171
6. It is this discontinuity that also drives the need for education reform and the challenge of
achieving it. Periodically, educators, policy makers, and other stakeholders revisit public education
standards and policies. In the course of these deliberations new or revised responses to two
general questions are generated: 1) What do students need to learn, and 2) Which students need
to learn what? The most used argument in defence of mathematics education for all students is its
usefulness in various practical situations. However, this argument alone gets weaker with time
– a
lot of simple activities have been automated. Not so long ago waiters in restaurants would multiply
and add on paper to calculate the price to be paid. Today they just press buttons on hand-held
devices. Not so long ago people used printed timetables
to plan travel
– it required a good
understanding of the time axis and inequalities as well as interpreting complex two-way tables.
Today we can just make a direct internet inquiry.
7. As to the question of “what to teach”, many restrictive understandings arise from the way
mathematics is conceived. Many people see mathematics as no more than a useful toolbox. A
clear trace of this approach can be found in the school curricula of many countries. These are
sometimes confined to a list of mathematics topics or procedures, with students asked to practice a
selected few, in predictable (often test) situations. This perspective on mathematics is far too
narrow for today’s world. It overlooks key features of mathematics that are growing in importance.
Notwithstanding the above remark, there are an increasing number of countries that emphasise
reasoning and the importance of relevant contexts in their curricula. Perhaps these countries cab
serve as helpful models to others.
8. Ultimately the answer to these questions is that every student should learn (and be given the
opportunity to learn) to think mathematically, using mathematical reasoning (both deductive and
inductive) in conjunction with a small set of fundamental mathematical concepts that support this
reasoning and which themselves are not necessarily taught explicitly but are made manifest and
reinforced throughout a student’s learning experiences. This equips
students with a conceptual
framework through which to address the quantitative dimensions of life in the 21st century.
9. The PISA 2021 framework is designed to make the relevance of mathematics to 15-year-old
students clearer and more explicit, while ensuring that the items developed remain set in
meaningful and authentic contexts. The mathematical modelling cycle, used in earlier frameworks
(e.g. OECD (2004
[6]
; 2013
[7]
)) to describe the stages individuals go through in solving
contextualised problems, remains a key feature of the PISA 2021 framework. It is used to help
define the mathematical processes in which students engage as they solve
problems
– processes
that together with mathematical reasoning (both deductive and inductive) will provide the primary
reporting dimensions.
10. For PISA 2021, computer-based assessment of mathematics (CBAM) will be the primary mode
of delivery for assessing mathematical literacy. However, paper-based assessment instruments will
be provided for countries choosing not to test their students by computer. The framework has been
updated to also reflect the change in delivery mode introduced in 2015, including a discussion of
the considerations that should inform the development of the CBAM items as this will be the first
major update to the mathematics framework since computer-based assessment was introduced in
PISA.
11. The development of the PISA 2021 framework takes into account the expectation of OECD that
there will be an increase in the participation in PISA of low- and middle-income countries. In
particular the PISA 2021 framework recognises the need to increase the resolution of the PISA
assessments at the lower end of the student performance distribution by drawing from the PISA for
Development (OECD, 2017
[8]
) framework when
developing the assessment; the need to expand
the performance scale at the lower end; the importance of capturing a wider range of social and
economic contexts; and the anticipation of incorporating an assessment of out-of-school 14- to 16-
year-olds.
172
12. The increasing and evolving role of computers and computing tools in both day-to-day life and
in mathematical literacy problem solving contexts is reflected in the recognition in the PISA 2021
framework that students should possess and be able to demonstrate computational thinking skills
as they apply to mathematics as part of their problem-solving practice. Computational thinking
skills include pattern recognition, designing and using abstraction, pattern decomposition,
determining which (if any) computing tools could be employed in analysing or solving a problem,
and defining algorithms as part of a detailed solution. By foregrounding
the importance of
computational thinking as it applies to mathematics, the framework anticipates a reflection by
participating countries on the role of computational thinking in mathematics curricula and
pedagogy.
13. The PISA 2021 mathematics framework is organised into three major sections. The first
section, ‘Definition of Mathematical Literacy’, explains the theoretical underpinnings of the PISA
mathematics assessment, including the formal definition of the
Достарыңызбен бөлісу: