The selection, development and implementation of good tasks: a powerful solution for

differentiating primary mathematics instruction

Bronte Hunt

Abstract

The selection, development and implementation of good tasks is investigated as a potential

solution to the dilemma that all teachers face of catering their mathematics instruction to reach,

engage and challenge all students. In selecting and developing good tasks, the literature points to

four characteristics that contribute to their creation: open-ended, contextual, accessible and

challenging. The literature also suggests three phases for effective implementation: launch,

explore, and discuss and summarise. The characteristics and process of implementation have

been adopted by the author in the development of a simple framework that teachers can follow

when selecting, developing and implementing good tasks in order to effectively differentiate and

maximise student learning. In addition, needs-based explicit teaching has been embedded within

the framework in order to increase the potential for differentiation.

Putting the research in context

Teachers are responsible for the learning of all students, yet are faced with a wide range of ability

levels within their classroom that they must cater for (Ferguson, 2009; Kobelin, 2009). The wide

range of ability levels that a teacher may face was highlighted in the authors experience in a split

year three and four class in a public metropolitan primary school in Western Australia, which also

included a small group of students with special educational needs. In observing this situation, the

author noted a common approach implemented by the classroom teacher in an attempt to reach

all students, which merely involved adjusting the difficulty and support level of activities through

the use of an education assistant. Effectively, students who had not yet grasped pre-primary and

1
year one level concepts were supported to complete year three or four level activities. The gaps in

their knowledge meant that the mathematics they were completing with the support of an

education assistant held no meaning for them as it was aimed well beyond their level of

understanding.

This experience sparked an interest in the exploration of tasks that have the potential to reach and

engage with a wide range of abilities, without creating an unrealistic amount of additional work for

the teacher. A solution to this inevitable dilemma is required, as teachers are ultimately

responsible for the learning of all their students, not just those who have an average ability. The

common approach to mathematics instruction that the author experienced is detrimental to the

progress of students at educational risk, including those who need a lower entry point to allow

access to the learning, and those who are working at an average level and need to be extended

(Ferguson, 2009; Kobelin, 2009).

Literature Review

The intent of this literature review is to explore the possible potential for effective differentiation

that is offered through the selection, development and implementation of good tasks. It is

important to start this literature review by briefly touching on differentiation, as it is the issue that

has provoked this investigation. In any given primary mathematics classroom, a teacher will be

faced with a wide range of student ability levels (Ferguson, 2009). As teachers are responsible for

the learning for all their students, they must differentiate the mathematics curriculum to ensure all

students have access to the learning and are able to progress in their mathematical understanding

(Bailey, 2015; Ferguson, 2009; Kobelin, 2009). Differentiation has been defined as the process of

ensuring that what a student learns, how he/she learns it, and how the student demonstrates

what he/she has learned is a match for that students readiness level, interests, and preferred

mode of learning (Tomlinson as cited in Rock, Gregg, Ellis, & Gable, 2008, p. 32).

Teachers often view differentiation as complex and challenging (Bailey, 2015; Kobelin, 2009), and

therefore common approaches taken by teachers do not effectively differentiate the curriculum to

provide meaningful learning experiences for all students. Teachers often aim lessons at the middle

group in the class, which is a one size fits all approach and leaves the low and high level ability

students deprived of appropriate learning (Ferguson, 2009; Kobelin, 2009; Rock, et al., 2008).

Another common approach involves the teacher forming focus groups of students with similar

needs, to complete a task that is different to the task assigned to the rest of the class. However,

Ferguson (2009) identifies that the increase in workload required for this approach does not justify

the increase in student learning, nor does it create any point of commonality for the discussion and

interaction that is vital in fostering a class that is a community of learners.

Characteristics of good tasks

There is an abundance of research surrounding good tasks critiqued from various angles,

however for the purposes of narrowing the scope, emphasis is placed on research that addresses

the selection, development and implementation of good tasks; as well as research that explores

the place of good tasks in effective differentiation. Open-ended, contextual, accessible and

challenging are the four key characteristics that strongly emerge from the literature that establish a

task as good. Tasks that contain these characteristics are given varying names throughout the

literature, including rich, open-ended, contextual and challenging. Although the various aspects

will be discussed separately, the interwoven nature and complimentary relationship they share

suggests that the contribution of all four characteristics create the type of good task that provides

the platform for effective differentiation of student learning.

Open-ended

An open-ended task is one for which there are multiple possible solutions and pathways (Gough,

2006; Kobelin, 2009; Russo, 2016), and therefore are exploratory by nature (Ferguson, 2009;

3
Kobelin, 2009). A well designed open-ended task allows teachers to take on more of a facilitator

role, whilst enabling students to be self-directed in their learning, as they must make various

choices about the concrete materials and methods or strategies that they use to solve the problem

(Kobelin, 2009). The exploration of a well designed open-ended task should lead students to

discover more efficient strategies and confront mathematical misconceptions (Kobelin, 2009;

Ferguson, 2009). Open-ended tasks should provoke, and are enhanced by, student discussion

and collaboration, as learners articulate their different approaches to the task and the strategies

they used to solve the problem (Ferguson, 2009; Kobelin, 2009).

Contextual

Student interest in a task is a key factor in the development of a good mathematical task

(Ferguson, 2015). The research suggests that student learning is likely to be enhanced when

tasks are set in a context that is meaningful to them (Sullivan, 2011), and learners are more likely

to persevere through a challenging task if they are interested and engaged (Roche, Clarke,

Sullivan, & Cheeseman, 2013). Therefore, not only must teachers know their students and what

excites them, they should also strive to foster a classroom climate that is open to seizing teaching

opportunities and encourages student driven tasks and discussion (Ferguson, 2015). The

research also suggests that teachers are doing a disservice to students if the tasks they set do not

require students to apply their mathematical understandings in new contexts or attempt to solve

problems they have not been shown how to solve, as these are necessary skills for their future

(Sullivan et al., 2014).

Accessible

Another characteristic of good tasks that is evident in the literature is that they are accessible to all

learners in the beginning (Ferguson, 2009; Gough, 2009; Russo, 2016). Despite a class having

numerous ability levels, a good task should allow all learners, no matter what their ability level, to

participate and meaningfully contribute to the same task (Ferguson, 2009; Russo, 2016). Good

4
tasks should also encourage the use of concrete materials by all students, as this enhances the

capacity of the task to meet the needs of all students (Kobelin, 2009). Despite bring engaged at

different levels, students are all working on the same task, which provides a point of commonality

for class discussions and reflection, which is beneficial for maintaining a community of learners

(Ferguson, 2009).

Challenging

The literature proposes that the promotion of critical, creative and higher order thinking is a key

element of a good task (Ferguson, 2009; Gough, 2006; Kobelin, 2009; McKnight & Mulligan, 2010;

Russo, 2016). Although a task must be accessible to all learners at the start, it must also provide

all learners of all ability levels with an appropriate level of challenge (Ferguson, 2009; Gough,

2006; Kobelin, 2009). Good tasks should meet students in their zone of proximal development,

which describes the point at which students have some knowledge to build new understandings,

but not all (Vygotsky as cited in Ferguson, 2009). The literature suggests that good tasks will

encourage a good balance between sparking students curiosity and enabling them to engage at

their own level (Ferguson, 2009; Sullivan, 2011), whilst at the same time placing enough cognitive

demand on the student that it requires the development of persistence (Moate, Small, Shiells &

Alderuccio, 2016; Russo, 2016). In a good task, students should enter the zone of confusion at

various points, which can be described as the temporary point in which students are unsure as to

how to proceed, a key part of the problem-solving process (Russo, 2016; Sullivan et al., 2014).

Implementation

Phase one: Launch

The launch phase involves the introduction to the lesson and the task (Armstrong & Gunningham,

2010; Gough, 2006; Russo, 2016), and aims to firstly engage students in the task, and secondly

encourage student thinking in a constructive way that will be potentially valuable for the task to

5
follow (Clarke & Roche, 2009; Cheeseman, Clarke, Roche, & Walker, 2016). The teacher presents

the problem to the class and endeavours to engage students in the relevant mathematical

concepts (Armstrong & Gunningham, 2010; Clarke & Roche, 2009; Russo, 2006). Teachers

should be open to allowing students curiosity to lead this initial discussion, and should make the

most of teaching opportunities (Ferguson, 2015). It is also in this stage that teachers should make

students aware of the relevant resources they have access to that may be useful, such as

concrete materials (Russo, 2016). By the end of the launch phase, students should have a good

understanding of the meaning of the question or problem, including any key terms, and therefore

be ready to start tackling the task (Armstrong & Gunningham, 2010; Gough, 2006; Russo, 2016).

Phase two: Explore

In the explore phase, students work either individually or collaboratively to find at least one

potential solution to the problem (Armstrong & Gunningham, 2010; Clarke & Roche, 2009; Gough,

2006; Russo, 2016). All students should be encouraged to access and utilise concrete materials

(Kobelin, 2009) and be given the freedom to represent their workings and findings in a way that

makes sense to them (Ferguson, 2009; Patterson, Connolly, & Ritter, 2009). These flexible

learning opportunities positively contribute to the capacity of a task to challenge all students, whilst

still allowing all learners to participate and experience success, regardless of their ability level

(Kobelin, 2009; McKnight & Mulligan, 2010; Moate, et al., 2016; Patterson, et al., 2009)

Despite the differentiation that is naturally embedded in the nature of open-ended tasks, the

literature argues that tasks must be easily varied, in order to effectively cater for the learning

needs of all students (Ferguson, 2009; Russo, 2016). To reduce the level of challenge, the

research suggests using an enabling prompt which may involve simplifying the problem, using

different numbers, or varying the representation (Ferguson, 2009; Russo, 2016; Sullivan et al.,

2014). It is important that teachers demonstrate high expectations by allowing students to begin

the task before offering variations (Ferguson, 2009), as teachers often underestimate what

6
students are capable of (Gough, 2006; Moate, et al., 2016). To increase the challenge, the teacher

can implement extending prompts through encouraging students to find patterns and make

generalisations (Ferguson, 2009) or by adding more challenging variations to the core task, such

as using different numbers or asking spin off questions that extend student thinking (Russo, 2016).

Phase three: Discuss and summarise

This phase relies on a high quality whole class discussion that is facilitated by the teacher, in

which students have the opportunity and are encouraged to share their solutions and strategies

(Armstrong & Gunningham, 2010; Clarke & Roche, 2009; Gough, 2006; Russo, 2016). Teachers

should structure responses in an increasing order of complexity in order to engage students in

meaningful discussion (Clarke & Roche, 2009; Russo, 2016). A high quality discussion is built on

student thinking and guided towards the development of a deeper understanding of key concepts

(Clarke & Roche, 2009; Stein, Engle, Smith, & Hughes, 2008). It provides a unique opportunity for

students to articulate their understanding and learn from each other as they hear other

perspectives and strategies (White, Sullivan, Warren, & Quinlan, 2016).

Students are united in one shared experience upon which they can reflect and discuss, which is

fundamental in creating a class that is a community of learners (Ferguson, 2009; Russo, 2016).

The teacher concludes by summarising the links between student experiences and insights, and

the underlying related key mathematical concepts (Stein et al., 2008; Clarke & Roche, 2009). It

should not bring up any new content, rather it should articulate the teacher facilitated and guided,

but student led conclusions (Stein et al., 2008).

Analysis and Discussion

7
The author set out to investigate the use of good tasks as a potential solution to the seemingly

challenging problem of differentiating mathematics instruction, based on recent experiences. A

review of the literature highlights some important evidence based themes and ideas that must be

considered when analysing the capacity of good tasks to reach all students. In analysing the

potential of good tasks, the author is considering the benefits in terms of their capacity to reach,

engage, and challenge all students in the classroom regardless of their ability level. The key

characteristics that emerged from the literature provide the basis for the interpretation of a good

task being one that is open-ended, contextual, challenging, and accessible.

The first step in allowing for meaningful learning is engaging and motivating students, and can

therefore be considered as one of the essential building blocks of effective teaching practice that

successful differentiation relies on. Contextual tasks have a greater potential to engage and

motivate students (Clarke & Roche, 2009; Ferguson, 2015; Sullivan, 2011), which is why it is an

essential characteristic of good tasks. Whilst the level of mathematical sophistication may vary, the

nature of open-ended tasks almost guarantees that all students will be able to find at least one

solution to the problem (Ferguson, 2009). This enables students to engage at their own level,

providing them the freedom to make choices about the materials and methods they use to solve

problems (Kobelin, 2009). In doing so, students are given independence over how they choose

learn and demonstrate their learning, which is a key factor in catering for the learning needs of all

students (Rock, et al., 2008).

When differentiated well, tasks provide students with supportive scaffolding that enhance their

learning experiences and provide a safe environment in which they are able to take risks and build

upon prior knowledge to access some level of new learning (Ferguson, 2009; Gough, 2009;

Russo, 2016). Allowing all students, regardless of ability level, to access the learning is

fundamental as this is essentially at the core of differentiation. However, teachers also often

underestimate what students are capable of and therefore deprive students of the challenges they

8
need to grow in their mathematical understanding (Gough 2006; Moate, et al., 2016). Therefore, it

is just as important that tasks are challenging and ensure that all students are challenged within

their zone of proximal development (Ferguson, 2009; Gough, 2006; Kobelin, 2009).

Individually, each characteristic contributes to enhancing the capacity of a task to cater for the

varying abilities and capabilities of students. However, when a task captures all four

characteristics, it becomes far more powerful in its potential to allow for effective differentiation.

Therefore, the author proposes that these characteristics form the beginning of a framework for

effectively selecting and developing good tasks.

Furthermore, the author recognises the implementation of a good task to be of great importance in

determining the effectiveness of a good task. The launch, explore, and discuss and summarise

phases as outlined in the literature review provides a solid basis for a framework for

implementation. Therefore, in developing a framework intended to provide a powerful solution to

differentiation, the author has chosen to embrace the three phases, with the inclusion of enabling

and extending prompts within the explore phase to allow for further differentiation within the

framework. It is a simple process, however it is one that may seem foreign in many classrooms,

and therefore may need to be progressively implemented as teachers develop the skills required

to promote the highest level of student learning, in particular facilitating a high quality discussion

(Cheeseman, et al., 2016).

Explicit teaching has been widely researched and is considered beneficial, particularly for students

with learning difficulties (Fuchs et al., 2008; Doabler et al., 2012; Doabler & Fien, 2013), yet seems

to be missing from the research surrounding good tasks. In differentiating, teachers need to take

into consideration the learning needs of all students, and therefore it would be nave to suggest

that the selection of good tasks replaces the need for explicit teaching. Conversely, the author

advocates that the selection and development of a good task should allow for explicit teaching if

9
and when required. Not all students will require explicit teaching if the teacher is successful in

developing tasks that build progressively on student prior knowledge and facilitating high quality

discussions that make clear links between student responses and the mathematics. However,

students with learning or math difficulties may benefit from explicit teaching to fill in gaps in their

prior knowledge and enable them to continue with the task (Doabler et al., 2012; Doabler & Fien,

2013). The author recognises it is important to be mindful of the working relationship between

student-directed learning and explicit teaching of concepts as required in order to fill gaps in their

knowledge and enable them to progress.

Therefore, the author suggests that it appropriate to include needs based explicit teaching within

the framework of implementation, and believes it would be most beneficial within the explore

phase. In this case, if and when students come across points in the task at which their

understanding is disrupted, the teacher is able to provide point-of-need explicit teaching to that

individual student, or a small group of students. This will work to not only fill in gaps in student

knowledge, but also allow them to carry on with the task. In saying this, a teacher should be wary

to jump straight into explicit teaching. Instead, they should wait and see if students are able to use

a form of enabling prompt to support them to carry on with the task (Cheeseman, et al., 2016;

Roche, et al., 2013). This will help prevent an over-reliance on the teacher by the students, and

will ensure that students continue to persevere through challenging points in the task

(Cheeseman, et al., 2016; Roche, et al., 2013). This is not to diminish the value of explicit

teaching, rather reserve it for if and when students legitimately require it due to a mathematical

learning difficulties or a gap in prior knowledge.

In response to the need for a solution for effectively differentiating mathematics instruction, the

author is putting forward a framework outlining the selection, development and implementation of

good tasks, as represented in Figure 1. The framework takes into consideration the evidence-

based characteristics of good tasks that the literature suggests, that is open-ended, contextual,

10
accessible and challenging. It also reflects the three phase structure of implementation regarded

as best practice within the literature, with the addition of explicit teaching embedded within the

explore phase, which the author believes is a valuable contribution in improving the ability of a

good task and its implementation to cater for all students. If the recommended framework is

followed in selecting, developing and implementing good tasks, the author foresees that good

tasks have the potential to become a powerful solution to the challenge teachers face in catering

their mathematics instruction to all students in the class, which is evident through the strong

alignment with the definition of differentiation.

A framework for the effective selection, development and implementation of

good tasks to allow for powerful differentiation

Figure 1: A framework for the effective selection, development and implementation of good tasks

to allow for powerful differentiation

Conclusion

In a mission to find a simple solution to the seemingly challenging and complex dilemma of

catering for all students in an often diverse classroom, the author explored the use of tasks that

the research establishes as good. The literature pointed to four characteristics that contribute to
11
the creation of a good task, which are open-ended, contextual, accessible and challenging. These

aspects individually were found to enhance the capacity of a task to cater for all students, however

when used in combination the task became far more powerful, and therefore the author considers

a good task as having all four aspects evident. Furthermore, three phases for implementation

strongly emerged from the literature; launch, explore, and discuss and summarise, and the author

considered these phases to powerfully enhance the potential student learning of a good task.

These findings led the author to create a simple framework for teachers to follow when selecting,

developing, and implementing good tasks to allow for effective differentiation.

However, the author noted that there was an absence of explicit teaching within the research

surrounding implementation. Due to the documented success that explicit teaching can have for

students with mathematics difficulties, the author considered it a disservice to completely

disregard explicit teaching. Therefore, the author has embedded needs based explicit teaching

within the explore phase of implementation. However, the author suggests that further research

regarding the place of explicit teaching within the implementation and context of good tasks would

be beneficial.

12
 Reference List

Armstrong, D., & Gunningham, S. (2010). Open Ended Maths. Prime Number, 25(2), 19.
Retrieved from
http://search.informit.com.au.ipacez.nd.edu.au/documentSummary;dn=998938889461854;r
es=IELHSS
Bailey, J. (2015). Supporting lower-achieving seven- and eight-year-old children with place value
understandings. Australian Primary Mathematics Classroom, 20(3), 3-9. Retrieved from
http://search.informit.com.au.ipacez.nd.edu.au/documentSummary;dn=492343129971150;r
es=IELHSS
Cheeseman, J., Clarke, D., Roche, A., & Walker, N. (2016). Introducing challenging tasks: Inviting
and clarifying without explaining and demonstrating. Australian Primary Mathematics
Classroom, 21(3), 3-7. Retrieved from
http://search.informit.com.au.ipacez.nd.edu.au/documentSummary;dn=350316936851015;r
es=IELHSS
Clarke, D., & Roche, A. (2009). Using mathematical tasks built around real contexts:
Opportunities and challenges for teachers and students. Australian Primary Mathematics
Classroom, 14(2), 24-31. Retrieved from
http://search.informit.com.au.ipacez.nd.edu.au/documentSummary;dn=985957394685023;r
es=IELHSS
Doabler, C. T., Cary, M. S., Jungohann, K., Clarke, B., Fien, H., Baker, S. Chard, D. (2012).
Enhancing core mathematics instruction for students at risk for mathematics disabilities.
Council for Exceptional Children, 44(4), 48-57. doi: 10.1177/004005991204400405
Doabler, C. T., Fien, H. (2013). Explicit mathematics instruction: what teachers can do for teaching
students with mathematics difficulties. Intervention in School and Clinic, 48(5), 276-285. doi:
10.1177/1053451212473151
Ferguson, S. (2009). Same Task, Different Paths: Catering for Student Diversity in the
Mathematics Classroom. Australian Primary Mathematics Classroom, 14(2), 32-36.
Retrieved from
http://search.informit.com.au.ipacez.nd.edu.au/fullText;dn=179490;res=AEIPT
Ferguson, S. (2015). Mash-up Tasks: A Real Classroom Story About Differentiation. Prime
Number, 30(1), 20-21. Retrieved from
http://search.informit.com.au.ipacez.nd.edu.au/documentSummary;dn=011742902308397;r
es=IELHSS

13
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Powell, S. R., Seethaler, P. M., Cirino, P. T., & Fletcher, J. M. (2008).
Intensive Intervention for Students with Mathematics Disabilities: Seven Principles of
Effective Practice. Learning Disability Quarterly, 31(2), 79-92. doi: 10.2307/20528819
Gough, J. (2006). Opening Up Open-Ended Mathematics Tasks. Prime Number, 21(2), 20-24.
Retrieved from
http://search.informit.com.au.ipacez.nd.edu.au/fullText;dn=152864;res=AEIPT
Kobelin, M. (2009). Multi-Age Made Me Do It: A Teacher Tackles Differentiation in Math
Instruction. Schools: Studies in Education, 6(1), 10-22. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/597653
McKnight, A., & Mulligan, J. (2010). Using Open-ended Tasks to Build Models and Construct
Patterns. Australian Primary Mathematics Classroom, 15(3), 4-9. Retrieved from
http://search.informit.com.au.ipacez.nd.edu.au/fullText;dn=183643;res=AEIPT
Moate, A., Small, B., Shiells, K., & Alderuccio, L. (2016). Open ended tasks and challenge: An
action research project in year 2. Prime Number, 31(3), 4-5. Retrieved from
http://search.informit.com.au.ipacez.nd.edu.au/documentSummary;dn=253052826883211;r
es=IELHSS
Patterson, J. L., Connolly, M. C., & Ritter, S. A. (2009). Restructuring the inclusion classroom to
facilitate differentiated instruction. Middle School Journal, 41(1), 46-52. doi:
10.1080/00940771.2009.11461703
Roche, A., Clarke, D., Sullivan, P., & Cheeseman, J. (2013). Strategies for encouraging students
to persist on challenging tasks: Some insights from work in classrooms. Australian Primary
Mathematics Classroom, 18(4), 27-32. Retrieved from
http://search.informit.com.au.ipacez.nd.edu.au/documentSummary;dn=861852008125997;r
es=IELHSS
Rock, M. L., Gregg, M., Ellis, E., & Gable, R. A. (2008). REACH: A framework for differentiating
classroom instruction. Preventing School Failure, 52(2), 31-47. doi: 10.3200/PSFL.52.2.31-
47
Russo, J. (2016). Teaching mathematics in primary schools with challenging tasks: The big (not
so) friendly giant. Australian Primary Mathematics Classroom, 21(3), 8-15. Retrieved from
http://search.informit.com.au.ipacez.nd.edu.au/documentSummary;dn=350335569822273;r
es=IELHSS
Stein, M., Engle, R. A., Smith, M. S., & Hughes, E. K. (2008). Orchestrating Productive
Mathematical Discussions: Five Practices for Helping Teachers Move Beyond Show and
Tell. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 10(4), 314-340. doi:
10.1080/10986060802229675

14
Sullivan, P., Askew, M., Cheeseman, J., Clarke, D., Mornane, A., Roche, A., & Walker, N. (2014).
Supporting teachers in structuring mathematics lessons involving challenging tasks. Journal
of Mathematics Teacher Education, 18(2), 123-140. doi: 10.1007/s10857-014-9279-2
Sullivan, Peter. (2011). Teaching mathematics: using research-informed strategies. Camberwell,
VIC: ACER Press.
White, P., Sullivan, P., Warren, E., and Quinlan, C. (2016). To investigate or not to investigate?:
The use of content specific open-ended tasks. The Australian Mathematics Teacher, 72(3),
61-64. Retrieved from
http://search.informit.com.au.ipacez.nd.edu.au/documentSummary;dn=351323117298958;r
es=IELHSS

15