Search

Orchestrating High School Mathematics Unit Teaching Through Big Ideas: A Case Study of Exponential and Logarithmic Functions

Author(s)

Jia He*

Affiliation(s)

School of Mathematics and Statistics, the Center Applied Mathematics of Guangxi, Guangxi Normal University, Guilin, Guangxi, China *Corresponding Author

Abstract

Big Ideas emphasize helping students construct deep cognitive structures by organizing knowledge into organic wholes. Taking "Exponential and Logarithmic Functions" as a case study, this paper aims to design a high school mathematics unit teaching plan aligned with educational reform principles through three key phases: identifying Big Ideas, designing activities, and crafting assessments. This is implemented via three specific steps: posing key questions, creating authentic scenarios, and building a "Six-Question Cognitive Chain". the study explores how this approach facilitates high-road transfer of knowledge, promotes structured understanding, and develops students' systems thinking. the research can provide valuable references for addressing existing issues in this curriculum and effectively enhance teaching quality.

Keywords

Big Ideas; High School Mathematics; Unit-Based Instruction; the 'Six-Question' Cognitive Chain

References

[1] Harlen, W. (2011). Principles and big ideas of science education (Y. Wei, Trans.). Beijing: Science Popularization Press. (Foreword by Zhou Guangzhao). [2] Van den Akker, J. (2010). Curriculum design research. In T. Plomp & N. Nieveen (Eds.), An introduction to educational design research (3rd print). Netherlands Institute for Curriculum Development (SLO). [3] Ministry of Education of the People's Republic of China. (2020). Mathematics curriculum standard for ordinary high schools (2017 edition, 2020 revision). Beijing: People's Education Press. [4] Yu, P. (2022). the evolution of teaching theory guided by disciplinary core competencies. Journal of Teacher Development, (Z2), 78-85. [5] Cui, Y. H. (2019). Disciplinary core competencies call for big unit instructional design. Shanghai Research on Education, (4), 1. [6] Askew, M. (2013). Big ideas in primary mathematics: Issues and directions. Perspectives in Education, 31(3), 5-18. [7] Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2013a). the Australian Curriculum: Mathematics. Retrieved from http://www. australiancurriculum. edu. au/Australian%20Curriculum. pdf [8] Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2013b). the Australian Curriculum: Science. Retrieved from http://www. australiancurriculum. edu. au/Australian%20Curriculum. pdf [9] Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2013c). the Australian Curriculum: Technologies Foundation to Year 10. Retrieved from http://www. australiancurriculum. edu. au/Australian%20Curriculum. pdf [10] Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2016). National Assessment Program Language and Mathematics Retrieved from http://www. nap. edu. au [11] Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 359-407. [12] Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (2010). Can children really create knowledge? Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 36(1), 1-15. Retrieved from http://www. cjlt. ca/index. php/cjlt/article/view/585/289 [13] Berland, L. K. (2013). Designing for STEM integration. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 3(1), 22-31.http://dx. doi. org/10.7771/2157-9288.1078 [14] Bratzel, B. (2009). Physics by design with NXT Mindstorms (3rd ed.). Knoxville, TN: College House Enterprises. Brooks, M. G., & Grennon Brooks, J. (1999). the courage to be constructivist. the Constructivist Classroom, 57(3), 18-24. [15] Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18, 32-42. [16] Bruner, J. S. (1960). Toward a theory of instruction. Harvard University Press. Carnegie Mellon Robotics Academy. (2013). Robot Algebra Project. Retrieved from http://www. education. rec. ri. cmu. edu/content/educators/research/robot_algebra/index. htm [17] Caviglioli, O., Harris, I., & Tindall, B. (2002). Thinking skills and Eye Q: Visual tools for raising intelligence. [18] Stafford: Network Educational Press Ltd. Chalmers (2009). Primary students' group metacognitive processes in a computer supported collaborative learning environment (PhD thesis, Queensland University of Technology). Retrieved from http://eprints. qut. edu. au/29819/ [19] Chalmers, & Rankin, C. (n. d.). Curriculum. Sydney, Australia: LEGO Education. Retrieved from https://education. lego. com/en-au/curriculum [20] Chalmers, C., Wightman, B., & Nason, R. (2014). Engaging students (and their teachers) in STEM through robotics. In STEM 2014 Conference, July 12–15, 2014, Vancouver, Canada. Retrieved from http://eprints. qut. edu. au/84571 [21] Chalmers, C., & Nason, R. (in press). In M. S. Khine (Ed.). Robotics in STEM education: Redesigning the learning experience. [22] Chambers, J. M., Carbonaro, M., & Murray, H. (2008). Developing conceptual understanding of mechanical advantage through the use of Lego robotic technology. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24(4), 387-401.