Recipe:
A New
e
r
o
M
No k Lessons
Co okb oo
ls can b e re ad
kbo ok m ateria
a ge nu ine inqu
Coo that reflect
lesson s
M
athematics educators frequently extol the virtues
of inquiry-based instruction to classroom teach-
ers (Brahier 2008). Indeed, visions of motivated
students collaboratively investigating mathemat-
ics tasks of their own design provide an appealing
instructional picture for teachers. Although research suggests
that inquiry benefits learners by allowing them to make sense of
the mathematics they encounter, particularly through discourse
with peers (Carpenter et al. 1989; Jaworski 2007), to assume
that all (or even most) teachers successfully create and imple-
ment inquiry-oriented lessons in their classrooms is wishful
thinking.
Teachers may incorrectly identify cookbook lessons—those
that lead students through a series of procedural steps in a
recipe-like fashion—as mathematical inquiry because students
are active as they work through such tasks. Unfortunately,
cookbook tasks give students few opportunities to develop
their own methods of investigation or to realize the potential
of mathematics as a creative area of study. Recognizing the
unsatisfactory nature of recipe-oriented teaching materials,
we share an approach we use with teachers to transform cook-
book lessons into materials that more fully embrace the funda-
mental tenets of mathematical inquiry.
180 MatheMatics teacher | Vol. 105, No. 3 • October 2011
Copyright © 2011 The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Inc. www.nctm.org. All rights reserved.
This material may not be copied or distributed electronically or in any other format without written permission from NCTM.
n n e r. harper a
nd
suz a ards
todd edw
l
M ic h a e
ily trans fo rm e d into
ir y a pp roach.
PRINCIPLES OF INQUIRY TEACHING
Inquiry-based teaching is firmly grounded in the scientific
method. As such, the literature of science education provides a
wealth of ideas for engaging mathematics students in inquiry-
oriented experiences. For instance, in “Rethinking Laborato-
ries,” Volkmann and Abell (2003) discuss strategies for trans-
forming recipe-based science labs into inquiry-oriented labs.
The authors encourage teachers to modify lessons according to
four adaptation principles: questions, evidence, explanation,
and communication. Following this recommendation, we have
developed (and continue to refine) tools to assess the extent
to which various teaching materials are inquiry oriented. For
instance, the rubric in figure 1 allows teachers to reflect on
PiYachOK thaWOrNMat/istOcKPhOtO.cOM
the meaning and nature of inquiry in their classrooms as they
plan daily instruction.
The four lesson criteria listed in the leftmost column of the
rubric—task, analysis, revision, and presentation (TARP)—
are based on Volkmann and Abell’s four adaptation principles,
with explanation and communication collapsed into a single
criterion: presentation. Because the notion of revision is argu-
ably less familiar in secondary school mathematics classrooms
than in science classes, we have amplified its importance
with its own descriptor. The remaining columns of the rubric
Fig. 1 this rubric enables assessment of inquiry-oriented mathematics lessons (tarP).
describe three levels of inquiry, from “full inquiry”
(col. 2) to “full recipe” (col. 4). Recognizing that
most mathematics lessons are neither full inquiry
nor full recipe, the rubric provides a vehicle for
teachers as they shift instruction from a predomi-
nantly recipe-based orientation to one that encour-
ages students to assume more ownership of their
learning.
A COOKBOOK EXAMPLE
What is a cookbook mathematics lesson, anyway?
We explore this question through careful analysis
of the Triangle Centers task, a geometry investi-
gation familiar to interactive geometry software
enthusiasts. Using the rubric shown in figure 1 as
a guide, we illustrate ways in which teaching mate-
rials may be enhanced to better support inquiry-
based teaching methods.
Fig. 2 this cookbook-style investigation leads students through a step-by-step process.
182 MatheMatics teacher | Vol. 105, No. 3 • October 2011
The Triangle Centers Task
Too often, materials that incorporate technology
in student explorations present content in a cook-
book manner, with step-by-step button pushing and
mouse clicking that overshadows the development
of important mathematics. Exploratory materials
that make use of technology often proceed in a pre-
dictable “construction, conjecture, construction”
pattern (Stein 2005, p. 71), with students following
a suggested sequence of constructions. Consider, for
instance, the investigation highlighted in figure 2.
Assessing the Triangle Centers Task
The format of the materials shown in figure 2 is
likely familiar. Students are carefully led through
a series of steps, using interactive geometry soft-
ware, to “discover” properties associated with
the circumcenter of a triangle. At first glance, the
materials may seem appealing, particularly to new
teachers. After all, the questions encourage active
student participation. The video screen capture
available at http://tinyurl.com/recipe-math high-
lights ways in which students make and test con-
jectures as they progress through the construction
steps. Moreover, the open-ended questions encour-
age students to communicate their mathematical
understanding. Isn’t this the sort of engagement
advocated by various state and national mathemat-
ics teaching standards?
However, as we examine the materials more criti-
cally, a different picture emerges. Although the activ-
ity sheet in figure 2 presents a series of tasks that is
arguably more active than most traditional mathe-
matics lessons, the Triangle Centers task is markedly
cookbook in orientation, as figure 3 suggests.
Fig. 3 a scored tarP rubric for the triangle centers task shows a high degree of teacher centeredness.

Assessing teaching materials with an inquiry

rubric such as the one in figure 3 is helpful for
teachers in at least two ways. First, rubrics encour-
age us to slow down and consider materials more
carefully. For instance, what learning opportunities
are afforded by the activity sheet? Do the materi-
als actually support creative thinking and student
autonomy? Second, the rubric we use encourages
teachers to consider alternatives. For instance,
what content connections could be added? In what
context could the activity sheet tasks be presented?

FROM COOKBOOK TO INQUIRY

Using the Rubric to Brainstorm about Revisions
Once teachers determine that instructional materi-
als fail to support inquiry, they use criteria from
the TARP rubric to inform their revisions. Next
we explore possible modifications of the Triangle
Centers task along the four dimensions—task,
analysis, revision, and presentation—articulated
in the rubric.
Revising the Task
As teachers assess the Triangle Centers task, it is
apparent that the activity sheet is little more than a
checklist of procedures to be completed with technol-
ogy. As such, it allows little room for multiple interpre-
tations or solution strategies. Although several poten-
tially interesting questions appear at the end of the
activity sheet (e.g., does the circumcenter always lie
within the triangle?), these are not student generated.
Further, the tasks lack context, which spurs student
interest as well as meaningful follow-up questions.
Eliminating the checklist of procedures while framing
the exploration as a problem with a meaningful con-
text will lead to materials that better support inquiry.
Fig. 4 the solution to the activity sheet task can be found through a simple internet
search (www.mathalino.com/reviewer/plane-geometry/centers-of-a-triangle).
Modifying the Analysis
Opportunities for student analysis are squelched
by the checklist of procedures in the activity sheet.
For instance, rather than uncovering the useful-
ness of perpendicular bisectors in the task, students
are told to construct them. Moreover, the explicit
mention of the term circumcenter at the end of the
activity inhibits student exploration. As Wanko
(2008) suggests, framing questions with embedded
answers may lead to trivialization of the task.
Figure 4 illustrates a result obtained by search-
ing for the phrase “circumcenter inside triangle”
with a popular Internet search utility. Because it is
so easy to find this kind of information on the Web,
specific mathematics terminology directly related
to the Triangle Centers task should be removed.
Further, the checklist of student procedures should
be eliminated.

Vol. 105, No. 3 • October 2011 | MatheMatics teacher 183

 The Choosing a House Problem
Your cousin is planning to move to Madeira, Ohio. His parents want
a house equidistant to the Madeira elementary school, middle school,
and high school (marked as points A, B, and C, respectively, on the
map). Locate such a site (or sites) on the map. Then write an e-mail
message describing how you located where your cousin’s family
should live. Be prepared to present your solution in class by showing
your Construction Protocol using GeoGebra.
Fig. 5 The Triangle Centers task can be reconceptualized as the Choosing a House
problem.
Fig. 6 Most students will incorrectly conjecture that the house lies within the tri-
angle formed by connecting the three schools with line segments.
184 Mathematics Teacher | Vol. 105, No. 3 • October 2011
Modifying the Revision
Opportunities for student revision are not explicitly
incorporated into the Triangle Centers task activity
sheet. For instance, students are not encouraged
to explore variations of tasks—what, for instance,
would happen if bisectors of angles rather than
sides were constructed?—and they are not explic-
itly encouraged to “drag” vertices of their initial
triangle when crafting answers to the questions at
the end of the activity sheet. Revision lies at the
heart of mathematical inquiry in interactive envi-
ronments (De Villiers 1999). Modifying the activity
sheet explicitly to encourage student revision is a
must for teachers wishing to provide students with
inquiry-oriented experiences in the investigation.
Modifying the Presentation
The final products generated by students in the
original Triangle Centers task are twofold: a sketch
constructed with interactive geometry software
and written responses to two short questions.
Although the activity sheet does not specifically
mention the audience, the sole beneficiary of stu-
dent work is likely the classroom teacher. Because
the ways in which students can solve the activ-
ity sheet tasks are limited (the checklist of steps
affords little variation or creativity), students
have little incentive to share their problem-solving
strategies with other students. Further, given the
absence of a real-world context, it is unlikely that
anyone other than the classroom teacher would be
interested in such solutions.
As teachers encourage students’ presentation
of work in a more inquiry-oriented manner, the
reasons for sharing work should be compelling.
Providing rich, contextual tasks with multiple solu-
tions offers students an environment in which to
share work.
REVISING MATERIALS
WITH THE TARP RUBRIC
The Choosing a House Problem
Using our rubric to inform activity sheet modifica-
tions, we constructed the revision of the Triangle
Centers task (see fig. 5).
Revising the Task
Before students solve the problem with tech-
nology, we provide a paper copy of the written
problem and a map (see fig. 5) and ask them to
make a conjecture about the location of a house
equidistant from the three schools. This prelimi-
nary conjecture helps students keep a record of
their initial construction ideas as they revise their
solutions. Many students construct a point on
the interior of the triangle formed by the three
schools, as shown in figure 6.
Fig. 7 this student’s solution attempt was motivated by construction Fig. 8 One student provided this solution and e-mail communication for
menus. the choosing a house problem.

When students are presented with this task, they

typically recognize that a triangle center is involved;
however, they do not remember or are not familiar
with the circumcenter construction. We have found
that students examine the construction tools avail-
able in the software menus to prompt their initial
ideas of how to solve this problem. Students work-
ing in GeoGebra sometimes begin by constructing
the medians of the triangle (see fig. 7).
Not until students measure the distance from the
point of intersection of the three medians (the trian-
gle’s centroid) to the three vertices are they convinced
that their location for the family’s new house is not
correct. Many students will revise their constructions
and try to solve the problem using the capabilities of
the software until they find the circumcenter of the
triangle (see fig. 8). Students then communicate their
geometric solution as well as their construction tech-
niques in a written format as an e-mail message. Stu-
dents also present their solution to classmates using
construction protocol tools in GeoGebra (see fig. 9).

Assessing the Revision

The revision is more open-ended and provides a con-
text for exploration. In the revision, students are not
led through a series of technology steps; instead, they
use their problem-solving skills to find a solution to
the task. As the scored rubric in figure 10 indicates,
the revised task is not completely student centered;
however, it provides opportunities for students to
test construction techniques, make conjectures, and
communicate their understanding in multiple ways.
AN EXAMPLE FROM ALGEBRA
Cookbook examples are not restricted to interac-
tive geometry software explorations. For virtually
Fig. 9 this student’s presentation made use of Construction
Protocol tools in GeoGebra.
any mathematical subject and any technology,
numerous examples of recipe-based teaching exist.
The example in figure 11 highlights a second-year
algebra lesson that encourages recipe-based work
as students solve systems of equations. The activity
sheet leads the student through the steps to produce

Vol. 105, No. 3 • October 2011 | MatheMatics teacher 185

Fig. 10 The completed rubric for the Triangle Centers task indicates that this task is not completely student centered.

With most any graphing calculator, you can solve a system of linear equations
a reduced-row echelon form (rref) of a coefficient
using MATRIX functions. An augmented matrix contains the coefficients of each matrix using a TI-Nspire graphing calculator.
equation with an extra column containing constant terms. Using the TARP rubric, we made the following
2x + 1y = 60 notes about the activity sheet:
Consider the following example: 1x + 2y = 72
• The tasks lack context. When students complete
problems 1–3 in the activity sheet, the exer-
cises are solved the same way by all students—
namely, by using the rref calculator function.
STEP 1: Begin by creating a 2 × 3 matrix. The tasks are not sufficiently rich to support
multiple solution strategies.
• Techniques for analyzing the exercises are
wholly initiated by the materials. Students are
instructed to use augmented matrices. This
method is illustrated immediately before stu-
dents are asked to solve problems 1–3.
STEP 2: Enter the augmented matrix into • The materials offer few opportunities for critical
the calculator. thinking as students solve the exercises. Thus,
students have few if any opportunities to form
and revise conjectures through experimentation.

With these observations in mind, we can trans-

form the materials into a more inquiry-based
STEP 3: Calculate the reduced-row echelon activity. Figure 12 illustrates a task inspired and
form (rref) of the matrix. The first row adapted from materials presented in Mathematics in
represents x = 16, and the second row
represents y = 28. The solution is (16, 28).
Context (Kindt et al. 2006) for use with secondary
school students.
Note that the revised task corresponds to prob-
lem 3 of the cookbook activity sheet. Unlike the
Use an augmented matrix for each system. Solve with a graphing calculator. original, the revision presents students with a real-
world context for studying systems of equations—
1. 2x + 1y = 90 2. 15x + 11y = 36 3. 2x + 4y =5 namely, determining the total cost of a food order at
1x + 2y = 72 4x + 3y = 18 1x + 2y + 3z = 4 a sandwich shop. Further, it provides students with
3x + 3z = 4.5
opportunities to explore a wider variety of solu-
tion strategies. For instance, students may begin by
Fig. 11 The TI-Nspire serves as the environment for this cookbook-style activity sheet. combining orders to calculate the unit cost for top-

186 Mathematics Teacher | Vol. 105, No. 3 • October 2011

 Fig. 13 the cost of a topping can be found manually.

pings; such an approach is illustrated in figure 13.

Fig. 12 a revised system of equations task is more student
centered.
Students taking such an approach are actu-
ally performing matrix row operations, although
they may not recognize it as such. Continuing in
this fashion, students may use paper-and-pencil
methods to find the unit cost of meats and veg-
gies, or they may use a mix of technology-oriented
approaches (see figs. 14 and 15).
With the cost of each item known, calculating the
cost of the entire order is a straightforward exercise.
A spreadsheet-based approach is shown in figure 15.
The revised task provides students with a realis-
tic context for exploring systems of equations while
providing them with freedom to explore multiple
solution methods in a manner more consistent with
inquiry-based teaching methods. The TARP rubric
was useful for framing this revision.

Cast Your Online Vote Today!

The NCTM 2011 Board of Directors online
election is underway. Make sure to check your
email for information about casting your vote,
learning about the candidates, as well as nominating future candidates.
This election is exclusively online;
online voting instructions were sent to individual members
who were current as of August 12, 2011 and had updated email addresses. If you
have questions or need assistance, please contact Election Services Corporation at
1-866-720-4357 or email nctmhelp@electionservicescorp.com.
All votes must be received by October 31st. Be heard and cast your vote today!

electn611_496 NCTM journals

Vol. 105, No. 3 • October 2011 | MatheMatics teacher 187
 CONCLUSION
In this article, we provide a framework for trans-
forming cookbook lessons into inquiry-based ones.
Too often, the teaching materials that we use in our
classrooms fail to allow our students to develop their
own methods of investigation. In the examples given
here, we used our framework—the TARP rubric—
to consider materials with fresh eyes, providing
Fig. 14 Once the cost of the topping is known, the unit cost of meats and veggies
can be found.
(a)
(b)
(c)
Fig. 15 Students can define cost as a formula in a TI-Nspire
spreadsheet (a), fill down the cost formula (b), and then use
the sum function to determine the total cost of all orders (c).
188 Mathematics Teacher | Vol. 105, No. 3 • October 2011
students with revised tasks that better convey math-
ematics as a meaningful, creative area of study.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
For their helpful revisions of the tasks presented in
this article, the authors wish to thank Steve Phelps
of Madeira City Schools, Madeira, Ohio; Amy Hud-
son of Middletown City Schools, Middletown, Ohio;
and Chris Rose, a recent Miami University graduate.
REFERENCES
Brahier, Daniel J. 2008. Teaching Secondary and Mid-
dle School Mathematics. 3rd ed. New York: Allyn
and Bacon.
Carpenter, Thomas P., Elizabeth Fennema, Penelope
L. Peterson, Chi-Pang Chiang, and Megan Loef.
1989. “Using Knowledge of Children’s Mathemati-
cal Thinking in Classroom Teaching: An Experi-
mental Study.” American Educational Research
Journal 26: 499–532.
De Villiers, Michael. 1999. Rethinking Proof with The
Geometer’s Sketchpad. Emeryville, CA: Key Curricu-
lum Press.
Jaworski, Barbara. 2007. “Theory and Practice in
Mathematics Teaching Development: Critical
Inquiry as a Mode of Learning in Teaching.”
Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education 9 (2):
187–211.
Kindt, Martin, Mieke Abels, Margaret R. Meyer,
Margaret A. Pligge, and Gail Burrill. 2006. “Com-
paring Quantities.” In Mathematics in Context: A
Connected Curriculum for Grades 5–8, edited by
National Center for Research in Mathematical
Sciences Education and Freudenthal Institute.
Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica Educational
Corporation.
Stein, Deborah. 2005. “Engaging Music: Essays in Music
Analysis.” New York: Oxford University Press.
Volkmann, Mark, and Sandra K. Abell. 2003.
“Rethinking Laboratories: Tools for Converting
Cookbook Labs into Inquiry.” The Science Teacher
70 (6): 38–41.
Wanko, Jeffrey. 2008. “Internet: Friend or Foe?”
Mathematics Teacher 100 (6): 402–7.
SUZANNE R. HARPER, harpersr@
muohio.edu, and MICHAEL TODD
EDWARDS, edwardm2@muohio.edu,
are associate professors of mathe-
matics education at Miami University
in Oxford, Ohio. Their professional
interests include the use of technol-
ogy in the teaching and learning of
school mathematics with particular emphasis on
computer algebra systems, interactive geometry
software, and pencasting technology.