding teachers’ considerations is crucial for improving task design and classroom practice.
Methodology – A qualitative research design was employed, combining semi-structured interviews with 12 Ghanaian high school mathematics teachers and curriculum document analysis. The data were analyzed thematically, guided by constructivist learning theory and assessment theory, to identify key patterns and pedagogical orientations shaping task selection.
Findings – The analysis revealed four major considerations that shape teachers’ decisions: progression of difficulty, differentiated task design, engagement and real-life relevance, and alignment with curriculum standards and exam preparation. Teachers reported scaffolding LFTs from simple to complex, tailoring tasks to diverse learners, emphasizing authentic connections to students’ experiences, and strategically preparing them for high-stakes assessments. These practices reflect an interplay between pedagogical intentions and systemic demands.
Novelty – The study contributes original insights into the pedagogical underpinnings of task selection, showing that teachers’ choices are not merely technical but are deeply grounded in curriculum policy, learning theories, and professional autonomy. It highlights the need to empower teachers with skills to adapt and design LFTs that address contextual and learner diversity.
Significance – The findings are significant for mathematics teachers, curriculum developers, policymakers, and teacher educators, as they underscore the importance of aligning curriculum goals with responsive instructional practices to enhance equitable and meaningful learning.
Article Details
References
Akendita, P. A., Boateng, F. O., Arthur, Y. D., Banson, G. M., Abil, M., & Ahenkorah, M. (2025). The Mediating Role of Teacher Effective Communication on the Relationship between Students’ Mathematics Interest and their Mathematics Performance. International Journal of Mathematics and Mathematics Education, 3(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.56855/ijmme.v3i1.1214
Aubusson, P., Burke, P., Schuck, S., Kearney, M., & Frischknecht, B. (2014). Teachers choosing rich tasks. Educational Researcher, 43(5), 219–229. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x14537115
Ayres, P. (2013). Can the isolated-elements strategy be improved by targeting points of high cognitive load for additional practice? Learning and Instruction, 23, 115–124. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.08.002
Baird, J.-A., Andrich, D., Hopfenbeck, T. N., & Stobart, G. (2017). Assessment and learning: fields apart? Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 24(3), 317–350. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594x.2017.1319337
Balog, C. (2016). A validation of the efficacy of descriptive instrumental collective case study research methodology for examining pilot cognitive functioning. International Journal of Aviation, Aeronautics, and Aerospace, 3(4), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.15394/ijaaa.2016.1094
Basu, D., & Greenstein, S. (2019). Cultivating a space for critical mathematical inquiry through knowledge-eliciting mathematical activity. Occasional Paper Series, 2019(14), 15–21. https://doi.org/10.58295/2375-3668.1299
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2012). Thematic analysis. In APA handbook of research methods in psychology, Vol 2: Research designs: Quantitative, qualitative, neuropsychological, and biological. (pp. 57–71). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/13620-004
Byun, S., & Herbel-Eisenmann, B. (2024). “Guess what they would make you do on this one”: The discourse of a high-stakes exam in an AP Calculus classroom. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 73, 101127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2024.101127
Charalambous, C. Y. (2010). Mathematical knowledge for teaching and task unfolding: An exploratory study. The Elementary School Journal, 110(3), 247–278. https://doi.org/10.1086/648978
de Araujo, Z. (2017). Connections between secondary mathematics teachers’ beliefs and their selection of tasks for English language learners. Curriculum Inquiry, 47(1), 363–389. https://doi.org/10.1080/03626784.2017.1368351
Dhuli, R., Lamo, P., & Larsari, V. N. (2023). An Analysis of the Significance of Vocabulary in Fostering ESL/EFL Students’ Writing Skills: An Empirical Study. International Journal of Contemporary Studies in Education (IJ-CSE), 2(1). https://doi.org/10.56855/ijcse.v2i1.252
Gelmez-Burakgazi, S. (2020). Curriculum adaptation and fidelity: A qualitative study on elementary teachers’ classroom practices. Issues in Educational Research, 30(3), 920–942.
Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough?: An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods, 18(1), 59–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X05279903
Habbert, R., & Schroeder, J. (2020). To build efficacy, eat the frog first: People misunderstand how the difficulty-ordering of tasks influences efficacy. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 91, 104032. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2020.104032
Healy, L., Fernandes, S. H. A. A., & Frant, J. B. (2013). Designing tasks for a more inclusive school mathematics. Proceedings of ICMI Study 22, 61–78.
Herold, K. H., Bock, A. M., Murphy, M. M., & Mazzocco, M. M. M. (2019). Expanding task instructions may increase fractions problem difficulty for students with mathematics learning disability. Learning Disability Quarterly, 43(4), 201–213. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948719865476
Irvine, J. (2020). Positively influencing student engagement and attitude in mathematics through an instructional intervention using reform mathematics principles. Journal of Education and Learning, 9(2), 48–62. https://doi.org/10.5539/jel.v9n2p48
Ismail, R., & Imawan, O. R. (2023). Five Priority Character Values: Content Analysis in The Independent Curriculum Mathematics Textbook in Indonesia. International Journal of Mathematics and Mathematics Education, 1, 83–103. https://doi.org/10.56855/ijmme.v1i02.330
Jansen, A., Curtis, K., & Mohammad Mirzaei, A. (2023). Secondary mathematics teachers’ descriptions of student engagement. Educ Stud Math, 113, 425–442. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-023-10228-x
Kania, N., Saepudin, A., & Gürbüz, F. (2025). Assessing cognitive obstacles in learning number concepts: Insights from preservice mathematics teachers. JRAMathEdu (Journal of Research and Advances in Mathematics Education), 146–166. https://doi.org/10.23917/jramathedu.v10i3.8638
Kania, N., Suryadi, D., Kusumah, Y. S., Dahlan, J. A., Nurlaelah, E., & Elsayed, E. E. (2024). Comparative Praxeology: Assessing High-Level Cognitive Skills in TIMSS and Indonesian National Examinations. International Journal of Applied Learning and Research in Algebra, 1(1), 25–47. https://doi.org/10.56855/algebra.v1i1.1160
Khoshaim, H. B. (2020). Mathematics teaching using word-problems: Is it a phobia? International Journal of Instruction, 13(1), 855–868. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2020.13155a
Kim, H. (2020). Concreteness fading strategy: A promising and sustainable instructional model in mathematics classrooms. Sustainability, 12(6), 2211. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12062211
Kim, O. K., & Atanga, N. A. (2014). Teachers’ decisions on task enactment and opportunities for students to learn. Proceedings of the 35th Annual Meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, 66–73.
Lei, Q., & Xin, Y. P. (2023). A synthesis of mathematical word problem‐solving instructions for English learners with learning disabilities in mathematics. Review of Education, 11(2). https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3396
Leiss, D., Plath, J., & Schwippert, K. (2019). Language and mathematics - Key factors influencing the comprehension process in reality-based tasks. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 21(2), 131–153. https://doi.org/10.1080/10986065.2019.1570835
Louie, N. (2019). Agency discourse and the reproduction of hierarchy in mathematics instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 38(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2019.1677664
Matorevhu, A. (2020). O – Level mathematics and science teachers’ alignment of stem skills oriented instructional objectives with assessment in a high stakes examinations environment. International Journal of Trends in Mathematics Education Research, 3(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.33122/ijtmer.v3i1.165
Mendick, H. (2020). Inside the mathematics class: Sociological perspectives on participation, inclusion, and enhancement. Springer.
Ministry of Education [MoE]. (2010). Core mathematics syllabus. Curriculum Development and Research Division.
Muntasir, M., & Akbar, I. (2023). Revisiting the significance of ZDP and scaffolding in English Language teaching. JETLEE : Journal of English Language Teaching, Linguistics, and Literature, 3(1), 40–45. https://doi.org/10.47766/jetlee.v3i1.1276
Nur, A. S., Nuraini, K. D., & Mayasari, D. (2023). The effectiveness of dynamic assessment strategies in solving math word problems using cultural context. Technium Soc. Sci. J, 50, 133–149. https://doi.org/10.47577/tssj.v50i1.9880
Nurlankyzy, Y. K., & Egemberdiyevna, K. U. (2023). Exploring the role of assessment in supporting differentiated instruction and individualized learning. IARJSET, 10(6). https://doi.org/10.17148/iarjset.2023.10601a
Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Collins, K. M. T. (2007). A Typology of mixed methods sampling designs in social science research. The Qualitative Report, 12(2), 281–316.
Putri, K. K., & Khadijatuzzahra, K. (2025). Students’ Creative Thinking Abilities in Solid Geometry Topics. International Journal of Geometry Research and Inventions in Education (Gradient), 2(01), 27–41. https://doi.org/10.56855/gradient.v2i01.1397
Shepard, L. A. (2019). Classroom assessment to support teaching and learning. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 683(1), 183–200. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716219843818
Silverman, D. (2014). Interpreting Qualitative Data (5th ed.). SAGE.
Sonnert, G., Barnett, M. D., & Sadler, P. M. (2020). Short-term and long-term consequences of a focus on standardized testing in AP calculus classes. The High School Journal, 103(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1353/hsj.2020.0000
Sorto, M. A., Wilson, A. T., & White, A. (2018). Teacher knowledge and teaching practices in linguistically diverse classrooms. ICME-13 Monographs, 219–231. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75055-2_16
Stake, R. (1995). The art of case research. Sage.
Suprayogi, M. N., Valcke, M., & Godwin, R. (2017). Teachers and their implementation of differentiated instruction in the classroom. Teaching and Teacher Education, 67, 291–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.06.020
Taley, I. B. (2022a). Do students like us because we teach well? The popularity of high school mathematics teachers. Asian Journal for Mathematics Education, 1(4), 384–407. https://doi.org/10.1177/27527263221142906
Taley, I. B. (2022b). Teacher and student views of mathematics word problem-solving task at senior high school level. Faculty of Natural and Applied Sciences Journal of Mathematics, and Science Education, 3(2), 33–43.
Umayrah, A., Iswara, P. D., Salsabila, S., Azzahra, S. S., & Jeujanan, M. (2024). The nature of differentiated learning in the perspective of constructivist educational philosophy: A systematic literature review. Jurnal Kependidikan: Jurnal Hasil Penelitian Dan Kajian Kepustakaan Di Bidang Pendidikan, Pengajaran Dan Pembelajaran, 10(2), 691–703. https://doi.org/10.33394/jk.v10i2.11474
Vale, C., Weaven, M., Davies, A., & Hooley, N. (2010). Student centred approaches: Teachers’ learning and practice. Deakin University.
Vears, D. F., & Gillam, L. (2022). Inductive content analysis: A guide for beginning qualitative researchers. Focus on Health Professional Education: A Multi-Professional Journal, 23(1), 111–127. https://doi.org/10.11157/fohpe.v23i1.544
Verschaffel, L., Schukajlow, S., Star, J., & Van Dooren, W. (2020). Word problems in mathematics education: a survey. ZDM, 52(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-020-01130-4
Yolcu, O., & Akar-Vural, R. (2021). An examination of instructional autonomy practices of science teachers. International Journal of Educational Methodology, 7(1), 79–94. https://doi.org/10.12973/ijem.7.1.79