Mathematics Education in the Digital Era

Agida Manizade
Nils Buchholtz
Kim Beswick Editors

The Evolution
of Research
on Teaching
Mathematics
International Perspectives in the Digital
Era
Mathematics Education in the Digital Era

Volume 22

Series Editors
Dragana Martinovic, University of Windsor, Windsor, ON, Canada
Viktor Freiman, Faculté des sciences de l’éducation, Université de Moncton,
Moncton, NB, Canada

Editorial Board
Marcelo Borba, State University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil
Rosa Maria Bottino, CNR – Istituto Tecnologie Didattiche, Genova, Italy
Paul Drijvers, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
Celia Hoyles, University of London, London, UK
Zekeriya Karadag, Giresun Üniversitesi, Giresun, Türkiye
Stephen Lerman, London South Bank University, London, UK
Richard Lesh, Indiana University, Bloomington, USA
Allen Leung, Hong Kong Baptist University, Kowloon Tong, Hong Kong
Tom Lowrie, University of Canberra, Bruce, Australia
John Mason, The Open University, Buckinghamshire, UK
Sergey Pozdnyakov, Saint Petersburg Electrotechnical University,
Saint Petersburg, Russia
Ornella Robutti, Dipartimento di Matematica, Università di Torino, Torino, Italy
Anna Sfard, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel
Bharath Sriraman, University of Montana, Missoula, USA
Eleonora Faggiano, University of Bari Aldo Moro, Bari, Italy
The Mathematics Education in the Digital Era (MEDE) series explores ways in
which digital technologies support mathematics teaching and the learning of Net
Gen’ers, paying attention also to educational debates. Each volume will address
one specific issue in mathematics education (e.g., visual mathematics and cyber-
learning; inclusive and community based e-learning; teaching in the digital era), in
an attempt to explore fundamental assumptions about teaching and learning math-
ematics in the presence of digital technologies. This series aims to attract diverse
readers including researchers in mathematics education, mathematicians, cognitive
scientists and computer scientists, graduate students in education, policy-makers,
educational software developers, administrators and teacher-practitioners. Among
other things, the high-quality scientific work published in this series will address
questions related to the suitability of pedagogies and digital technologies for new
generations of mathematics students. The series will also provide readers with deeper
insight into how innovative teaching and assessment practices emerge, make their
way into the classroom, and shape the learning of young students who have grown
up with technology. The series will also look at how to bridge theory and practice to
enhance the different learning styles of today’s students and turn their motivation and
natural interest in technology into an additional support for meaningful mathematics
learning. The series provides the opportunity for the dissemination of findings that
address the effects of digital technologies on learning outcomes and their integration
into effective teaching practices; the potential of mathematics educational software
for the transformation of instruction and curricula and the power of the e-learning of
mathematics, as inclusive and community-based, yet personalized and hands-on.
Submit your proposal: Please contact the Series Editors, Dragana Martinovic
([email protected]) and Viktor Freiman ([email protected]) as well
as the Publishing Editor, Marianna Georgouli (marianna.georgouli@springernature.
com).
Forthcoming volume:
The Evolution of Research on Teaching Mathematics: A. Manizade, N. Buchholtz,
K. Beswick (Eds.)
Agida Manizade · Nils Buchholtz · Kim Beswick
Editors

The Evolution of Research

on Teaching Mathematics
International Perspectives in the Digital Era
Editors
Agida Manizade Nils Buchholtz
Department of Mathematics and Statistics University of Hamburg
Radford University Hamburg, Germany
Radford, VA, USA
University of Oslo
Oslo, Norway
Kim Beswick
School of Education
University of New South Wales
Kensington, NSW, Australia

ISSN 2211-8136 ISSN 2211-8144 (electronic)

Mathematics Education in the Digital Era
ISBN 978-3-031-31192-5 ISBN 978-3-031-31193-2 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-31193-2

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2023. This book is an open access publication.
Open Access This book is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribu-
tion and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original
author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were
made.
The images or other third party material in this book are included in the book’s Creative Commons license,
unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the book’s Creative
Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted
use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book
are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or
the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any
errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional
claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Contents

The Evolution of Research on Teaching Mathematics: International

Perspectives in the Digital Era: Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Agida G. Manizade, Nils Buchholtz, and Kim Beswick

Mathematics Teachers’ Influence on Students’ Learning: Online Variables

Pre-existing Mathematics Teacher Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Olive Chapman
The Evolution of Research on Mathematics Teachers’
Competencies, Knowledge and Skills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Nils Buchholtz, Gabriele Kaiser, and Björn Schwarz
The Research on Mathematics Teaching and Planning: Theoretical
Perspectives and Implications of Teachers’ Pre-post Classroom
Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
Agida G. Manizade, Alexander S. Moore, and Kim Beswick
Interactive Mathematics Teacher Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
Kim Beswick, Felicity Rawlings-Sanaei, and Laura Tuohilampi
Student Mathematics Learning Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
Maria A. Timmerman
Student Mathematics Learning Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197
Jelena Radišić

Units of Analysis of Research on Teaching Mathematics that are

not Under Teachers’ Control: Offline Variables
Individual Student Characteristics, Abilities and Personal
Qualities and the Teacher’s Role in Improving Mathematics
Learning Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227
Rhonda M. Faragher

v
vi Contents

Individual Student Internal Contexts and Considerations

for Mathematics Teaching and Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255
S. Megan Che and T. Evan Baker
External Context-Related Research: Digital Resources
as Transformers of the Mathematics Teachers’ Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277
Ghislaine Gueudet and Birgit Pepin
Competency Framework for the Qualification of Facilitators
of Mathematics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 311
Joyce Peters-Dasdemir, Lars Holzäpfel, Bärbel Barzel, and Timo Leuders
Continuing Evolution of Research on Teaching and Learning:
Exploring Emerging Methods for Unpacking Research
on Teachers, Teaching, and Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 339
Chandra Hawley Orrill, Zarina Gearty, and Kun Wang

Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 379
The Evolution of Research on Teaching
Mathematics: International Perspectives
in the Digital Era: Introduction

Agida G. Manizade , Nils Buchholtz , and Kim Beswick

1 Introduction

Mathematics teaching is subject to cultural and temporal conditions. Not only do

school and societal conditions shift, and with them the composition of the student
body, but also curricular regulations and new mathematical and pedagogical insights
determine the content to be taught and the approach to learning used in mathematics
classes. To reflect on mathematics teaching in a changing world, there is a need
for continuous scientific research into this process of teaching mathematics. Results
of this research also have a retrospective impact on mathematics teacher education
insofar as the conditions of education need to be continuously adapted to the profes-
sional requirements of teachers in practice. Research on teaching mathematics thus
bears a great responsibility and is a constantly evolving field of research for scholars
around the globe.
This book comes at the time when the world is facing an ongoing global pandemic
and experiencing violence and unrest due to active war. This publication symbolizes

A. G. Manizade (B)
Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Radford University, 801 E. Main St, 105 Whitt Hall,
Radford, VA 24142, USA
e-mail: [email protected]
N. Buchholtz
Faculty of Education, University of Hamburg, Von-Melle-Park 8, 20146 Hamburg, Germany
e-mail: [email protected]
Department of Teacher Education and School Research, University of Oslo, Moltke Moes Vei 35,
0317 Oslo, Norway
K. Beswick
School of Education, University of New South Wales, Morven Brown Building, Kensington,
NSW 2052, Australia
e-mail: [email protected]

© The Author(s) 2023 1

A. Manizade et al. (eds.), The Evolution of Research on Teaching Mathematics,
Mathematics Education in the Digital Era 22,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-31193-2_1
2 A. G. Manizade et al.

a professional commitment and international collaboration par excellence apropos

teaching mathematics. The editors from three different continents and researchers
who represent sixteen institutions and eight countries worked constructively and
collaboratively with utmost respect for each other, with intentions to reflect on
existing research knowledge and to create new knowledge that can be shared and
used by other educators and researchers across the world.
In preparation for this book, our international group of researchers shared current
issues related to the evolution of research on teaching mathematics. We examined
the present state of research on mathematics teaching and discussed the theoret-
ical and methodological challenges associated with it, including issues related to
conceptualization, instrumentation, and design. Additionally, we explored the likely
direction of future research developments. In our literature review and discussions
on this project, it became evident that studies on teaching frequently establish direct
relationships between units of analysis that, at first glance, cannot be assumed to
be directly related in a chain of effects. There are examples of studies presented in
this book that directly relate teacher competencies to student achievements using
empirical measurement models in a causal or relational way. Without criticizing
these studies across the board, however, it seems reasonable to consider moderating
or intermediate variables in this chain of effects (Baron & Kenny, 1986), such as the
initiated student learning activities observable by teachers in the classroom, aspects of
instructional quality (e.g., classroom management or cognitive activation), or corre-
sponding student variables such as attention and cooperation in class or students’
prior knowledge (e.g., Fig. 1).
Although there are researchers who do indeed study mediating variables (e.g.,
Blömeke et al., 2022), it became clear to us that there is a lack of a systematic
scientific overview of the complete chain of effects between teacher characteristics,
activities, and students’ learning processes. Overviews of precisely these aspects of
research on teaching and respective studies are scarce, which inspired this book.

Mathematics teachers’ Student mathematics

competencies learning outcomes

Mathematics teacher Student mathematics

activities learning activities

Fig. 1 Example of a chain of effect in teaching

The Evolution of Research on Teaching Mathematics: International … 3

2 The Purpose of the Book

Research that aims to relate teachers’ observable actions with students’ gains in
achievement is referred to as process–product research. The term was first used by
Donald M. Medley and Harold E. Mitzel (Hunt et al., 2010; Medley & Mitzel, 1963).
Presage-process–product research then also considered other important variables,
namely all the preceding and mediating variables that influence the actions of teachers
in the classroom, such as teachers’ professional training, knowledge, competencies,
skills, personality traits, and teachers’ abilities to plan a lesson or assess students.
The framework for this book was based on a 1987 seminal work called “Evolution
of research on teaching” by Medley (1987), in which he discussed literature on the
development of research on teaching for thirty years prior to that publication vis-à-vis
the presage-process–product standpoint. In it, he described a set of essential variables
of research on teaching as given in Fig. 2, which he labelled online variables - “ones
which lie along a direct line of influence of the teacher on pupil learning” (p. 105)
and offline variables, “ones which affect pupil learning but are not under the direct
control of the teacher.” (ibid.).
Updating this framework is timely and, since it has not been described for mathe-
matics teaching in particular, the framework was adapted and applied in the context
of mathematics teaching and mathematics teacher education, as presented in Fig. 3
(Manizade et al., 2019). In the past twenty to thirty years, research on teaching has
evolved further, and researchers have used a wide range of conceptual and theoretical
frameworks in an effort to advance knowledge in presage-process–product research
in mathematics education (e.g., Blömeke et al., 2016; Buchholtz, 2017; Liljedahl,
2016; Manizade & Martinovic, 2018). For this reason, the terms of the variables used
by Medley (1987) have been adapted to the current research discourse. Although the

Type F – Chapter 1.1

PRE-EXISTING TEACHER CHARACTERISTICS
Type J – Chapter 2.4
TEACHER TRAINING VARIABLES

Type E – Chapter 1.2

TEACHER COMPETENCIES
Type I – Chapter 2.3
EXTERNAL CONTEXT VARIABLES

Type D – Chapter 1.3

PREACTIVE TEACHER BEHAVIORS

Type C – Chapter 1.4

INTERACTIVE TEACHER BEHAVIORS
Type H – Chapter 2.2
INTERNAL CONTEXT VARIABLES

Type B – Chapter 1.5

PUPIL LEARNING ACTIVITIES
Type G – Chapter 2.1
INDIVIDUAL PUPIL CHARACTERISTICS

Type A – Chapter 1.6

LEARNING OUTCOMES

Fig. 2 Representation of Medley’s 1987 framework mapped to the book’s chapters

4 A. G. Manizade et al.

field of research on teaching mathematics has considerably advanced during the past
twenty to thirty years, we find that the main units of analysis in the current research
studies have remained the same: thus, Medley’s framework is still valuable as it
gives an orientation to all possible variables that become apparent qua the chain of
effects from teacher behavior to student achievements. Moreover, the abiding chal-
lenges associated with the conceptualization, instrumentation, operationalization,
and research design that Medley described are still complex, despite recent advances
in technology and research methodology in the digital era.
One of the aims of the book is to update and situate Medley’s framework within
mathematics education research of the last three decades. Societal and educational
realities have changed significantly since Medley wrote his seminal paper. Therefore,
based on current research, additional variables must be considered in the chain of
effects. Another goal is to provide researchers, who are scientifically concerned
with more than one main unit of analysis—as described in Fig. 3—with current
knowledge and methods apropos of the respective variables in the overview chapters.
Each chapter of the book is based on reviews of research conducted over the past
twenty to thirty years and written by leading experts in the respective fields. The
chapters therefore also address cultural and technological aspects of the research on
the respective variables.

Main Units of Analysis of Research on Teaching Mathematics

Within Cultural and Epistemological Contexts

Type F:
Pre-existing mathematics teacher characteristics
a mathematics teacher’s beliefs and aptitude for teaching, characteristics
needed to acquire professional competencies during training Type J:
Mathematics teacher training and
experiences
Type E: designed to increase mathematics teachers’
Mathematics teachers' competencies, knowledge, and skills range of competencies
to function effectively in mathematics teaching situations

Type D: Type I:
Pre- and post-active mathematics teacher activities External context variables
such as planning, assessment, reflection, and other out-of-class activities support systems: materials, technology,
of mathematics teaching facilities, supervision, administrative support,
community and parental support

Type C:
Interactive mathematics teacher activities
activities of the mathematics teacher while in the presence of students Type H:
Internal context variables
characteristics of students or groups of
students which affect response to mathematics
Type B: teacher behaviors and actions
Student mathematics learning activities
occur in the mathematics classroom. The types of student experiences
that will result in desired learning outcomes Type G:
Individual student characteristics, abilities,
and personal qualities
Type A: which determine outcomes of any specific
Student mathematics learning outcomes learning experience
measured after the teaching is over

Within a Digital Context

Fig. 3 Updated framework of research on teaching mathematics

The Evolution of Research on Teaching Mathematics: International … 5

Additionally, in his original work, Medley focused on discussion surrounding

good teaching and the complexity of defining such a term in research (Medley,
1987). In the past twenty to thirty years, myriad of new theoretical perspectives on
teaching mathematics have emerged in the field. These perspectives assume that
a wide range of mathematics learning goals based on theoretical frameworks are
enacted by teachers in the classroom (Manizade et al., this volume). Depending on
these goals, the definition of good teaching and what is valued in the mathematics
classroom can have an array of meanings (Manizade et al., this volume). These
include reproducing the perfect sequence of steps when solving a mathematical
problem, engaging students in productive struggle and productive failure, developing
mathematical constructs through collaborative discourse, and addressing students’
lived cultural experiences as mathematical experiences, to name a few. The updated
framework, therefore, considers the epistemological contexts of research on teaching
mathematics with respect to main units of analysis, in addition to considering the
cultural and digital contexts that also affect all units of analyses of research presented
in the framework (Fig. 3).

3 Book Structure

The book is comprised of two parts. In part one, we examine research in mathe-
matics education with focus on units of analysis that Medley called online variables
(Medley, 1987). In contrast to current use, the term online has a distinct and different
meaning in Medley’s work. Online variables are units of analysis of research that can
be under the control of mathematics teachers. They included research on mathematics
teaching and teacher education that examined: pre-existing mathematics teacher char-
acteristics (Type F); mathematics teacher competencies, knowledge, and skills (Type
E); pre-post-active mathematics teacher activities (Type D); interactive mathematics
teacher activities (Type C); student mathematics learning activities (Type B); and
student mathematics learning outcomes (Type A) (Fig. 3).
In part two, we examine mathematics education research with main units of anal-
ysis that are not under the direct control of teachers. These include offline research
variables (Medley, 1987) such as individual student characteristics, abilities, and
personal qualities (Type G); internal context variables (Type H); external context
variables (Type I); and mathematics teacher training and experiences (Type J). A
detailed discussion of both parts of the book is presented later in this chapter. Because
the offline (Types J, I H, and G) research foci that are not under the direct control
of mathematics teachers are so broad, our authors selected a subset of research vari-
ables within each type to discuss in their respective chapters included in part two
of the book. We understand the importance of each research focus and unit of anal-
ysis and acknowledge that a larger publication would be needed to include all their
components.
In the following section, we give an overview of the individual units of analysis
of research on teaching mathematics, as well as the chapters of the book.
6 A. G. Manizade et al.

4 Part 1: Online Variables

4.1 Pre-Existing Mathematics Teacher Characteristics

Pre-existing teacher characteristics include abilities, knowledge, and attitudes that

a candidate for admission to a teacher preparation program possesses on entry, as
well as a candidate’s aptitude for teaching. In order for teachers to learn the neces-
sary competencies for teaching in teacher education processes, they must possess
appropriate entry-level prerequisites that sustain competency development.
Mathematics teacher competencies include, for example, cognitive abilities such
as prior mathematical and pedagogical knowledge at the point of study entry, atti-
tudes toward mathematics as a subject or toward the learning and teaching mathe-
matics, as well as motivational and volitional variables such as enthusiasm for the
subject of mathematics and personality traits and identity aspects such as one’s own
understanding of one’s role, self-regulation and self-concept, and ability to reflect
and collaborate with students and with colleagues. More recent research also counts
emotional aspects such as personal well-being or stress resilience among personal
factors that play a role in competence acquisition at entry level. It should be noted
here that all the influencing variables themselves also change in the context of teacher
education. That is, in line with Medley, the changeability of personality structures is
assumed.
In Chap. 2, Olive Chapman compiles findings on these main research units of
analyses based on extensive literature reviews spanning over more than twenty years.
With respect to the prior mathematical knowledge of pre-service teachers, Chapman
focuses on studies in the content area of fractions, whole number operations, geom-
etry and algebraic thinking and problem-posing. Many of the current studies demon-
strate, in part, large gaps in knowledge related to conceptual understanding of elemen-
tary mathematical concepts and operations, which pose an ongoing challenge to
teacher education. For the area of prior mathematics-related pedagogical knowl-
edge, Chapman focuses on studies examining skills in observing instruction and
noticing and analyzing student work and thinking and evaluating tasks. Here, too,
the systematic review revealed weaknesses among beginning pre-service teachers
who, for example, can generate few pedagogical decisions from observations of
instruction or fail to recognize the potential of mathematics tasks. In the area of
attitudes, Chapman adds to existing findings with those related to attitudes toward
technology use and mathematical processes or specific mathematics areas such as
algebra.
Overall, Chapman notes a shift in studies over the past twenty years away from
focusing on single “hard” categories, such as high school graduation or mathematics
grades, to examining content aspects of prior knowledge and learning conditions
including those influenced by culture and technology at the beginning of the teacher
education program. Finally, Chap. 2 also addresses methodological challenges and
future directions for Type F research, including different survey formats, designs,
and methods of research analysis.
The Evolution of Research on Teaching Mathematics: International … 7

4.2 Mathematics Teachers’ Competencies, Knowledge

and Skills

Medley described Type E teacher competencies as knowledges, skills, and values

that a teacher possesses. Without going into detail about what exactly is meant by
competencies, knowledges, or skills, he describes these as the “tools” of teaching
in an instrumental, functional sense. They are the prerequisites for successful and
competent teacher action in various situations. This assumes that the prerequisites
for teaching can be precisely specified for a given situation - as is done in later
research, for example, through requirements analysis by observing teachers. Interest-
ingly, Medley also included values in these prerequisites and thus included affective
characteristics of teachers among the competencies. A conceptual understanding of
competency can be discerned here, the scope of which was recognized in the early
2000s in the educational psychology discussion on the conceptual understanding
of competencies and was more widely received. In contrast to Type F, however,
Medley saw this online variable less as the personality characteristics of teachers.
He understood teacher competencies as a measurable outcome of teacher education
and experiences - in contrast to Type F, pre-existing mathematics teacher charac-
teristics. Teacher competencies thus always remain a potential trait in the exclusive
research of Type E, since the (measurable) performance of these competencies only
takes place in the actual preparation and implementation of teaching (Type D and
C).
In Chap. 3, Nils Buchholtz, Björn Schwarz, and Gabriele Kaiser describe the
development of mathematics education research on teacher competencies in the
last 30 years, especially the research on teacher knowledge and affective variables
such as beliefs or self-regulatory skills. For the subject of mathematics, normative
requirements have always been formulated for teachers in terms of their content
knowledge. However, the researchers see the starting point of research on Type
E in psychological cognition research, which has strongly influenced research on
mathematics teaching and teacher education. At its starting point, research on Type
E was thus still closely aligned with Medley’s description. However, Buchholtz,
Schwarz and Kaiser describe how Lee Shulman’s work in particular inspired, devel-
oped, and advanced the research. A broad research field of qualitative and quanti-
tative studies on teacher cognitions developed, resulting in a plurality of different
conceptualizations of teacher knowledge that refer to different knowledge bases
(mainly: content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, pedagogical knowl-
edge). Teacher competencies are thus conceived in research as a multidimensional
construct, the complexity of which poses major challenges to research in terms of its
measurability. Different ways of measurement (especially through knowledge tests)
have been used in research. Overall, the plurality in a research field is perceived
as a strength, especially since it is broadly based internationally. In recent years,
research on teacher competencies has started to focus more on the situational perfor-
mance of competencies, which has already extended the focus from Type E to Types
8 A. G. Manizade et al.

D and C. The reason for this development has been on the one hand methodolog-
ical developments through video-based competence measurement, and on the other
hand the increasing conviction that teacher competencies can only be examined to
a limited extent outside of the situational context of practical teaching. That is, an
isolated consideration of Type E is less insightful. To this end, the chapter provides
an overview of current research on situational-based mathematics teacher compe-
tency measurement and the relationships among teacher competencies, instructional
quality, and student outcomes.

4.3 Pre- and Post-Active Mathematics Teacher Activities

In his original work, Medley referred to the online variable, Type D, as preac-
tive teacher behaviors. These included such activities as “planning, evaluation, and
other out-of-class activities of teaching, the things a teacher does to promote pupil
learning while no pupils are present”. These are practices that demonstrate how
teachers’ professional competencies knowledge and skills (Type E) affect the quality
of their classroom interactions with students (Type C), and therefore, indicate how
successfully the teacher can meet their goals for teaching.
In their Chap. 4, Agida Manizade, Alex Moore, and Kim Beswick named this
variable pre- and post- active because several of the Type D activities (e.g., lesson,
and unit planning) are performed prior to teaching, while others (e.g., reflection, and
assessment) are conducted after lessons have been taught. Manizade, Moore, and
Beswick focused on lesson planning, assessment, and reflection as the key actions
that teachers perform when students are not present in the classroom. These “pre-
and post-” actions are the most direct ways through which teachers shape observable
teaching work, as mediated by their goals for teaching. These goals are represen-
tations of teachers’ epistemological commitments apropos teaching mathematics,
whether those commitments be consciously espoused or unconsciously reproduced
due to constraints within which they work. The researchers surveyed the literature
on lesson planning, assessment, and reflection according to eight epistemological
paradigms that are known in the field of mathematics teaching, namely Situated
Learning Theory, Behaviorism, Cognitive Learning Theory, Social Constructivism,
Structuralism, Problem Solving, Culturally Relevant Pedagogy, and Project- and
Problem-Based Learning. They place other perspectives on learning theory, which are
derivatives of these prevailing paradigms, within this overarching frame. They detail
each perspective, providing a definition, goals for teaching, pros and cons of each
theoretical perspective, and examples from the literature on teaching mathematics.
The chapter revealed that some of the theoretical perspectives are well-reported in
the literature whilst others have not received the same amount of attention from
researchers. The researchers recognized that the chapter focused on the western
cultural context and more research is needed in a variety of cultural settings, consid-
ering each of the settings affects every unit of analysis in research on mathematics
teaching and teacher education (Fig. 3). The researchers posited that, amidst cultural
The Evolution of Research on Teaching Mathematics: International … 9

contexts and the technological advent of the digital era of mathematics education,
researchers must engage more explicitly with the theoretical perspectives identified
as underserved and must themselves reckon with their own epistemological commit-
ments more intentionally when engaging and reporting on studies regarding Type
D.

4.4 Interactive Mathematics Teacher Activities

Medley (1987) described interactive teacher behaviors as “the behaviors of the

teacher while in the presence of students” (p. 105). He explained that these behaviors
are typically what are referred to as teaching and are the means through which teachers
influence students. They are directly observable actions through which teachers trans-
late their pre-post-active behaviors (i.e., planning and other out-of-class activities,
Type D) into learning experiences for students. They are the bridge between teachers’
plans to promote student learning (Type D) and the things that students do that result
in their learning (Type B).
In Chap. 5 Kim Beswick, Felicity Rawlings-Sanaei, and Laura Tuohilampi discuss
the research literature related to the activities that mathematics teachers engage in
when they are with students. Importantly in the digital era teachers can be with
students without being physically with them. Teachers’ interactive behaviors in online
or virtual contexts remain under-researched but have attracted increased attention in
recent years in which the pandemic forced the closure of schools for periods of weeks
or months in many countries, necessitating a move to online interaction.
The authors structure their chapter in two main parts. The first surveys what
we know about normative teaching practices; the things that typically happen in
mathematics classrooms whether physical or virtual. They rely primarily on large
scale studies, principally the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study
(TIMSS) and the Programme for International Student Assessment surveys (PISA).
These studies rely on teacher self-reports as well as student reports of the activity
that occurs in their mathematics classrooms. TIMSS video studies provided more
direct access to teacher behaviors but have still relied on teachers to indicate the
extent to which the video-recorded lessons were typical of their practice. The second
part of Chap. 5 deals with teachers’ interactive behaviors documented by researchers
interested in promoting or supporting teachers to implement particular behaviors or to
adopt in some way an approach to mathematics teaching that the researchers believe
will be beneficial. Beswick et al. describe the interactive behaviors reported in these
studies as atypical because they represent approximations of changed behaviors that
align with the researchers’ perspective.
10 A. G. Manizade et al.

4.5 Student Mathematics Learning Activities

The variable Type B was described by Medley as student learning activities. By

this, he meant all types of student experiences within the classroom that result in
the learning outcomes desired by the teacher. These student activities and behaviors
always take place under teaching objectives, in that they are directed or oriented by
the teacher and therefore a direct result of an interactive teacher’s behavior (Type C).
For a direct influence of teaching activities on student learning to be assumed, Medley
presupposed that all learning is based on learners’ activity. That is, student activity
can be used as an indicator of learning processes. Most particularly, therefore, it is
important that any activity is perceived as purposeful.
Maria Timmerman addresses this purpose of students’ learning activities from a
mathematical perspective in Chap. 6, presenting different ways in which students’
learning activities could be understood and seen as productive or purposeful for
learning mathematics. She illustrates that effective and equitable experiences of
students are related to how mathematics learning has been defined over recent
decades, in different countries internationally and also under different educational
premises, whereby respective curricula can provide an orienting framework.
Timmerman notes a shift in mathematics education research towards student
thinking over the last 30 years, where the focus is no longer exclusively on student
behavior. This has been driven by developments of new epistemological perspectives
on mathematics teaching, and the development of new curricular objectives, including
but not limited to problem-solving, or project-based learning activities. Additionally,
process-oriented goals, in contrast to the teaching of pure factual knowledge as well
as the competence orientation, have fundamentally changed student learning activ-
ities by broadening the horizon of what over the years is considered as a learning
activity in mathematics.
Regarding the development of the theoretical perspective on student learning
activities, Timmerman describes different conceptualizations of student learning in
mathematics, including the theory of progressive coordination of actions and the
development of cognitive schemata, the research model of learning through activity,
and research on student engagement, which plays a particularly important role in
problem solving processes. Timmerman also focuses on how in the context of such
activities, the affective learning conditions of the students, such as productive dispo-
sitions or student perseverance, which can positively influence student learning activ-
ities (e.g., when students are struggling or failing and can use this for learning
processes). This also brings the individual prerequisites of students (Type H) more
into focus when examining the effectiveness of learning activities.
The Evolution of Research on Teaching Mathematics: International … 11

4.6 Student Mathematics Learning Outcomes

Medley identified student learning outcomes as the first online variable (Type A),
which he associated with each type of “changes in pupils” (p. 105) that can be
measured after teaching has been completed. He referred to the outcome of a
completed learning process, which at that time was primarily measured in the form
of achievement gains on standardized tests. In this sense, he called it a “production
of learning outcomes” (p.105) as a result of teaching with the attention given to
progress towards teaching goals that could be detected through close observation.
Learning outcomes are seen as the ultimate goal and the measurability criterion of
teaching effectiveness. There are, however, challenges associated with the measura-
bility of this criterion, that specifically relate to different theoretical frameworks and
approaches used for teaching mathematics. These challenges, therefore, continue to
be a part of the mathematics education research discourse.
In Chap. 7, Jelena Radišić presents an overview of the challenge of describing
mathematical understanding and knowledge as a measurable learning outcome,
addressing different conceptualizations of mathematical competence, literacy, or
proficiency. Making something as vague as mathematical understanding measurable
based of certain criteria remains a challenge of mathematics education research to this
day. Various mathematical activities, such as problem-solving, modelling, reasoning,
and proving have continuously found their way into mathematics education curricula
internationally over the last 30 years and still elude measurability of mastery. For this
reason, teaching effectiveness that is measured according to students’ acquisition of
these skills, is challenging. Jelena Radišić’s research perspective is based on inter-
national large-scale assessment studies (ILSAs), which have been developed inter-
nationally since the late 1980s for comparative educational monitoring and which
still today systematically collect and compare learning outcomes on the basis of high
scientific standards. Since the studies are almost exclusively methodologically quan-
titative and use big data by collecting a large number of variables on many cases,
they now allow the simultaneous statistical correlation of multiple variables and
consideration of different contextual conditions in the tradition of presage-process–
product research. Whereas Medley’s assessment of “good teaching” with respect to
Type A tended to be general in its maximization of learning outcomes, today’s Type
A research takes a more nuanced view in measuring effectiveness of learning for
students with individual learning needs.
The fact that specific methodological problems arise with the measurement of
student outcomes is addressed in the chapter, as is the growing influence that tech-
nology has on learning and therefore on our understanding of learning outcomes.
Finally, Radišić takes a new perspective on research on Type A by describing affec-
tive variables such as student motivation and self-belief as learning outcomes in their
own right. Affective variables remain underrepresented in research on teaching.
12 A. G. Manizade et al.

5 Part 2: Offline Variables

5.1 Individual Student Characteristics, Abilities and Personal

Qualities

In Medley’s model, individual student characteristics (Type G), that is abilities and
other personal qualities of students, mediate between student learning activities
(Type B) and student learning outcomes (Type A). This mediating offline variable
is explained by the observation that students do not show the same outcome even
under identical learning conditions. Learning processes in the classroom depend to
a large extent on individual students’ cognitive and affective preconditions, which
can be shaped by family, social, cultural identity-forming experiences, and physical
conditions.
Education is increasingly characterized by high levels of student diversity in many
countries due to migration movements and cultural and transnational multiple attri-
butions. Individual student characteristics can, therefore, include variables such as
race, gender, or socio-economic background. The language requirements of students
today are diversified to a greater extent than in Medley’s time. In many countries,
students with special educational needs are included in mainstream education, so
that learning processes are also influenced by students’ physical or social-emotional
development and how they can overcome learning difficulties or learning disabilities.
Mathematics education research also takes up emotional and physical characteris-
tics such as resilience, mathematics anxiety, or students well-being as psychological
variables influencing the individual learning process.
In Chap. 8, Rhonda Faragher describes central aspects of Type G in an overview
and focuses on the subset of Type G, namely learners with intellectual disabilities,
learning difficulties, and learned difficulties. She starts by describing two significant
developments in the last decades: the recognition of streaming (tracking) as harmful;
and the recognition of inclusive education as beneficial. These have changed the
nature of mathematics classrooms substantially. Faragher first describes different
approaches of mathematics education, neuro-psychological research, and general
pedagogical research on special needs education to understand learning difficulties
and learning disabilities of students and to make them accessible for research. She
then presents different approaches that have developed in recent years to address the
impact of these learning difficulties and learning disabilities on student achievement
in the classroom and to provide equal opportunities for all students. The researcher
claims that in doing so, teachers can adapt instruction in ways such as by the use
of Universal Design for Learning (UDL), using digital tools that make instructional
content more accessible to students, or adapting curriculum and learning activities
to students’ achievement levels and prior knowledge. Faragher uses case studies of
achieving equity for students with Down syndrome to illustrate the latter throughout
the chapter. Faragher argues that with the increasing acceptance and implementa-
tion of inclusive learning in the classroom, in research the Type G offline variable
is ultimately not only a mediator between Type B and Type A, but as the direction
The Evolution of Research on Teaching Mathematics: International … 13

of future research, this offline variable must also play a role in other research vari-
ables, for example when teachers’ lesson-planning is analyzed or appropriate support
structures are created in schools.

5.2 Internal Context Variables

Internal context variables (Type H) affect individual or group student responses to

any teacher actions in the classroom. They mediate between the interactive teacher
behaviors (Type C) and the learning activities (Type B), thus influencing the way
students respond to the teacher in social interaction and behave during initiated or
mediated learning activities. By its nature, the Type H variable is close in content to
the Type G variable, as psychosocial factors of student diversity are both evident at
the individual level of learning processes and express their collective expression in
the responses of students or groups of students to the teacher’s teaching activities.
This may include, for example, students’ work behavior, motivation, self-efficacy,
or self-regulation. Recent mathematics education research has also focused on the
social and emotional experience of students and their well-being in the classroom.
The offline variable, Type G, addresses intrapersonal cognitive preconditions and
processing, as well as affective attitudes of the students, and thus primarily focuses
on individual appropriation processes of the students against the background of diver-
sity, the variable Type H. Additionally, this main unit of research analysis focuses
on social and interpersonal factors of the students’ diversity, which become particu-
larly important in the interaction between student and teacher and leads to different
observable actions of the students in the classroom.
Megan Che and Even Baker, in Chap. 9, follow this broader perspective on context
variables by focusing on identity-creating aspects of individual student personality
in their description of the Type H variable. The central thesis of their chapter is
that the identity of students is not only based on individual elements, but also on
collective elements and the learning context, i.e., the mathematical experiences of
the students as doers of mathematics, which consequently requires a situated consid-
eration of identity-forming aspects and internal context variables both in research
and in teaching within external contexts. In their description of the future direc-
tion of research on student internal context, Megan Che and Evan Baker call for
further consideration of research approaches based on critical theory and postmodern
perspectives on educational contexts. The researchers claim that these perspectives
can provide additional insight into “understandings of students’ mathematical iden-
tities and internal social contexts in a variety of technological mathematical learning
environments, including gaming environments, online mathematics classrooms, and
social media environments” (Che & Baker, this volume) without dismissing the
importance of students’ access to the technology. Additionally, they discuss another
future research focus, “online communities and the potential to inhabit yet another
identity as a virtual being in virtual worlds.” (Che & Baker, this volume).
14 A. G. Manizade et al.

5.3 External Context Variables

External context variables stand for the support system within which teachers act and
thus exploit and develop the potential of their competencies for professional practice.
Medley understood this as the material, the facilities, the supervision, and adminis-
trative support provided by the school or the community of practitioners. Since these
offline variables are mediating factors between teacher competencies and pre-post-
active teacher activities, external context variables mainly influence how teachers
carry out activities such as lesson planning, evaluation, and reflection depending on
contingently given formal and material structures in the global educational system
or the local school. Medley illustrated this dependency by highlighting that teachers
with the same, or even assumedly identical competency profiles would act differently
in differently supported instructional settings.
What does the support mean within the school context in the sense of mathematics
educational research on Type I? If we look at research on textbooks and curricula,
for example, culturally shaped task and examination cultures and national educa-
tional standards come into view, and form the normative guidelines for teachers’
work in formulating learning goals and planning lessons. For the practical imple-
mentation of these guidelines, lack of free access to teaching materials and books
is too often an obstacle. The collegial support of mathematics teachers at school
can also be counted as part of this support system. The opportunities for further
training through involvement in informal or national teacher associations, access to
professional development (PD) and local feedback structures at school, for example
through the principal, parents, or peers, are part of the support system described.
In Chap. 10, Birgit Pepin and Ghislaine Gueudet consider an offline variable of
the technological support of teaching. This new variable, which Medley could not yet
include among the external context variables at the end of the 1980s, has continuously
shaped the schoolwork of teachers within the last 30 years. In their chapter, Pepin and
Gueudet shed light on the educational policy preconditions and anchors for the use of
digital resources and educational technologies, as well as research on the willingness
and preconditions for teachers to use or not use technology and digital resources in
the classroom, or on the reasons why they do not. Overall, they note, the role of the
teacher is changing toward supporting the learning process as students become more
self-regulated learners in their engagement with digital learning tools. The integration
of programming into mathematics instruction, which has been increasingly promoted
over many years, also requires new knowledge on the part of the teacher. Research on
the quality criteria of digital resources is also receiving attention, for example, on the
development of electronic curriculum materials, electronic textbooks, and dynamic
mathematics tasks that, in terms of student learning of mathematics, require teachers
not only to integrate these materials into the classroom, but also to design their
instruction around them.
The Evolution of Research on Teaching Mathematics: International … 15

5.4 Mathematics Teacher Training and Experiences

The duration and quality of teacher training can differ qualitatively and quantitatively
across teachers, as Medley described in the Type J offline variable. Different teacher
training factors are the influential variables that mediate teachers’ personal char-
acteristics (Type F) and learned competencies (Type E). This means, for example,
the extent to which teachers can develop their personal potentials in the context of
training processes and translate them into learned competencies and skills is influ-
enced by aspects of their training. Medley (1987) understood this as the experiences
during teacher training designed to increase the “teacher’s repertoire of competen-
cies” (p. 106). Thus, indirectly, the abilities and mediation approaches of teacher
educators, coaches and trainers come into view, as well as engagement in teacher
PD.
In the field of mathematics education research, there have long been many
approaches to assessing the quality of teacher education and training and to evalu-
ating the influence of corresponding variables on the development of teacher compe-
tencies by means of empirical studies. International studies have considered, for
example, the duration of teacher training, the quality of the courses offered, and
the number of courses attended during training. The form of teacher training (e.g.,
how courses are structured or which seminars and courses are effective in teacher
training to acquire mathematical knowledge for teaching) can also be analyzed and
assessed from the perspective of cultural and national educational policy influences
or normative values of “good” teaching. The importance of continuous professional
development for teachers has increased over recent decades. As a result, respective
corresponding variables are considered, such as engagement and participation in
teacher PD. Recent mathematics education research also focuses on incorporating
variables such as duration, structure, and quality of PD as well as effectiveness of
PD assessment measures.
In Chap. 11, Joyce Peters-Dasdemir, Lars Holzäpfel, Bärbel Barzel and Timo
Leuders, describe a special unit of analysis assigned to Type J—the qualification of
teacher educators or adult educators providing PD. This unit of analysis refers to
the qualification of facilitators of PD in mathematics, which is an area that has been
insufficiently researched and that Medley did not consider. The teaching profession
is characterized by experiential and lifelong learning and continuous professional
development has gained traction in educational studies. This development has led to
scientific research on the quality of PD. The chapter’s central idea here in terms of
advancing research on teaching and Medley’s framework is to extend the chain of
effects upward to include the corresponding effectiveness of those engaged in teacher
education. To this end, Peters-Dasdemir et al. developed a competency framework
model that can be used to describe the necessary professional profile of facilitators.
Based on the results of overview studies on the criteria of effective teacher training,
development, and based on systematic findings in adult education, the model includes
aspects of the role of trainers as facilitators, their content and field-specific knowl-
edge, professional values, and beliefs. In addition, their role identity, professional
16 A. G. Manizade et al.

self-monitoring skills, and social competencies. The PD facilitators need to have

fundamental professional knowledge and skills of the school subject that go beyond
the knowledge of teachers (e.g., regarding curricular standards or current relevant
empirical research findings).

5.5 Research Methods, Techniques, and Tools for Research

on Teaching in the Digital Era

Following the description of the ten online and offline variables, Medley (1987)
pointed out methodological issues to be considered in research on teaching. These
methodological issues can refer to all stages of the research process in relation to
the variables, their conceptualization, their instrumentation in empirical studies, the
design of studies to investigate them, and the quality of the analysis of the data
collected in studies. In relation to the conceptualization of the variables in research,
Medley noted that the critical definition of effectiveness, that is, of “good teaching,”
varies intersubjectively, so all variables can potentially be affected by researcher bias.
Challenges are also posed by the instrumentation of studies, that is, how the vari-
ables under study are operationalized in studies. Here, the evolution of research on
teaching has led to increasingly better refinement of methods, which is taken up by all
the authors in this volume. Medley further identified challenges of a more method-
ological nature in how studies examining the different variables must be specifi-
cally designed and what forms of data collection must take place. Finally, statistical
data analyses and interpretation of results also pose challenges to researchers, but
Medley recognized an ongoing elaboration of statistical analysis procedures. With
increased sophistication of technological tools access to powerful statistical proce-
dures has improved. Due to the fact that in the 1980s, the primary research methods
accepted in the education community were first and foremost quantitative, Medley’s
work focused on quantitative methods of analysis. However, his concerns related to
conceptualization, instrumentation, and design in research on teaching are still valid
and relevant today, even with new technological and methodological developments
and a wide range of modern qualitative and mixed methods used in mathematics
education research.
Chandra Orrill, Zarina Gearty and Kun Wang in Chap. 12, provide information
about methodological developments in mathematics education research and how it
is positioned in the twenty-first century. They note that in addition to the quantita-
tive research that Medley had in mind, qualitative research methods continued to be
developed steadily in the 1980s and have led to profound insights in the research
on teaching. Since overcoming of what has been characterized as trench warfare
between quantitative and qualitative methodologies, a growing number of mixed-
methods studies have also been observed with respect to the main units of anal-
ysis of research described by Medley. Looking specifically at quantitative research,
Orrill et al. consider the item response theory (IRT) as an influential psychometric
The Evolution of Research on Teaching Mathematics: International … 17

model which has significantly contributed to the further development of method-

ology in mathematics education research on teaching – especially, when it comes
to the measurement of effectiveness. However, the researchers also present method-
ological advancements related to study design. For example, they describe teaching
experiments, design-based-research, and cultural historical activity theory as new
developments of design frameworks that meet the specific demands and needs of
mathematics education research. Orrill et al. also separately address technological
developments in research (e.g., eye-tracking, DGS and 360° video capture), and how
these have led to both new insights and further development of methods in research.

6 Conclusion

Through the process of writing this book, we updated the original framework consid-
ering current research on teaching mathematics (Fig. 3). In addition to presenting
new connections between main units of analyses of research, we acknowledge that
each research variable must be considered within its cultural context and changes
from one culture to another. The book focused on a western cultural perspective.
Additionally, epistemological contexts are major factors in considering every unit of
analysis of research on teaching mathematics. Depending on researchers’ conceptual
framework, the ideas surrounding Medley’s “good teaching” change as the goals of
teaching are directly tied to epistemological stances. Ultimately, new developments
in technology change the way we can define (e.g., students’ digital identities), eval-
uate (e.g., new instruments/measures of teachers’ knowledge), and connect (e.g.,
modern research tools, methods, and techniques) main units of analysis described in
framework presented in Fig. 3.
Finally, in Medley’s original work, he warned against using variables that were far
removed from one another within one study. New research methods and techniques
described in Chap. 12 show that there are ways to consider multiple units of analyses,
as well as the ones that are not adjacent to each other within the framework (Fig. 3).
However, even with new technologies and advances, we found through writing this
book that units of analyses (Types A though E) further removed from each other
have less predictive value in contrast to those variables within the framework that are
closer to each other. Although researchers considered and studied mediating variables
between those that they intended to measure and report, it became clear to us was
that there is a lack of a systematic scientific overview of the complete chain between
the units of analysis described in Medley’s original framework. Our intention was
to provide such an overview and to offer scholars potential directions for research
related to each unit of analysis as presented in the chapters of this book. This was the
inspiration for our project, and we hope the chapters broaden the readers’ horizons
just as our views were expanded through collaboration with this international team
of scholars.
18 A. G. Manizade et al.

References

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psycho-
logical research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182.
Blömeke, S., Busse, A., Kaiser, G., König, J., & Suhl, U. (2016). The relation between content-
specific and general teacher knowledge and skills. Teaching and Teacher Education, 56, 35–46.
Blömeke, S., Jentsch, A., Ross, N., Kaiser, G., & König, J. (2022). Opening up the black box: Teacher
competence, instructional quality, and students’ learning progress. Learning and Instruction, 79,
101600.
Buchholtz, N. (2017). The acquisition of mathematics pedagogical content knowledge in university
mathematics education courses: Results of a mixed methods study on the effectiveness of teacher
education in Germany. ZDM Mathematics Education, 49(2), 249–264.
Hunt, T. C., Carper, J. C., Lasley, T. J., & Raisch, C. D. (2010). Process–product research. In
Encyclopedia of educational reform and dissent (Vol. 1, pp. 728–730). SAGE Publications, Inc.
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412957403.n353
Liljedahl, P. (2016). Building thinking classrooms: Conditions for problem solving. In P. Felmer,
J. Kilpatrick, & E. Pekhonen (Eds.), Posing and solving mathematical problems: Advances and
new perspectives (pp. 361–386). Springer.
Manizade, A. G., & Martinovic, D. (2018). Creating profiles of geometry teachers’ PCK. In P.
Herbst, U.H. Cheah, P. Richard & K. Jones (Eds.), International perspectives on the teaching
and learning of geometry in secondary schools (pp.127–144). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/
978-3-319-77476-3_8
Manizade, A. G., Ribeiro, M., Makonye, J., Mellone, M., & Jakobsen, A. (2019). International
perspectives on evolution of research on teaching mathematics. In M. Graven, H. Venkat, A.
Essien & P. Vale (Eds.), Proceedings of the 43rd Conference of the International Group for the
Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, pp. 179–180). PME.
Medley, D. M., & Mitzel, H. E. (1963). Measuring classroom behavior by systematic observation.
In N. L. Gage (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching. Rand-McNally.
Medley, D. M. (1987). Evolution of research on teaching. In M. J. Dunkin (Ed.), The international
encyclopedia of teaching and teacher education (pp. 105–113). Oxford: Pergamon.

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate
credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and
indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative
Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by
statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder.
 Mathematics Teachers’ Influence
on Students’ Learning: Online Variables
Pre-existing Mathematics Teacher
Characteristics

Olive Chapman

1 Introduction

This chapter deals with one of the essential online variables of research on teaching
(i.e., pre-existing teacher characteristics) promoted by Donald M. Medley in his
seminal work on the evolution of research on teaching (Medley, 1987). Medley
developed a framework of variables that research in teaching from a presage-process–
product perspective must be concerned with to effectively contribute to the under-
standing and improvement of teaching. This framework provided the theoretical basis
for framing this book on “evolution of research on teaching mathematics” (Manizade,
Buchholtz, & Beswick, Chap. 1, this volume). As Manizade et al. explained,
Medley’s framework is still valuable as it gives an orientation to all possible variables that
become apparent qua the chain of effects from teacher behavior to student achievements.
Moreover, the abiding challenges associated with the conceptualization, instrumentation,
operationalization, and research design that Medley described are still complex, despite
recent advances in technology and research methodology in the digital era. (p. 5)

However, for this book, Manizade et al. updated the framework to take into consid-
eration cultural and epistemological contexts and digital contexts and to situate it
within research on teaching mathematics (see Fig. “Updated framework of research
on teaching mathematics”, Manizade et al., this volume).
Medley’s (1987) framework includes six types of essential “online variables”, that
is, “ones which lie along a direct line of influence of the teacher on pupil learning”
(p. 105). Medley labelled and sequenced these variables from Type F to Type A.
This chapter deals with the Type F variable that is at the beginning of this direct

O. Chapman (B)
Werklund School of Education, University of Calgary, 2500 University Drive NW, Calgary,
AB T2N1N4, Canada
e-mail: [email protected]

© The Author(s) 2023 21

A. Manizade et al. (eds.), The Evolution of Research on Teaching Mathematics,
Mathematics Education in the Digital Era 22,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-31193-2_2
22 O. Chapman

line. Figures two and three in the introductory chapter illustrate these variables as
presented by Medley for research on teaching and adapted by Manizade et al. for
research on teaching mathematics (Manizade, Buchholtz, & Beswick, Chap. 1, this
volume).
According to Medley (1987):
Pre-existing teacher characteristics include abilities, knowledge, and attitudes that a candi-
date for admission to a teacher preparation program possesses on entry; they make up a
candidate’s aptitude for teaching. Part of it consists of the characteristics a teacher needs
in order to acquire those competencies that training and experience can provide; part of it
consists of those competencies that a teacher must possess on entry. (p. 105)

In relating it to mathematics teaching, Manizade et al. (this volume, p. 6) defined

the Type F variable as “a mathematics teacher’s beliefs and aptitude for teaching,
characteristics needed to acquire professional competencies during training.” This
definition was adapted in this chapter to explore research of pre-existing mathematics
teacher characteristics [PMTC] that prospective teachers possess on entry into a
teacher education program or mathematics teacher education [MTE] as a necessary
stage in understanding the mathematics teacher and mathematics teaching.
In addition, Medley’s four factors regarding methodological issues that research
on teaching must deal with were adapted in this chapter to discuss the evolution of
research on PMTC. These factors, discussed later, are conceptualization, instrumen-
tation, design, and analysis. Medley explained that “evolution of research on teaching
depends on advances made in how each has been dealt with” (p. 106).
In general, the chapter provides an overview of research that addressed PMTC of
prospective teachers of mathematics [PTs] through a systematic review and synthesis
of relevant published empirical studies for the period 2000 to 2020. It begins with
an overview of the scope of the literature review, followed by an overview of the
types and nature of PMTC covered in the studies reviewed, then a discussion of the
evolution of the research on PMTC and suggestions regarding future evolution of
research on PMTC.

2 Scope of Literature Review to Determine Studies

of PMTC

Given the large body of literature on PTs, it was decided to focus only on high
profile peer-reviewed international journals (Williams & Leatham, 2017) that likely
included studies on PTs’ PMTC. They included: Educational Studies in Mathe-
matics (ESM), Journal for Research in Mathematics Education (JRME), Journal of
Mathematics Teacher Education (JMTE), Journal of Mathematical Behavior (JMB),
International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education (IJSME), Mathematical
Thinking and Learning (MTL), and ZDM—Mathematics Education. The author and
a trained research assistant conducted a search of these journals for the period 2000–
2020 using various combinations of keywords that included: prospective teachers;
Pre-existing Mathematics Teacher Characteristics 23

future teachers; teacher candidates; preservice teachers; student teachers; characteris-

tics; competencies; abilities; knowledge; attitudes; beliefs; identity; and recruitment.
Based on our review of titles and abstracts, we prepared a list of articles with poten-
tially relevant studies. We examined these articles to determine whether participants
were at the beginning of their MTE. This process produced very few studies. We then
decided to focus on studies that addressed PTs’ characteristics at the beginning of a
course or prior to an intervention during a course or in situations that reflected the
nature of their background knowledge or ability (e.g., interpreting students’ work or
evaluating tasks), which seemed to be a more promising approach to obtain studies of
PMTC. The assumption was that these studies would suggest characteristics the PTs
held prior to entering MTE if these characteristics were directly related to their school
experiences with mathematics (e.g., mathematics curriculum content and pedagogy).
We obtained a large list of these studies by examining the methodology section
of articles in our list. We then examined these studies to determine if the findings
provided information that was clearly related to PMTC to identify those studies
to exclude. Many intervention studies highlighted the changes resulting from the
intervention but not the initial characteristics of the PTs and were removed from the
list. Studies at the beginning of a course that investigated characteristics that were
related to prior mathematics or mathematics education courses in the program were
also removed from the list. In keeping with the theme of this book, all studies not
situated in a Western context were also later removed. This process resulted in a
list of 51 studies from the above-noted journals, to which were added a few studies
from other journals based on citations of relevant studies in articles on this list.
These studies were situated mainly in the USA, with some from different regions
internationally. To highlight this, in reporting the studies, the countries are noted for
those that were not situated in the USA.
For each article on the final list, the author and research assistant identified and
recorded the PTs’ characteristics explicitly investigated based on the aim of the study.
On examining the characteristics, we determined that they generally involved PTs’
mathematics knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, or beliefs, which became initial
categories used to group the characteristics. The content of these categories consisted
of, for each study, the type of characteristics, the aim of the study related to the char-
acteristics and key findings regarding the nature of the characteristics. Further exam-
ination of the content of each of the three categories and cross-checking of findings
for agreement between the researcher and research assistant, resulted in sub-groups
of characteristics consisting of different types of mathematics concepts and skills,
different types of pedagogical knowledge and ability, and different types of beliefs
or conceptions, respectively. This process also validated that all the characteristics
were appropriately accounted for and could be represented by three broad categories:
pre-existing mathematical knowledge and skills, pre-existing mathematics-related
pedagogical knowledge and ability, and pre-existing mathematics-related beliefs.
These final categories, described in the next section, provided a landscape of PMTC
related to the Type F variable that were researched in the period 2000–2020. We also
documented examples of research tools, design and analysis that formed the basis of
discussion of the evolution of research on the PMTC.
24 O. Chapman

3 Landscape of PMTC Researched in 2000–2020

The studies reviewed provided a landscape of several PMTC researched in 2000–

2020 regarding what PTs knew or were able to do on entering MTE. These PMTC,
grouped in three categories, are presented in this section in terms of the aims of the
studies, with examples of key findings of the studies related to the PTs’ aptitude for
teaching mathematics. The goal is to provide an overview of PMTC for the three cate-
gories: pre-existing mathematical knowledge and skills, pre-existing mathematics-
related pedagogical knowledge and ability, and pre-existing mathematics-related
beliefs.

3.1 Pre-existing Mathematical Knowledge and Skills

This category consists of studies that investigated PTs’ mathematical knowledge

and skills connected to school mathematics in the period 2000–2020. Collectively,
these studies included primary, elementary, middle, and secondary school PTs and
their knowledge of different content areas (i.e., fractions, whole number operations,
geometry, algebra) and skills (i.e., problem posing). They addressed one category
of PMTC that is central to teaching mathematics and important for PTs to have on
entering teacher education. The following overview of these studies is organized
by each content area and skill to highlight the extent to which they were addressed
in terms of the aims of the studies and nature of the PTs’ PMTC and in reversed
chronological order to indicate distribution in the period beginning with most recent
studies.

3.1.1 Fractions

These studies on fractions focused mostly on elementary school PTs and addressed
their knowledge of fractions in a variety of ways. During the second 10 years of the
period: Lee and Lee (2020) investigated elementary school PTs’ exploration of model
breaking points in fractions that included the area model of fraction addition. Most
of the PTs represented fraction addition well with simple fractions but had difficulty
representing fraction addition with improper fractions or fractions with unlike and
relatively large denominators and tended to use algorithm-based thinking. The area
models drawn by several of the PTs revealed various misconceptions. Lovin et al.
(2018) investigated elementary and middle school PTs’ understanding of fractions as
they were starting their first required mathematics course and found that they relied
on procedural knowledge. Most of them had constructed the lower-level fraction
schemes and operations but less than half had constructed the more sophisticated
ones. Baeka et al. (2017) investigated elementary and middle school PTs’ pictorial
strategies for a multistep fraction task in a multiplicative context. They found that
Pre-existing Mathematics Teacher Characteristics 25

many of the PTs were able to construct valid pictorial strategies that were widely
diverse regarding how they made sense of an unknown referent whole of a fraction
in multiple steps, how they represented the wholes in their drawings, in which order
they did multiple steps, and the type of model they used (area or set). Whitacre and
Nickerson (2016) investigated elementary school PTs’ fraction knowledge at the
beginning and end of their first mathematics content course. In the beginning, the
PTs used predominantly standard strategies with weak performance and flexibility
in comparing fractions. Lin et al. (2013) explored an intervention for enhancing
elementary school PTs’ fraction knowledge and found that, prior to the intervention,
the PTs held procedural understanding of basic fractional ideas and basic fractional
operations, including equivalent fractions and addition, subtraction, multiplication,
and division of fractions. Finally, Osana and Royea (2011) explored an intervention
centered on problem solving to support Canadian elementary school PTs’ learning of
fractions. The PTs were initially challenged to generate word problems for number
sentences involving fractions, construct meaningful solutions to fraction problems,
and represent those solutions symbolically.
Regarding the first 10 years of the period: Newton (2008) studied elementary PTs
enrolled in a course on elementary school mathematics to obtain a comprehensive
understanding of their fraction knowledge. Findings at the beginning of the course
indicated that they had limited and fragmented knowledge of fractions. For example,
they misapplied fraction algorithms, attended to superficial conditions when choosing
a solution method, and demonstrated little flexibility in solving problems. Although
they remembered many procedures, such as cross-multiplying and finding a common
denominator, they were using them in inappropriate ways. Their most common error
was to keep the denominator the same when it was not appropriate to do so. Tirosh
(2000) investigated fraction division and found that in a class of Israeli elementary
PTs, most of them knew how to divide fractions but could not explain why the
procedure worked.

3.1.2 Whole Number Operations

This group of studies addressed elementary school PTs’ knowledge of addition,

subtraction, multiplication, and division of whole numbers. Norton (2019) examined
Australian primary school PTs’ mathematics knowledge at the beginning and end of
their education course. Findings indicated that the PTs had low levels of knowledge of
whole numbers at the beginning of the course. The most challenging whole-number
computation for them was division by a double-digit divisor. Kaasila et al. (2010)
investigated Finnish elementary PTs’ conceptual understanding, adaptive reasoning,
and procedural fluency based on a non-standard division problem and concluded
that division seemed not to be fully understood. Less than half of the PTs were
able to produce complete or mainly correct solutions. The main reasons for their
issues in understanding the task consisted of staying on the integer level, inability to
handle the remainder, difficulties in understanding the relationships between different
operations, and insufficient reasoning strategies. Thanheiser (2010) examined PTs’
26 O. Chapman

responses to standard addition and subtraction place-value tasks and found that, at
the beginning of their MTE, the PTs were often able to perform but not explain
algorithms. For example, they had incorrect views of regrouped digits that included:
interpreting all regrouped digits consistently as having the same value (all as 1 or
all as 10); treating the value of the digits as dependent on the context (addition or
subtraction); interpreting the digits consistently within but not across contexts (i.e. all
as 10 in addition but all as 1 in subtraction); and interpreting the digits inconsistently
depending on the task (i.e. the same digit was interpreted in multiple ways).
Thanheiser (2009) also reported on the PTs’ knowledge of multidigit whole
numbers in the context of standard algorithms for addition and subtraction prior
to their first mathematics course in their MTE. Most of the PTs did not have a deep
understanding of numbers and struggled relating the values of the digits in a number
to one another. They did not provide mathematical explanations of the algorithms.
They referred to the digit in the tens place as ones rather than in terms of the reference
unit tens or the appropriate groups of ones. While some drew on a conception that
enabled them to explain the algorithm in at least one way, few exhibited an under-
standing of numbers that enabled them to explain the algorithm flexibly, including
why the digits in any column can be treated as ones and why we can treat any pair
of adjacent digits as if they were ones and tens.

3.1.3 Geometry

These two studies addressed different aspects of elementary and middle school PTs’
knowledge of geometry concepts. Miller (2018) analyzed PTs’ definitions of types
of quadrilateral based on a survey of elementary school PTs who, since high school,
had not yet studied geometry in their MTE. Findings included that the majority
of the PTs’ definitions contained necessary attributes, but not sufficient or minimal
attributes. The PTs were most comfortable with squares, followed by parallelograms,
then rectangles, trapezoids, rhombi, and finally kites. They did not include hierar-
chical relationships as a means of defining one shape in terms of another and often
created definitions that were aligned with emergent concept images of the shape
types with only typical examples. Yanik (2011) investigated middle school PTs’
knowledge of rigid geometric translations and found that the PTs had difficulties
recognizing, describing, executing, and representing geometric translations. They
viewed geometric translations mainly as physical motions based on their previous
experiences, that is, as rotational motion, translational motion, and mapping. They
interpreted the vector that defines translations as a force, a line of symmetry, a direc-
tion indicator, and a displacement. Many of them knew that a vector has a magnitude
and a direction but did not conclude that vectors define translations.
Pre-existing Mathematics Teacher Characteristics 27

3.1.4 Algebraic Concepts and Thinking

This group of studies addressed elementary and middle school PTs’ knowledge of
algebraic concepts and their ability to think algebraically. Hohensee (2017) exam-
ined the insights and challenges elementary school PTs experienced when exploring
early algebraic reasoning. Findings indicated that they were challenged conceptu-
ally to identify the relationships contained in algebraic expressions, to distinguish
between unknowns and variables, to bracket their knowledge of formal algebra, and
to represent subtraction from unknowns or variables. You and Quinn (2010) investi-
gated elementary and middle school PTs’ knowledge of linear functions and found
that they were stronger on procedural than conceptual knowledge of linear functions.
They were weak in representation flexibility, for example, ability to transfer flexibly:
(i) between visual and algebraic representations to recognize relevant properties of
algebraic and visual representations and to make connections among them when
treating functions as an entity; (ii) from functions to a word problem situation; and
(iii) from word problem situations to various forms of functions. Richardson et al.
(2009) studied how pattern-finding tasks promoted elementary school PTs’ learning
of how to generalize and justify algebraic rules from an emergent perspective to
support their teaching of early algebra concepts. They found that most of the PTs, in
their only mathematics methods course, initially focused on numerical data in tables
and had difficulty providing a valid justification for their generalizations. Nearly all
of the PTs generalized explicit rules using symbolic notation but had trouble with
justifications early in the experiment. Pomerantsev and Korosteleva (2003) investi-
gated the typical mistakes elementary and middle school PTs made as they progressed
through their courses. They found that the PTs had difficulties recognizing structures
of algebraic expressions at the introductory level of the courses.

3.1.5 Problem Posing

This group of studies addressed elementary and lower secondary school PTs’ problem
posing knowledge or ability. Crespo and Sinclair (2008) investigated elementary
school PTs’ problem-posing practices prior to planned interventions. They found
that a majority of the problems the PTs posed consisted of assignment problems as
opposed to the more complex relational or conditional problems for one task and
factual problems (involving the recall of names and properties, the identification
of properties, the application of measurement formulae, or the counting of shapes)
for another task. The purpose was mainly to elicit information. Problem structure
included clarity (problems not confusing, misleading, or under- and over-stated) and
simplicity (numbers or shapes common and uncomplicated and right answers). Rizvi
(2004) investigated Australian lower secondary school PTs’ ability to pose word
problems for mathematical expressions involving division before an instructional
intervention. She found that none of the PTs was able to pose word problems for the
expressions where the divisors were fractions. They posed only sharing type word
problems for the expressions where the divisor was a whole number. While many
28 O. Chapman

were aware of the repeated subtraction, no participants posed any word problem based
on the repeated subtraction model for any division expression. Crespo (2003) inves-
tigated elementary school PTs’ beginning approaches to posing problems and found
that they consisted of: making problems easy to solve (e.g., the narrow mathematical
scope of the original version of the problem and the work of students); posing familiar
problems (e.g., quick-translation story problems or computational exercises); and
posing problems blindly (i.e., unawareness of the mathematical potential and scope
of problem).

3.1.6 Summary

The overview of studies in this section on pre-existing mathematical knowledge and

skills offers insights of the nature of the PTs’ content knowledge at the point of
entry into a teacher education program. The studies investigated the PTs’ knowl-
edge of different content areas (i.e., fractions, whole number operations, geometry,
algebra) and their problem-posing skills. There was more attention on elementary
than secondary PTs and on fractions than the other areas. Those studies dealing
with fractions focused on meaning of fractions, arithmetic operations with fractions,
strategies for solving fraction tasks and models of representing fractions. They indi-
cated that the PTs’ fraction knowledge contained many misconceptions and was
generally limited, fragmented, weak, low level, and procedural. Studies dealing with
whole numbers focused on the arithmetic operations (addition, subtraction, multi-
plication, division). They indicated that the PTs did not have deep understanding
of these procedures. Studies dealing with geometry focused on two-dimensional
shapes and rigid motions. They indicated that the PTs’ had superficial knowledge or
difficulties in dealing with these concepts. Studies dealing with algebraic concepts
addressed algebraic expressions, linear functions, and algebraic rules. They indicated
that the PTs had weak knowledge of the concepts, were challenged conceptually,
and had difficulties with the concepts. Problem posing received the least attention
with these studies focusing on posing word problems. The studies indicated that the
PTs’ problem-posing ability was limited to posing problems of low level of cogni-
tive demand. Overall, the studies highlighted that the PTs’ pre-existing knowledge
of mathematical content was plagued with difficulties and low conceptual under-
standing of specific mathematics concepts that are central to school mathematics
curricula and their future teaching.
Pre-existing Mathematics Teacher Characteristics 29

3.2 Pre-existing Mathematics-Related Pedagogical

Knowledge and Ability

This second category consists of studies that investigated PTs’ mathematics-related

pedagogical knowledge and ability in the period 2000–2020. These studies collec-
tively included early childhood and primary, elementary, middle, and secondary
school PTs and their pedagogical ability (e.g., to notice, observe, analyze, and/or
interpret teaching situations). They addressed another category of PMTC that is
important for a teacher to function effectively in mathematics teaching situations and
that PTs should have on entering MTE. The following overview of these studies is
organized based on their foci on the PTs’ knowledge or ability involving (i) observing
and analyzing teaching, (ii) noticing and interpreting students’ work or thinking, and
(iii) evaluating tasks, to highlight the extent to which each was addressed in terms of
the aims of the studies and the nature of the PTs’ PMTC. The studies are presented
in reversed chronological order to indicate distribution in the period beginning with
the most recent studies.

3.2.1 Observing and Analyzing Teaching

This group of studies addressed elementary, middle, and secondary school PTs’
ability to observe and/or analyze teaching by engaging the PTs in exploring videos
of mathematics lessons. Star and Strickland (2008) investigated the impact of video
viewing as a means to improve secondary school PTs’ ability to be observers of class-
room practice. Their findings of the pre-assessment indicated that the PTs generally
did not enter teaching methods courses with well-developed observation skills. They
were astute observers of classroom management regarding what the teacher did to
maintain control in the classroom and what students did that might influence the
teacher’s ability to maintain control. They were also reasonably attentive to the
actions of the teacher to support the lesson objectives, such as her use of notes, her
presentation of the material, how she structured the group work, and her assignment
of homework. However, their ability to notice other aspects of the classroom was not
as strong. They did not attend to features of the classroom environment and/or did not
feel that such features needed their attention. They were weak in observing the math-
ematical content, for example, questions about the representation of the mathematics,
the examples used, and the problems posed. They did not notice subtleties in the ways
that the teacher helped students think about content. In general, the PTs were very
attentive to issues of classroom management but mostly unaware of static features of
the classroom environment and the subtleties of classroom communication and math-
ematical content. Stockero (2008) investigated the use of a video-case curriculum in
a middle school mathematics methods course for PTs to develop a reflective stance
to enable them to analyze classroom interactions. Findings early in the course indi-
cated that the PTs’ level of reflection or observation was at the two lowest levels
of reflection; that is, describing and explaining levels. Their reflection focused on
30 O. Chapman

describing and explaining what they observed in the videos and did not demonstrate
the higher levels of reflection consisting of theorizing, confronting, and restructuring.
They also tended to analyze classroom events based on affective measures instead
of pedagogical and mathematical reasons for instructional decisions.
Morris (2006) provided the only study that focused on this observing/analyzing
PTs’ ability when the PTs entered their MTE compared to others that considered it
prior to an intervention in a course later in their MTE. She investigated the “learning-
from-practice skills” that elementary and middle school PTs possessed by requiring
them to analyze a videorecorded mathematics lesson regarding the effects on student
learning, to support their analysis with evidence, and to use their analysis to revise the
lesson. She found that many of the PTs could carry out a cause-effect type of analysis
of the relationships between specific instructional strategies and student learning and
could use this analysis to make productive revisions to the instruction. But their ability
to collect evidence that supported their analysis was less developed. Their analysis of
the effects of instruction on the students’ learning was dependent on the video-task
conditions. For example, when the task instructions indicated that the lesson was
not successful, the PTs attended to both teacher and students and could make some
elementary claims about how teaching and learning might be connected, but specific
types of deficiencies in their evidence-gathering were apparent including the ability
to collect evidence that supported conjectures about the effects of instruction. When
the condition allowed the PTs to decide whether the lesson was successful and which
instructional activities worked well or not, most of them focused primarily on the
teacher, implying that students learn what the teacher explains. For example, they
saw a teacher giving explanations and children giving correct responses, concluded
that the children understood the teacher’s explanations, and made minimal revisions
to the lesson. In general, the PTs’ support of hypotheses about student learning
involved: no references to students’ responses, referring to students’ responses that
were marginally related to the claims, attributing a wide range of understandings
to students based on little or no objective evidence, and failing to refer to students’
responses that provided the most access to students’ thinking.

3.2.2 Noticing and Interpreting Students’ Work and Thinking

This group of studies collectively addressed early childhood and primary, elemen-
tary, and secondary school PTs’ knowledge of, and ability to notice and interpret,
students’ mathematical work and thinking. Regarding the second 10 years of the
period: Shin (2020) examined secondary school PTs’ noticing of students’ reasoning
about mean and variability. Findings indicated that the PTs had difficulties noticing
students’ reasoning about variability. None of the PTs explicitly interpreted the
students’ limited understanding of variability when comparing data sets with unequal
sample sizes. Some showed no evidence of differentiating between students’ different
levels of reasoning. Superfine et al. (2019) investigated different facilitation moves to
support the elementary school PTs in noticing children’s mathematical thinking and
found that they generally did not discuss their noticing at a high-level and there were
Pre-existing Mathematics Teacher Characteristics 31

few instances where they provided evidence for their noticing. Sánchez-Matamoros
et al. (2019) examined the relationships between how secondary school PTs in Spain
attended to the mathematical elements in students’ solutions and interpreted students’
understandings for the derivative of a function at a given point. Their findings indi-
cated that the PTs had different levels of pre-existing ability consisting of those
who provided general comments about students’ learning, who found it difficult to
recognize characteristics of the students’ understanding, and who had difficulties in
using mathematical elements in students’ solutions to recognize differences among
students’ understanding. Callejo and Zapatera (2017) investigated Spanish primary
school PTs’ noticing, describing, and interpreting of students’ mathematical thinking
in their solution to a pattern generalization task. They found that the PTs were able
to name various mathematical elements to describe the students’ answers but did
not always use them to interpret the understanding of pattern generalization of each
student. Some PTs could not recognize the understanding of the students.
In addition, Simpson and Haltiwanger (2017) investigated how secondary school
PTs made sense of students’ mathematical thinking of an algebra and function mathe-
matics problem, when professional noticing was not a formal part of their MTE. They
found that the PTs exhibited a lack of rigorous evidence when interpreting what the
students may or may not have understood. The PTs discussed only what the students
understood in terms of the written work. They did not consider misconceptions
or errors in the students’ mathematical thinking. Sánchez-Matamoros et al. (2015)
examined the ability of secondary school PTs in Spain to notice students’ under-
standing of the derivative concept in the beginning and end of a “training module”.
At the beginning, the PTs’ noticing was limited to describing students’ answers in
the graphical and analytical modes of representation but without identifying the rele-
vant mathematical elements and interpreting the students’ understanding by making
general comments related to “the good or bad understanding of the student.” Lastly,
Son (2013) examined the secondary and elementary school PTs’ interpretations of
and responses to a student’s error(s) involving finding a missing length in similar rect-
angles through a teaching scenario task. Findings indicated that although the student’s
errors came from conceptual aspects of similarity, a majority of the PTs identified
the errors as stemming from procedural aspects of similarity and consequently drew
on procedural knowledge as a way to guide the students.
Regarding the first 10 years of the period: Harkness and Thomas (2008) inves-
tigated early childhood PTs’ mathematical understanding of a student’s invented
multiplication algorithm and found that a majority of the PTs relied on procedural
and memorized explanations rather than using mathematical properties to describe
the validity of the algorithm. Generally, their responses demonstrated a procedural or
memorized understanding of the invented algorithm. Crespo’s (2000) study on how
elementary school PTs in Canada interpreted their students’ work indicated that their
interpretations were initially from a limited focus on the correctness of the students’
solutions and not meaning.
32 O. Chapman

3.2.3 Evaluating Tasks

This group of studies addressed elementary and middle school PTs’ knowledge of,
and ability to evaluate, features of mathematical tasks to support students’ learning.
Magiera et al. (2013) explored middle school PTs’ ability to recognize opportuni-
ties to engage students in algebraic thinking. They found that the PTs demonstrated
limited ability to recognize the full potential of algebra-based tasks to elicit alge-
braic thinking in students, recognizing only some features in the analyzed tasks.
Stephens (2006) examined elementary school PTs’ awareness of equivalence and
relational thinking to assess their initial preparedness to engage students in these
aspects of early algebraic reasoning. She found that the PTs collectively demon-
strated an awareness of relational thinking in identifying opportunities offered by
the tasks to engage students in this thinking. But in proposing difficulties students
might have with selected tasks, few of them demonstrated an understanding that
many students have misconceptions about the meaning of the equal sign. Osana
et al. (2006) examined the nature of elementary school PTs’ evaluations of elemen-
tary mathematics problems using a model designed to discriminate among tasks
according to their cognitive complexity. Results demonstrated that, overall, the PTs
had more difficulty accurately classifying problems considered to represent high
levels of cognitive complexity compared to less complex problems. They were influ-
enced by the surface characteristics of task length and tended to label short problems
as less cognitively demanding and long problems as more so.

3.2.4 Summary

The overview of studies in this section on pre-existing mathematics-related peda-

gogical knowledge and ability offers insights of the nature of the PTs’ knowledge
and ability related to teaching and learning mathematics at the point of entering a
teacher education program. The studies addressed the PTs’ knowledge of how to
observe and analyze teaching, notice and interpret students’ work or thinking, and
evaluate tasks. Those dealing with observing and analyzing classroom behaviours of
teachers and students indicated mostly weaknesses in the PTs’ ability to observe and
make appropriate conclusions or suggestions regarding instruction. For example, they
were strong in observing classroom management but weak in noticing other aspects
of the classroom and demonstrated lowest levels of analysis of classroom interac-
tions. Those studies dealing with noticing and interpreting students’ mathematical
thinking and work indicated that the PTs demonstrated several areas of difficulties in
noticing or recognizing students’ reasoning, providing rigorous evidence to support
their noticing, and discussing noticing at a high level. Studies dealing with evalu-
ating or interpreting features of tasks to support students’ learning indicated that
the PTs had limited ability to recognize potential of tasks or difficulties students
could experience with a task or classifying a problem of high level of cognitive
complexity. Overall, the studies highlighted that there were much more weaknesses
Pre-existing Mathematics Teacher Characteristics 33

than strengths in the PTs’ pre-existing ability to notice, analyze, and interpret math-
ematics classroom behaviors of teachers and students and students’ mathematical
work.

3.3 Pre-existing Mathematics-Related Beliefs

This third and final category consists of studies that investigated PTs’ mathematics-
related beliefs in the period 2000–2020. The studies collectively included primary,
elementary, middle, and secondary school PTs and their content and pedagogical
beliefs (conceptions and perceptions). They addressed another category of PMTC that
are important to how teachers conceptualize and enact their teaching of mathematics
and PTs would have on entering MTE. The following overview of these studies is
organized based on their foci on the PTs’ beliefs about: (i) nature of mathematics,
(ii) teaching and learning mathematics, (iii) use of technology, (iv) mathematical
processes, and (v) mathematics concept, to highlight the extent to which they were
addressed in terms of the aims of the studies and the nature of the PTs’ PMTC. The
studies are presented in reversed chronological order to indicate distribution in the
period beginning with the most recent studies.

3.3.1 Nature of Mathematics

This group of studies addressed primary, elementary, middle, and secondary school
PTs’ beliefs of the nature of mathematics. Weldeana and Abraham (2014) investi-
gated an intervention to change beliefs of middle school PTs. They found that before
the intervention a majority of the PTs did not hold progressive beliefs related to
the nature of mathematics. For example, they believed that for every problem of
mathematics, there is one unique approach leading to its solution. Shilling-Traina
and Stylianides (2013) investigated changes in the beliefs about mathematics held
by elementary school PTs in a mathematics course and found that their initial beliefs
largely reflected instrumentalist and Platonist views. Conner et al. (2011) inves-
tigated secondary school mathematics PTs’ beliefs about mathematics. Findings
indicated that their initial views of mathematics were primarily Platonist and instru-
mentalist. Some of the most prevalent descriptors of mathematics across participants
were mathematics is logical and less subjective than other disciplines, and mathe-
matics is unambiguous in the sense that, while multiple solution paths are possible,
each problem has a single, correct answer. Finally, Bolden et al. (2010) investigated
primary school PTs in the UK early in their education course at the beginning of the
program and found that the PTs held narrow, absolutist views of mathematics as a
subject. Most conceived mathematics as a subject of a set body of knowledge that
offered little or no room for freedom of expression, imagination, and independence.
Most also believed that mathematics was not a creative subject, and it was difficult
to encourage creativity in mathematics.
34 O. Chapman

3.3.2 Teaching and Learning Mathematics

This group of studies addressed primary, elementary, middle, and secondary school
PTs’ beliefs or conceptions about teaching and learning mathematics, including qual-
ities of teachers and learners, mathematical behaviour and creativity, and doing and
understanding mathematics. Regarding the second 10 years of the period: Stohlmann
et al., (2014/2015) investigated changing elementary school PTs’ beliefs about math-
ematical knowledge. At the beginning of the course, the majority of the PTs showed
little or no evidence of the belief that conceptual understanding of mathematics is
more powerful or generative than remembering mathematical procedures and they
appeared to be focused on understanding mathematics in terms of procedural fluency.
The majority of them also showed weak or no evidence of beliefs that: (i) One’s
knowledge of how to apply mathematical procedures does not necessarily go with the
understanding of the underlying concepts. (ii) Understanding mathematical concepts
is more powerful and more generative than remembering mathematical procedures.
(iii) If students learn mathematical concepts before they learn procedures, they are
more likely to understand the procedures when they learn them. If they learn proce-
dures first, they are less likely ever to learn the concepts. For (i), very few PTs showed
evidence or strong evidence of the belief that if a child knows procedures, they may
not understand the underlying concepts. Weldeana and Abraham (2014) investigated
an intervention to change beliefs of middle school PTs. They found that before the
intervention a majority of the PTs did not hold progressive beliefs related to the
way mathematics is learned, taught, and practiced. The PTs began with a strong
belief that mathematics can be learned and understood through memorization of
facts and formulae. They held many traditional beliefs related to knowing in math-
ematics (e.g., step-by-step procedure; getting the right answers quickly; retrieving
information quickly; and figuring out formulae and equations to solve problems
immediately).
In addition, Conner et al. (2011) investigated secondary school PTs’ beliefs about
mathematics teaching. They found that the PTs’ initial beliefs of characteristics of
effective mathematics teachers included: having positive affective characteristics
(a good teacher is nice, patient, friendly) and mathematical knowledge, attending
to student needs, and facilitating student participation. They also initially held the
belief that students should participate in class, asking questions and working together,
but sometimes they described a teacher centered view of student participation that
included direct instruction as the primary method for teaching new content. Bolden
et al. (2010) investigated conceptions of creativity of primary school PTs in the UK
early in their education course at the beginning of their MTE. Findings indicated that
the meaning of creativity in primary school mathematics was not well understood
by the PTs based on their conception of it. Their conceptions were narrow, predom-
inantly associated with the use of resources and technology, and tied to the idea of
“teaching creatively” rather than “teaching for creativity”. They viewed creativity in
terms of the types of resources used and the way in which they were used to teach
mathematical topics and the way in which real-life examples were used to explore
mathematical concepts.
Pre-existing Mathematics Teacher Characteristics 35

For the first 10 years of the period: Ambrose (2004) investigated an interven-
tion to build elementary school PTs’ beliefs. Findings indicated that initially the
PTs held beliefs that teaching involves explaining things to children, which most
of them continued to hold following the intervention. They initially equated doing
mathematics with using memorized procedures. Their actions indicated a teaching-
as-telling belief along with a belief about mathematics learning as the acquisition
of standard symbolic procedures. Szydlik et al. (2003) explored elementary school
PTs’ beliefs about the nature of mathematical behavior both at the beginning and
end of the education course. At the beginning, the majority of the PTs believed that,
as learners, they could not “figure out” mathematics for themselves. They could not
imagine being asked to do a problem significantly different from those in the text-
book or having a teacher who did not first show them how to do similar problems.
They believed that they must memorize formulas, procedures, or template problems
in order to work on new problems.

3.3.3 Use of Technology

These two studies addressed middle and secondary school PTs’ beliefs about the
use of technology. Wachira et al. (2008) assessed middle school PTs’ beliefs about
the appropriate use of technology in mathematics teaching and learning prior to
taking the methods course. They found the PTs’ beliefs to be limited to the use of
technology as computational tools and for checking the accuracy of these compu-
tations. The PTs’ conceptions indicated a lack of understanding of technology as
powerful tools to help students gain knowledge, skills, deeper understanding and
appreciation of mathematics. They did not provide specific ways on how technology
could be used to promote learning. None indicated that technology could be used to
explore patterns, discover more about mathematics concepts or investigate mathe-
matical relationships, which suggested that they lacked understanding of how tech-
nology could be used appropriately to develop concepts. Leatham (2007) investi-
gated secondary school PTs’ beliefs about teaching mathematics with technology
later in their program after taking an education course on technology and found that
their beliefs about the nature of technology in the classroom were about the avail-
ability of technology, the purposeful use of technology, and the importance of teacher
knowledge of technology.

3.3.4 Mathematical Processes

These two studies addressed elementary school PTs’ beliefs (conceptions, views)
of two mathematical processes: problem solving and representing mathematical
concepts or situations. Son and Lee (2020) examined elementary PTs’ problem-
solving conceptions and performances. They found that a majority of the PTs held
conceptions of problem solving as a means to a solution, that is, they expressed a
skill-based or means-to-an-end view by focusing on solutions or procedural steps.
36 O. Chapman

Their conceptions of problem solving were related to their performances. Dreher

et al. (2016) investigated views about using multiple representations held by British
and German elementary school PTs at the beginning of their first year of their MTE.
They found that the PTs showed little awareness for the role of representations for
mathematical understanding. They viewed the role of multiple representations for
understanding mathematics as less important than other non-discipline reasons for
using multiple representations. They mostly were not able to recognize the learning
potential of tasks focusing on conversions of representations, in comparison with
tasks including rather unhelpful pictorial representations, to which they tended to
assign a higher learning potential.

3.3.5 Algebra

One study addressed PTs’ conceptions of algebra. Stephens (2008) examined concep-
tions of algebra held by elementary school PTs enrolled in their only course
addressing the teaching of mathematics. Findings suggested that their conceptions
of algebra as subject matter were narrow. Most of them equated algebra with the
manipulation of symbols. Very few identified other forms of reasoning, in partic-
ular, relational thinking, with algebra. Several made comments implying that student
strategies that demonstrated traditional symbol manipulation might be valued more
than those that demonstrated relational thinking, suggesting that what was viewed
as algebra is what will be valued in the classroom. Tasks were often judged to be
algebra or non-algebra problems by the presence or absence of a variable or letter,
and students were often judged to have used or not used algebra based on how closely
their work matched the symbol-manipulation model.

3.3.6 Summary

The overview of studies in this section on pre-existing mathematics-related beliefs

offers insights of the nature of the PTs’ pre-existing beliefs or conceptions related to
mathematics and mathematics pedagogy at the point of entering a teacher education
program. The studies addressed the PTs’ beliefs about the nature of mathematics,
teaching and learning mathematics, use of technology, mathematical processes, and
mathematics concepts. Those dealing with beliefs about the nature of mathematics
indicated that the PTs held beliefs of a Platonist or absolutist perspective of mathe-
matics. Those dealing with beliefs about teaching and learning mathematics indicated
that the PTs’ beliefs mostly reflected a traditional or ‘teacher-centered’ perspective
of teaching and learning mathematics. Those dealing with beliefs about mathematics
concepts and processes indicated that the PTs held narrow conceptions of algebra,
problem solving, and multiple representations. Those dealing with technology indi-
cated that the PTs lacked understanding of use of technology to support students’
learning and to develop concepts and held beliefs that could significantly limit their
use of technology in teaching mathematics. Overall, the studies highlighted that
Pre-existing Mathematics Teacher Characteristics 37

the PTs’ pre-existing beliefs were mostly inappropriate to support contemporary

perspectives of reform-based mathematics education.

3.4 Summary of Landscape of PMTC

Table 1 provides a summary of the PMTC that were addressed by studies investigating
PTs’ characteristics in the period 2000–2020. The table includes the three categories
of PMTC researched and the types of PMTC researched for each category. These
PMTC could directly impact PTs’ learning during initial teacher education and their
teaching as future teachers. They are further discussed in the sections that follow
concerning how research has evolved in PMTC.

4 Evolution of Research on PMTC

The preceding section outlined studies relevant to Medley’s (1987) Type F variable
that provided a landscape of the types of PMTC they addressed. These studies formed
the basis to consider the evolution of research on PMTC in the period 2000–2020,
based on what was done (i.e., the scope of research) and how it was done (i.e., method-
ological factors) in establishing and advancing research in this area of mathematics
education. The scope of research involves the extent to which PMTC were studied.
The methodological factors involve those that Medley proposed are necessary to
consider the evolution of research on teaching, adapted to address research on PTs’
PMTC. These factors are conceptualization (e.g., of good teaching), instrumentation

Table 1 Landscape of PMTC of PTs Researcher in 2000–2020

Categories of PMTC researched Types of PMTC researched
Pre-existing mathematical knowledge and skills Fractions
Whole number operations
Geometry
Algebra
Problem posing
Pre-existing mathematics-related pedagogical Observing and analyzing teaching
knowledge and ability Noticing and interpreting students’ work or
thinking
Evaluating tasks
Pre-existing mathematics-related beliefs Nature of mathematics
Teaching and learning mathematics
Use of technology
Mathematical processes
Algebra
38 O. Chapman

(e.g., valid tools), design, and analysis. This section is organized in terms of the scope
of research on PMTC and methodological factors.

4.1 Scope of Research on PMTC

The scope of research suggests an evolution of research on PMTC in terms of the

extent of the types of PMTC researched, the extent to which PMTC were addressed
by the studies, and the extent to which the studies were framed at the point of entry
into MTE.

4.1.1 Types of PMTC Researched

The studies suggested a shift from researching teacher candidates’ characteristics,

such as level of school mathematics they completed, mathematics courses they
completed, their overall grade point average (GPA), and their mathematics GPA,
which were not considered in any of the studies for 2000–2020. They also suggested
growth in research on PMTC in terms of different types of PTs’ characteristics that
were investigated. They addressed specific aspects of nine types of PMTC associated
with three categories of characteristics (Table 1) the PTs held on entering MTE. These
characteristics included PTs’ knowledge, skills, and beliefs that were connected to
what they would have learned, directly or indirectly, as students in school mathe-
matics classrooms. For example, prior to entering teacher education, PTs would have
developed knowledge of mathematical:
• Content—directly, based on what was taught.
• Processes—directly, based on what they engaged in.
• Learning—indirectly, based on how they were engaged and their personal
orientation.
• Teaching—indirectly, based on how they were taught and assessed.
• Technological tools—directly or indirectly, based on how they were used in their
learning.
• Beliefs—indirectly, based on what was taught and how it was taught.
While the studies touched on all of these areas of PTs’ learning, aspects of them
were not explored enough or at all to add depth to the body of research on PMTC.
For example, little or no consideration was given to secondary school mathematics
concepts, mathematical problem solving and thinking skills, technological tools, and
assessment of learning. The studies also did not address contextual variables that
impacted the characteristics, in particular, cultural context and technological context
(discussed later). Thus, while the studies offered insights of some important PMTC
held by PTs on entering MTE, in advancing the field of research on the mathematics
teacher and teaching, they were limited in types and number of PMTC covered in a
recent 20-year period.
Pre-existing Mathematics Teacher Characteristics 39

4.1.2 Attention to PMTC by Studies

The extent to which the studies attended to the PMTC researched, based on number
of studies, suggested relative levels of evolution of each of the three categories and
types of PMTC (Table 1) for the period 2000–2020. For example, the pre-existing
mathematical content and skills category received the most attention, suggesting
higher interest in content-related characteristics, in particular, knowledge of fractions
that represented almost half of the studies in the category, with most of them occurring
in the second half of the period. The pre-existing mathematics-related pedagogical
knowledge and ability and the pre-existing mathematics-related beliefs categories
received the same level of attention, but when combined were higher by about 20%
more studies than the mathematical content and skills category. This suggested that
overall, research focused on PMTC regarding pedagogical ability and beliefs had
grown more than for content knowledge.
In particular, in the pedagogical ability category, there was significant attention in
the studies on noticing and interpreting students’ work and thinking, which formed
about two-thirds of the studies in this category, were the largest group of studies for
the three categories, and were mostly occurring in the second half of the period. For
the beliefs category, beliefs about teaching and learning received the most attention,
but was third behind the interpreting students’ work and the fractions PMTC. Most of
the studies for these three types of PMTC were also in the second half of the period,
compared to the other types of PMTC that collectively had more studies in the first
half of the period. All of the studies on problem posing, use of technology, and the
ability to observe and analyze teaching, and most of those on ability to evaluate
tasks and knowledge of whole number operations were in the first half of the period.
Hence, there was a shift in focus from the first to the second half of the period
that suggested a shift in research on PMTC that may be considered a partial growth
regarding some PMTC researched and a limitation regarding lack of continuation
of attention to those that are of ongoing importance to support effective teaching of
mathematics.

4.1.3 Studies at Point of Entry

The extent to which the studies were framed at the PTs’ point of entry into MTE
provided another perspective of the level of growth on research on PMTC for the
period 2000–2020. While there is a large body of mathematics education research
on PTs in this period, it is lacking in addressing PMTC of teacher candidates at the
point of entering MTE. Only about 8% of the studies addressing PMTC in 2000–2020
focused on PTs at the beginning of their programs, which was not defined. Hence,
as previously discussed, the majority of the studies were framed at the beginning of
mathematics education courses, or prior to research-based instructional interventions
in a mathematics education course or based on activities in mathematics for teachers
or mathematics education courses that depended solely on the use of prior knowledge
related to school experience. This framing suggested that, in 2000 -2020, there was
40 O. Chapman

no growth of research of PTs’ PMTC at the point of entry into MTE or there was
an evolution in terms of a shift to, or consideration of, more practical approaches of
obtaining access to PTs and their PMTC (e.g., participants in mathematics education
courses at different points in a program).
Given the importance of understanding teacher candidates’ PMTC, the little atten-
tion of research on them could partly be related to challenges associated with the
point of entry, which could be messy regarding accessing information on teacher
candidates for one discipline and dealing with complexities associated with different
admission requirements, different academic backgrounds of candidates, and different
programs. For example, in a Western cultural context, mathematics teacher candi-
dates could enter a teacher education program directly from high school with or
without a college entrance test/exam, or after receiving an undergraduate or grad-
uate degree in mathematics or some other related degree, or while jointly working
on a mathematics education degree and another related degree. They could have
completed only middle or high school mathematics, or a mathematics degree, or
a mathematics-related degree (e.g., physics, engineering), or some mathematics or
mathematics-related courses prior to beginning a teacher education or mathematics
education program. These various groups of PTs would need to be considered sepa-
rately, in addition to the various groups according to different school levels for which
PTs are preparing (e.g., elementary, middle, or high school) to obtain a reliable and
meaningful picture of PMTC.
A related issue is what is the point of entry for candidates in mathematics educa-
tion–the beginning of a general teacher education program that includes mathematics
education, the beginning of a specialized mathematics education program, the begin-
ning of mathematics education courses, and mathematics courses for teachers? All
of these possibilities could lead to different versions of the nature of PMTC held by
PTs. Although the studies on PMTC in 2000–2020 addressed school levels, there was
an underlying assumption that the PTs in a course formed a homogeneous group in
terms of their academic backgrounds, which might or might not have been the case.
However, the intent of most of these studies was not explicitly to address PMTC at
the point of entry into an MTE, but to obtain baseline information to evaluate their
instructional approaches, which could be another way of considering how research
on PMTC has evolved.
Another possible challenge for researching teacher candidates’ PMTC involves
the use of institutions’ recruitment criteria or admission requirements as a basis of
their point-of-entry PMTC, since what institutions want and what they get may not
fully align. For example, as Artzt and Curcio (2008) explained, regarding recruiting
high school students for secondary school mathematics education programs in the
USA:
There were several obstacles we faced in recruiting talented mathematics secondary students;
it requires finding students from the intersection of three sets: those who love mathematics,
those who want to become teachers, and those who are interested in attending Queens College
…. Overcoming the barriers requires a multitude of recruitment strategies. (p. 249)
Pre-existing Mathematics Teacher Characteristics 41

Schmidt et al. (2012) also raised concerns about selectivity for institutions in the
USA. They noted:
There is great variation in what secondary mathematics individuals have had before entering
teacher preparation. (p. 265).
Variation was especially large for the college entrance mathematics score, … revealing
a very large selectivity factor across institutions. (p. 270)
From a policy perspective, selectivity relates to differences in mathematics knowledge
among future teachers before they began their teacher preparation—the issue of who enters
teaching. This is manifested by large differences among institutions. The policy issue related
to selectivity includes recruiting more mathematically able students into primary teacher
preparation no matter which institution they might attend. (p. 275)

Selectivity could also be an issue within an institution where admission could be

based on a combination of grades, interviews, portfolio, etc. which adds another layer
of complexity in using admission requirements to determine PMTC. Research on
PMTC in 2000–2020 did not address recruitment criteria or admission requirements
of institutions, which could also be considered as representative of a shift in interest
of the type of PMTC that seemed to be more relevant in this period.
In general, then, the lack of research on PTs’ PMTC in 2000–2020, based on the
journals reviewed, could be related to challenges in addressing variables associated
with a point of entry into an education program or a shift in interest from consid-
ering PMTC at point of entry to indirectly addressing PMTC for PTs based on their
participation in mathematics education courses regardless of where they are situated
in a teacher education program.

4.2 Methodological Factors

Each of the four methodological factors adapted from Medley (1987) is discussed in
this section regarding the evolution of research on the PTs’ PMTC. Conceptualiza-
tion is interpreted in terms of relationship to ‘good teaching’, teacher education, and
technology and culture. Instrumentation is interpreted as procedures or tools used in
collecting the data. Design is interpreted as what was used or done to support the data
collection process and analysis is interpreted as the means used to extract informa-
tion from the data. These interpretations are appropriate to address the information
provided in the studies.

4.2.1 Conceptualization of PMTC in Relation to ‘Good Teaching’

In adapting Medley’s (1987) framework as a guide for research on teaching, it is

important for studies to provide a conceptualization of good teaching. For the period
2000–2020, while good or effective teaching of mathematics was not explicitly
conceptualized in the studies on PMTC, it was implied based on the theoretical bases
42 O. Chapman

framing the PMTC being investigated for the three categories of mathematical knowl-
edge and skills, pedagogical knowledge, and beliefs. These theoretical perspectives
were related to reform-based perspectives of mathematics education that promoted
significant shifts in school mathematics curriculum, teaching, and learning and were
associated with effective teaching of mathematics. Collectively, the studies directly or
indirectly considered PMTC concerning specific elements of these perspectives that
include: (a) standards and principles for mathematics education (NCTM, ); (b) mathe-
matical proficiency (Kilpatrick et al., 2001); (c) mathematical thinking (Mason et al.,
2010; Schoenfeld, 1992); (d) mathematics knowledge for teaching (Ball et al., 2008);
(e) teaching practices (NCTM, 2014); and (f) beliefs about the nature of mathematics
(Ernest, 1989) and teaching and learning mathematics (Beswick, 2012).
The studies, then, indicated an evolution in conceptualizing PMTC to reflect
contemporary perspectives of teaching and learning mathematics, with implications
about the nature of the PMTC required for a PT to become “the teacher who has a
set of personal characteristics closest to those of the ideal teacher” (Medley, 1987,
p. 106). This implication seemed to underlie most of the studies considering the nature
of the PTs’ PMTC mainly from a deficit perspective. The result was an evolution of
research in the period to highlight what was wrong with the PMTC of the PTs on
entering MTE.
Regardless of whether addressing PTs at the primary, elementary, middle, or
secondary school level, the studies showed an ongoing focus on issues and limi-
tations in their PMTC that indicated what they did not know or were not able to
do at the beginning of their MTE. For example, collectively, the PTs: did not have
deep conceptual or relational understanding of arithmetic and algebraic concepts;
could not pose complex relational or conditional problems; were not able to think
mathematically beyond a low level; were not able to observe details of the class-
room environment, mathematical content of a lesson, and subtleties of classroom
communication and mathematics content beyond a surface level; were not able to
collect, beyond surface level, appropriate evidence to support analysis of instruction
and learning; could not base their analysis of instructional decisions on pedagogical
and mathematical reasons instead of affective reasons; could not reflect on a level to
theorize or restructure; were not able to analyze or interpret students’ solutions with
depth, notice students reasoning based on meaning of student work, identify appro-
priate evidence for their noticing, identify conceptual aspect of errors, and classify
tasks of high levels of cognitive complexity for students; and did not hold views
of inquiry-based, constructivist-oriented perspectives of mathematics, teaching and
learning, technology as tool to support deeper understanding and appreciation of
mathematics, nature of genuine problems and problem solving in terms of their
openness, conceptual use of multiple representation to support deep learning, and
algebra as reasoning and relational thinking.
The deficit perspective of the PTs’ PMTC also suggested limited evolution of
school mathematics teaching based on reform recommendations since the different
types of PMTC involved were directly related to what the PTs should have learned
or experienced directly (e.g., mathematics content) and indirectly (e.g., mathematics
pedagogy and beliefs) in school prior to entering teacher education. This probably
Pre-existing Mathematics Teacher Characteristics 43

limited evolution of teaching was also suggested by the studies based on what they
noted or implied about what the PTs knew or were able to do, which reflected
learning from traditional, pre-reform-oriented teaching of mathematics. For example,
the PTs’ PMTC included: procedural or instrumental understanding of the some key
school mathematics concepts; ability to pose problems of low level of cognitive
complexity; ability to conduct instrumental analysis of relationship between instruc-
tion and student learning; ability to observe, describe and explain generic instruc-
tional issues, classroom management, instructional tasks, and affective factors of
classroom interactions; ability to notice, interpret and describe students’ work or
thinking on a procedural level; ability to identify tasks of low cognitive demand and
attend to surface characteristics of tasks; beliefs of mathematics as absolute, teaching
and learning as teacher-centered (e.g., teaching as telling, learning as memorizing),
technology as computational tool; use of representations on an instrumental level;
problem solving as a means to a solution involving procedural steps; and algebra as
manipulation of symbols and in terms of surface features (e.g., variable or letter).
In general, whether the PTs’ PMTC were viewed from a perspective of what they
knew or did not know, were able or not able to do, the studies indicated continued
issues with their PMTC when the PMTC were conceptualized in relation to reform
expectations for effective teaching of mathematics in the period 2000–2020. This
outcome suggested that the impact of the reform movement in school mathematics
had not materialized in this period and many PTs were entering teacher education
with PMTC that did not align with appropriate knowledge, skills, and beliefs in
relation to effective teaching. But this conclusion might not be representative of the
actual situation given the limitations of the studies regarding small sample sizes and
little information on those PTs with PMTC that reflected reform-based teaching at
the point of entry into MTE.

4.2.2 Conceptualization of PMTC in Relation to Teacher Education

Based on the definitions of Type F variable (Medley, 1987; Manizade et al., this
volume), research should also conceptualize PMTC in relation to “the character-
istics a teacher candidate needs in order to acquire those competencies that formal
education and experience can provide” (Medley, p. 105). Hence, as Medley indicated,
Types F and E variables should be combined in research on teaching, where Type
E involves mathematics teacher competencies, knowledge, and skills to function
effectively in mathematics teacher education (Manizade et al.). In addition, Medley
explained:
Type FE research is the proper research to provide support for selective admission to teacher
preparation, and may be called research in teacher selection. What characteristics of entering
students identify teachers who will acquire the competencies they need as a result of training?
(p. 111)

His perspective suggested that PMTC, in addition to being conceptualized in

relation to good or effective teaching, should be conceptualized in relation to good
44 O. Chapman

or effective teacher education, for example, the types and nature of the PMTC that
are consistent with the role of MTE or are most needed to support PTs’ learning in
MTE.
The studies on PMTC in 2000–2020 did not address this relationship or lacked
clarity about it. While they suggested that the PTs’ PMTC were not adequate in
relation to effective teaching, there was less clarity regarding whether or not the
PMTC were adequate to support their learning in MTE. But, based on the design of
many of the studies, there were underlying assumptions of the relationship between
the PTs’ PMTC and possible roles of MTE to help PTs develop the knowledge and
competencies for effective teaching of mathematics. For example, the intervention
studies with focus on fixing deficiencies in the PTs’ PMTC implied PMTC were
conceptualized in relation to a remedial role of the teacher education programs. In
general, the studies did not suggest that PMTC were conceptualized in relation to a
constructivist role of MTE in which the PMTC were viewed as resources to build
on and not deficiencies to fix. For both of these roles, the quality of the PMTC on
entering MTE might not be important beyond some minimum standard required to
complete high school and/or to enter an education program. Overall, then, while
conceptualization of PMTC in relation to teacher education was unclear or limited
for research in 2000–2020, there was a shift in the underlying implication of the
studies that the role of mathematics teacher education was important to researching
and understanding the PMTC PTs needed on entering MTE for them to succeed in
it.

4.2.3 Conceptualization of PMTC in Relation to Technology

and Culture

Context is important to understanding the mathematics teacher and teaching and

should be considered in the conceptualization of teachers’ PMTC in research on
teaching. Medley (1987) identified four categories of context-related variables, also
adapted by Manizade et al., (this volume) for mathematics education research, that
should be considered, but he associated these categories with practicing teachers
and did not directly connect any with the Type F variable of PMTC. Thus, context-
related factors that could have impacted the PMTC prior to being engaged in teacher
education were not highlighted in Medley’s model. However, in a digital age and
a twenty-first century society, the evolution of research on PMTC in 2000–2020
should reflect the availability of technology and the cultural context in and outside
of classrooms. This view means that, for research in this period, the conceptualiza-
tion of PTs’ PMTC should also be related to technology and culture. This was not,
however, reflected in the studies, directly or indirectly, based on theories to support
the importance of culture and technology to mathematics teaching. For example,
equity and technology are two of the six principles recommended by NCTM (2000)
as fundamental to high-quality mathematics education.
Pre-existing Mathematics Teacher Characteristics 45

Regarding Technology. NCTM (2000) promoted technology as being essential in

teaching and learning mathematics. In addition, NCTM (2011) explained:
Technological tools include those that are both content specific and content neutral. In
mathematics education, content-specific technologies include computer algebra systems;
dynamic geometry environments; interactive applets; handheld computation, data collection,
and analysis devices; and computer-based applications. These technologies support students
in exploring and identifying mathematical concepts and relationships. Content-neutral tech-
nologies include communication and collaboration tools and Web-based digital media, and
these technologies increase students’ access to information, ideas, and interactions that can
support and enhance sense making, which is central to the process of taking ownership of
knowledge. (NCTM, 2011)

Despite this range of tools and importance of technology, there was no study in the
last ten years and only two studies in the early 2000s that considered technology in
relation to PMTC. There was, therefore, a lack of information regarding the influence
of technology on PTs’ PMTC based on technology in general or the different types
of technology the PTs would have encountered in or out of the classroom. The two
studies on technology focused on PTs’ beliefs about it in a general sense (without
consideration of specific types), but neither considered the relationship between the
use of technology in learning and the PMTC.
Of the two studies, only one (Wachira et al., 2008) focused explicitly on pre-
existing beliefs at the beginning of a semester based on students’ responses to two
prompts: (a) to indicate their experiences with instructional technology use in math-
ematics, and (b) to provide compelling arguments for the use of technology in math-
ematics learning. Both studies highlighted the limitations of the PTs’ beliefs, which
suggested that their exposure to technology was not enriching to their PMTC. But
these studies occurred in the early 2000s when access to technology was not as avail-
able in schools as later in the period. They may not, therefore, be representative of
the significant changes and access to technology in western cultural contexts and the
impact on teacher candidates’ learning and thinking on entering MTE. Overall, there
was a lack of growth in conceptualizing PMTC in relation to technology.
Regarding Culture. The actions of teaching and learning exist in cultures that vary
greatly from society to society, from school to school, and even from classroom to
classroom in the same school. Thus, culture could be a problematic variable regarding
its meaning in researching teaching and a basis of conceptualizing PMTC. It is
considered here in relation to the classroom. The culture of a mathematics classroom
determines and is determined by the type of learning that takes place, affects the types
of experiences students engage in, and could interact with students’ personal cultural
(e.g., home or societal culture) experiences in positive or negative ways. Thus, in the
period 2000–2020, there has been the promotion of culturally responsive teaching
in general (Gay, 2010; Taylor & Sobel, 2011) and specific to mathematics education
(Greer et al., 2009; Presmeg, 2007) and of equity as a principle in school mathematics
education (NCTM, 2000) to meaningfully address diverse student population based
on various cultural heritage and social backgrounds of students in the western cultural
context.
46 O. Chapman

Culture then should be of importance in considering the evolution of research on

PMTC in relation to its impact on PTs’ experience and learning of mathematics that
are connected to the nature of their PMTC on entering MTE. These PMTC include
the mathematical identity PTs developed based on the classroom culture and the
personal cultural-based resources they bring to MTE with implications for the type
of teacher they will become. None of the studies attended to PMTC in relation to
culture. This lack of conceptualization of PMTC in relation to culture suggested a
significant deficiency in the evolution of research on beginning PTs. There seemed
to be a lack of a humanistic perspective in framing the studies that made culture
irrelevant in considering the PMTC. There was also a lack of focus on affective factors
that are directly associated with culture. Regardless of whether the PTs were from
culturally homogenous classrooms with homogenous cultural backgrounds, culture
still mattered regarding their identity as a teacher and the nature of their PMTC.
Thus, overall, there was a lack of growth in conceptualizing PMTC in relation to
culture.

4.2.4 Instrumentation in Researching PMTC

Instrumentation is the second factor Medley (1987) indicated as important in consid-

ering the evolution of research on teaching, interpreted here as procedures or tools
used in collecting the data. In earlier studies, Medley, for example, noted that instru-
mentation focused on surveys consisting of closed response questionnaires or brief
written response items about teaching. For the period 2000–2010, while the studies on
PMTC continued to use surveys, they also used a variety of tools for data collection.
This evolution of instrumentation mirrored the evolution in the conceptualization of
PMTC in relation to contemporary perspectives of effective mathematics teaching.
Four categories of instruments, discussed in turn in the following paragraphs, were
used in the studies to determine the PTs’ PMTC at the beginning of a program or
course or prior to an intervention to support their learning.
Questionnaires. Some studies used only questionnaires, for example: motivation
questionnaire (Newton, 2009); beliefs questionnaire (Dreher et al., 2016; Weldeana &
Abraham, 2014); questionnaire to analyze student work (Simpson & Haltiwanger,
2017); diagnostic questionnaire (Tirosh, 2000); content knowledge questionnaire
(Lee & Lee, 2020); questionnaire on concept maps and definitions (Miller, 2018);
and questionnaire with true/false, multiple choice, and short answer questions
(Star & Strickland, 2008). Other studies used open-ended questionnaires with semi-
structured interviews, for example: regarding conceptions and beliefs of mathe-
matics, problem solving or creativity (Bolden et al., 2009; Conner et al., 2011; Son &
Lee, 2020; Szydlik et al., 2003) and mathematics backgrounds and teaching interests
(Stephens, 2008).
Interviews. Some studies used only semi-structured interviews based on participants
solving mathematical tasks (Stephens, 2006; Thanheiser, 2009, 2010; Yanik, 2011).
In addition to interviews being combined with questionnaires, other studies combined
Pre-existing Mathematics Teacher Characteristics 47

interviews with written responses to analyse students’ written work (Magiera et al.,
2013; Shin, 2020) and to prompts on beliefs (Shilling-Traina & Stylianides, 2013).
Written Responses. Some studies used only written responses, including: jour-
nals on mathematics problem posing (Crespo, 2003); mathematical autobiographies
(Harkness et al., 2007; Wachira et al., 2008); responses to interpreting students’ solu-
tions to mathematical tasks (Callejo & Zapatera, 2017; Sánchez-Matamoros et al.,
2015, 2019); responses to incorrect students’ solutions to the same problem solved
by PTs (Son, 2013); responses on reflecting on a student’s invented algorithm (Hark-
ness & Thomas, 2008); responses to written standard place-value-operation tasks
(addition and subtraction) (Thanheiser, 2010); and responses to the analysis of video
recorded mathematics lessons (Morris, 2006; Star & Strickland, 2008) and analysis
of a mathematics video curriculum (Stockero, 2008).
Mathematics Tests and Tasks. Some studies used content knowledge tests on
rational numbers and computations (Lovin et al., 2018); fractions (Lin et al., 2013;
Osana & Royea, 2011); whole number operations (Kaasila et al., 2010; Norton,
2019); linear functions (You & Quinn, 2010); and algebraic language (Pomer-
antsev & Korosteleva, 2003). One study combined a number sense test with inter-
views (Whitacre & Nickerson, 2016). A few studies used students’ work on mathe-
matical tasks involving solving algebra tasks (Hohensee, 2017); posing mathematics
problems (Crespo & Sinclair, 2008); solving pattern-finding tasks (Richardson et al.,
2009; and sorting mathematics problems (Osana et al., 2006).
The different ways of collecting data outlined above were used throughout the
period. There were about the same number of studies that used questionnaires, inter-
views, written responses, and tests and tasks, alone or in different combinations.
Overall, the growth in instrumentation consisted of very little use of only interviews
and an increased use of combinations of questionnaires and interviews, open written
responses, and tests or tasks which have the potential to produce more valid data
regarding the types of PMTC that were studied.

4.2.5 Design and Analysis in Researching PMTC

Design and analysis are the last two factors Medley (1987) indicated were important
in considering the evolution of research on teaching. However, based on Medley’s
perspective, they were problematic to address for the studies on PTMC in 2000–2020,
most of which were not specifically designed to address PTs’ PMTC on entering
MTE, but had broader goals. Thus, the design was considered in terms of what the
studies used to support the data collection process at the beginning of a course or
prior to an intervention and analysis as the means used to obtain information from
the data.
Design. There was an evolution in the design of research in the period in terms of the
use of school students’ mathematical work and videos of mathematics teaching to
engage the PTs in situations to apply their PMTC. Students’ work included: actual
48 O. Chapman

solutions to various mathematical tasks (Callejo & Zapatera, 2017; Magiera et al.,
2013; Sánchez-Matamoros et al., 2015, 2019; Simpson & Haltiwanger, 2017); hypo-
thetical written solutions (Shin, 2020); incorrect solutions to the same problem solved
by PTs (Son, 2013), and a student’s invented algorithm (Harkness & Thomas, 2008).
Videos included videotaped mathematics lessons (Morris, 2006; Star & Strickland,
2008) and a video-case curriculum (Stockero, 2008).
There was also evolution in terms of significant variations in the design of
instrumentation (e.g., questionnaires, written responses, tests and tasks) to match
the different types of PMTC and in terms of the combination of interviews with
other instruments to obtain reliable data. One area of limitation involved studies
not being designed solely for researching PMTC at the beginning of an education
program, which could have resulted in aspects of the PMTC not being identical to
the PTs’ PMTC on entering the program. A few studies were designed at the begin-
ning of courses, while most were designed as intervention studies with a pre-post-
intervention design. The intent of the intervention studies was more about promoting
the intervention as a way of impacting change and less about the nature of the PMTC.
Thus, they tended to provide little information on the pre-intervention characteris-
tics, with the emphasis being on the post-intervention. The design also tended to
use convenient samples of PTs enrolled in specific courses and small sample sizes
regardless of the nature of the instrumentation. Thus, the studies did not necessarily
provide a representative picture of PMTC within an institution or a region, even
though they offered useful insights about the PMTC.
Analysis. The analysis approaches used in the studies depended on the instrumenta-
tion and thus showed an evolution of approaches consisting of both quantitative and
qualitative strategies. These approaches varied within and across categories of instru-
ments depending on the design of the instrument. For example, some questionnaires
used the Likert scale (e.g., Dreher et al., 2016; Newton, 2009; Szydlik et al., 2003;
Weldeana & Abraham, 2014) while others used open-ended items with a rubric or
scale for scoring or categories to compile and rank frequencies (e.g., Conner et al.,
2011; Lee & Lee, 2020; Miller, 2018; Son & Lee, 2020). Interviews by themselves
were semi-structured and based on PTs solving mathematics tasks (Stephens, 2006;
Thanheiser, 2009, 2010; Yanik, 2011); when combined with questionnaires they were
semi-structured and based on following up on questionnaire items or ideas (Ambrose,
2004; Conner et al., 2011; Son & Lee, 2020; Stephens, 2008; Szydlik et al., 2003).
Interviews as well as open written response tasks (Crespo, 2003, Harkness et al., 2007;
Sánchez-Matamoros et al., 2015; 2019; Son, 2013; Thanheiser, 2010; deCallejo &
Zapatera, 2017; Harkness & Thomas, 2008; Morris, 2006; Star & Strickland, 2008,
Stockero, 2008) were generally analyzed through coding to produce themes or cate-
gories. Tests, which dealt with mathematics content, used scoring schemes that indi-
cated the level of correctness or error in participants’ responses (e.g., Lin et al.,
2013; Lovin et al., 2018; Norton, 2019; Osana & Royea, 2011; You & Quinn, 2010).
While Medley (1987) suggested more use of technology in analysis, this was not
Pre-existing Mathematics Teacher Characteristics 49

reflected in the studies because of the shift to more qualitative approaches or quan-
titative approaches with small sample sizes that did not necessarily require complex
statistical analysis.

4.3 Summary of Evolution of PMTC Research

Overall, consideration of the scope and the methodological factors of the studies on
PMTC for the period 2000–2020 indicated that there were both growth and limitations
or gaps in research on PTs’ PMTC at the point of entry in MTE. There was evolution
in the scope of research in terms of the extent of the types of PMTC researched
and the extent to which PMTC were addressed by the studies. For example, while
the mathematical knowledge and skills category of PMTC received the most atten-
tion in the studies, suggesting ongoing interest in content-related characteristics, a
significant shift was the pedagogical skills category regarding studies on noticing
and interpreting students’ work and thinking that was the largest group of studies for
the three categories of PMTC (Table 1).
There was also evolution of aspects of methodology based on Medley’s (1987) four
factors of the conceptualization, instrumentation, design, and analysis. For example,
conceptualization of PMTC evolved to reflect contemporary perspectives of teaching
and learning mathematics. There was a shift in instrumentation from a focus on
surveys with large samples in early studies to a variety of tools, used alone or in
different combinations. There was growth in design regarding the use of school chil-
dren’s work and of videos on teaching as bases of obtaining pedagogical-related data.
The analysis also shifted from mainly statistical approaches to including qualitative
approaches particularly for interviews and written responses. Limitations and gaps
in the evolution of the research on PMTC are addressed in the following section in
relation to what needs to be considered in future research.

5 Future Evolution of Research on PMTC

Future evolution of research on PMTC refers to what should be considered to move

the field forward in this area. Medley (1987) indicated that the methodological factors
of conceptualization, instrumentation, design, and analysis should also be used in
considering the future evolution of research on teaching, which includes research on
PMTC. Consistent with the preceding section, the scope of research is also relevant.
The preceding discussion of evolution on research on PMTC in the period 2000–
2020 indicated that there were limitations or lack of attention regarding scope and
methodological factors, which suggest areas that need attention to support future
evolution of research on PMTC. The following summary highlights the key areas
that future research should consider.
50 O. Chapman

Regarding scope, much more attention is needed on research of PMTC for PTs at
the point of entry into a teacher education program as opposed to other points during
the program, which could be affected by confounding factors associated with their
experience in the program in general. There also needs to be more scope and depth
of the types of PMTC researched within and beyond the categories of mathematical
content and skills, pedagogical knowledge, and beliefs. There are other aspects of
PTs’ mathematical abilities, knowledge, and attitudes, as well as aptitude for teaching
that are important to understand PTs and their PMTC at point of entry MTE. One area
the studies in 2000–2020 were particularly lacking in addressing, that needs future
consideration, was affective factors such as PTs’ attitudes and what they value. For
example, do they value collaboration, know how to connect and form collaborative
groups, have the skills needed to create an environment of working with others?
As Blanton (2002) also asked, do they value discourse as an active process in which
students use the collective knowledge of a group to build understanding (i.e., dialogic
discourse)? What is their level of competence to reflect and to be curious? In addition,
as Strutchens et al. (2017) also suggested, there is a need to consider the various
identities that PTs have prior to their participation in preservice education.
Another area not attended to, but that is of significance in the context of the
current digital age and twenty-first century society and in need of future attention,
is the impact of technology and culture on the PTs’ PMTC at the point of entry into
MTE. Both are important to the nature of PTs’ PMTC and culture, in particular,
to their developing mathematical identity. Finally, regarding beliefs, the scope was
limited to types of beliefs but future attention could also be given to PTs’ ability to
reflect on them.
Regarding conceptualization, more attention is needed to conceptualize PMTC
in relation to teacher education, for example, regarding the types and nature of PTs’
PMTC on entering teacher education that are consistent with the role of the teacher
education program or are most needed to support the PTs’ learning in the program.
In addition, PMTC should be conceptualized in relation to technology and culture
regarding specific characteristics of the latter that influence the nature of the PMTC.
Regarding instrumentation, design, and analysis, the future evolution will depend
on the scope and characterization of future studies on PMTC. Some considerations
are: designing studies with the sole aim of exploring PMTC at point of entry to MTE,
which may also require different or “better instruments” (Medley, 1987) and analysis;
designing studies that are more humanistic in focusing on what PTs’ know and can
do based on their PMTC, which could be more practical when using convenient
samples and qualitative instruments; and the use of more rigorous mixed methods
research design with more rigorous statistical analysis and use of technology.
To conclude, overall, the studies suggested that there have been significant changes
in research on teaching with a focus on the Type F variable regarding PMTC of
candidates MTE. But ongoing work is necessary for this area of research given its
importance to understanding the selection of teacher candidates, the mathematics
teacher, teaching of mathematics, and teacher education. Since PMTC at the point
of entry are important starting points of PTs’ formal education to become a teacher,
Pre-existing Mathematics Teacher Characteristics 51

then more attention is needed to understand these PMTC and how to work with them
in mathematics teacher education.

References

Ambrose, R. (2004). Initiating change in prospective elementary school teachers’ orientations to

mathematics teaching by building on beliefs. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 7,
91–119.
Artzt, A. F., & Curcio, F. R. (2008). Recruiting and retaining secondary mathematics teachers:
Lessons learned from an innovative four-year undergraduate program. Journal of Mathematics
Teacher Education, 11, 243–251.
Baeka, J. M., Wickstromb, M. H., Tobias, J. M., Miller, A. L., Safakc, E., Wessman-Enzinger, N., &
Kirwane, J. V. (2017). Preservice teachers’ pictorial strategies for a multistep multiplicative
fraction problem. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 45, 1–14.
Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it
special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389–407.
Beswick, K. (2012). Teachers’ beliefs about school mathematics and mathematicians’ mathematics
and their relationship to practice. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 79(1), 127–147.
Blanton, M. L. (2002). Using an undergraduate geometry course to challenge pre-service teachers’
notions of discourse. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 5, 117–152.
Bolden, D. S., Harries, T. V., & Newton, D. P. (2010). Pre-service primary teachers’ conceptions of
creativity in mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 73, 143–157.
Callejo, M. L., & Zapatera, A. (2017). Prospective primary teachers’ noticing of students’
understanding of pattern generalization. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 20,
309–333.
Conner, A. M., Edenfield, K. W., Gleason, B. W., & Ersoz, F. A. (2011). Impact of a content and
methods course sequence on prospective secondary mathematics teachers’ beliefs. Journal of
Mathematics Teacher Education, 14, 483–504.
Crespo, S. (2000). Seeing more than right and wrong answers: Prospective teachers’ interpretations
of students’ mathematical work. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 3, 155–181.
Crespo, S. (2003). Learning to pose mathematical problems: Exploring changes in preservice
teachers’ practices. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 52, 243–270.
Crespo, S., & Sinclair, N. (2008). What makes a problem mathematically interesting? Inviting
prospective teachers to pose better problems. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 11,
395–415.
Dreher, A., Kuntze, S., & Lerman, S. (2016). Why use multiple representations in the mathematics
classroom? Views of English and German preservice teachers. International Journal of Science
and Mathematics Education, 14(Suppl 2), S363–S382.
Ernest, P. (1989). The impact on beliefs on the teaching of mathematics. In P. Ernest (Ed.),
Mathematics teaching: The state of the art (pp. 249–254). Falmer Press.
Gay, G. (2010). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.). Teachers
College Press.
Greer, B., Mukhopadhyay, S., Powell, A. B., & Nelson-Barber, S. (Eds.). (2009). Culturally
responsive mathematics education. Routledge.
Harkness, S. S., D’ambrosio, B., & Morrone, A. S. (2007). Preservice elementary teachers’
voices describe how their teacher motivated them to do mathematics. Educational Studies in
Mathematics, 65, 235–254.
Harkness, S. S., & Thomas, J. (2008). Reflections on “Multiplication as Original Sin”: The impli-
cations of using a case to help preservice teachers understand invented algorithms. Journal of
Mathematical Behavior, 27, 128–137.
52 O. Chapman

Hohensee, C. (2017). Preparing elementary prospective teachers to teach early algebra. Journal of
Mathematics Teacher Education, 20, 231–257.
Kaasila, R., Pehkonen, E., & Hellinen, A. (2010). Finnish pre-service teachers’ and upper secondary
students’ understanding of division and reasoning strategies used. Educational Studies in
Mathematics, 73(3), 247–261.
Kilpatrick, J., Swafford, J., & Findell, B. (Eds.). (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn
mathematics. National Academy Press.
Leatham, K. R. (2007). Pre-service secondary mathematics teachers’ beliefs about the nature of tech-
nology in the classroom. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education,
7(2/3), 183–207.
Lee, J., & Lee, M. Y. (2020). Preservice teachers_exploration of model breaking points.
International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 18, 549–565.
Lin, C., Becker, J., Ko, Y., & Byun, M. (2013). Enhancing pre-service teachers’ fraction knowledge
through open approach instruction. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 32, 309–330.
Lovin, L. H., Stevens, A. L., Siegfried, J., Wilkins, J. L. M., & Norton, A. (2018). Pre-K-8 prospective
teachers’ understanding of fractions: An extension of fractions schemes and operations research.
Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 21, 207–235.
Magiera, M., van der Kieboom, L., & Moyer, J. (2013). An exploratory study of pre-service middle
school teachers’ knowledge of algebraic thinking. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 84(1),
93–113.
Manizade, A. G., Buchholtz, N., & Beswick, K. (Eds.) (this volume). The Evolution of Research
on Teaching Mathematics: International Perspectives in the Digital Era: Introduction. In
Manizade, A. G., Buchholtz, N., & Beswick, K. (Eds.), The Evolution of Research on Teaching
Mathematics: International Perspectives in the Digital Era (pp. PP–PPP). Springer.
Mason, J., Burton, L., & Stacey, K. (2010). Thinking mathematically (2nd ed.). Pearson.
Medley, D. M. (1987). Evolution of research on teaching. In M. M. Dunkin (Ed.), The international
encyclopedia of teaching and teacher education (pp. 105–113). Pergamon.
Miller, S. M. (2018). An analysis of the form and content of quadrilateral definitions composed by
novice pre-service teachers. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 50, 142–154.
Morris, A. K. (2006). Assessing pre-service teachers’ skills for analyzing teaching. Journal of
Mathematics Teacher Education, 9, 471–505.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1991). Professional standards for teaching
mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school
mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2011). Strategic use of technology in teaching and
learning mathematics. https://www.nctm.org/Standards-and-Positions/Position-Statements/
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2014). Principles to actions. Reston, VA: Author.
Newton, K. J. (2008). An extensive analysis of preservice elementary teachers’ knowledge of
fractions. American Educational Research Journal, 45(4), 1080–1110.
Newton, K. J. (2009). Instructional practices related to prospective elementary school teachers’
motivation for fractions. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 12, 89–109.
Norton, S. (2019). The relationship between mathematical content knowledge and mathemat-
ical pedagogical content knowledge of prospective primary teachers. Journal of Mathematics
Teacher Education, 22, 489–514.
Osana, H. P., Lacroix, G. L., Tucker, B. J., & Desrosiers, C. (2006). The role of content knowledge
and problem features on preservice teachers’ appraisal of elementary mathematics tasks. Journal
of Mathematics Teacher Education, 9, 347–380.
Osana, H. P., & Rogea, D. A. (2011). Obstacles and challenges in preservice teachers’ explorations
with fractions: A view from a small-scale intervention study. Journal of Mathematical Behavior,
30, 333–352.
Pre-existing Mathematics Teacher Characteristics 53

Pomerantsev, L., & Korosteleva, O. (2003). Do prospective elementary and middle school teachers
understand the structure of algebraic expressions? Issues in the undergraduate mathematics
preparation of school teachers (pp. 1–10).
Presmeg, N. (2007). The role of culture in teaching and learning mathematics. In F. K. Lester (Ed.),
Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 435–458). Information
Age Publishing through the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Richardson, K., Berenson, S., & Staley, K. (2009). Prospective elementary teachers’ use of
representation to reason algebraically. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 28(2), 188–199.
Rizvi, N. F. (2004). Prospective teachers’ ability to pose word problems. International Journal for
Mathematics Teaching and Learning, 1–22.
Sánchez-Matamoros, G., Fernández, C., & Llinares, S. (2015). Developing pre-service teachers’
noticing of students’ understanding of the derivative concept. International Journal of Science
and Mathematics Education, 13, 1305–1329.
Sánchez-Matamoros, G., Fernández, C., & Llinares, S. (2019). Relationships among prospective
secondary mathematics teachers’ skills of attending, interpreting and responding to students’
understanding. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 100, 83–99.
Schmidt, W. H., Houang, R. T., & Cogan, L. S. (2012). Preparing primary teachers in the United
States: Balancing selection and preparation. ZDM, 44, 265–276. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11
858-011-0372-z
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1992). Learning to think mathematically: Problem solving, metacognition and
sense making in mathematics. In D. Grows (Ed.), Handbook for research on mathematics
teaching and learning (pp. 334–370). Macmillan.
Shilling-Traina, L. N., & Stylianides, G. J. (2013). Impacting prospective teachers’ beliefs about
mathematics. ZDM, 45, 393–407.
Shin, D. (2020). Prospective mathematics teachers’ professional noticing of students’ reasoning
about mean and variability. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology
Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42330-020-00091-w
Simpson, A., & Haltwanger, L. (2017). ‘“This is the First Time I’ve Done This”’: Exploring
secondary prospective mathematics teachers’ noticing of students’ mathematical thinking.
Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 20, 335–355.
Son, J. (2013). How preservice teachers interpret and respond to student errors: Ratio and proportion
in similar rectangles. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 84, 49–70.
Son, J., & Lee, M. Y. (2020). Exploring the relationship between preservice teachers_conceptions
of problem solving and their problem-solving performances. International Journal of Science
and Mathematics Education, online.
Star, J. R., & Strickland, S. K. (2008). Learning to observe: Using video to improve preservice
mathematics teachers’ ability to notice. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 11, 107–125.
Stephens, A. C. (2006). Equivalence and relational thinking: Preservice elementary teachers’
awareness of opportunities and misconceptions. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education,
9, 249–278.
Stephens, A. C. (2008). What “counts” as algebra in the eyes of preservice elementary teachers?
Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 27, 33–47.
Stockero, S. L. (2008). Using a video-based curriculum to develop a reflective stance in prospective
mathematics teachers. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 11, 373–394.
Stohlmann, M., Cramer, K., Moore, T., & Maiorca, C. (2014/2015). Changing pre-service elemen-
tary teachers’ beliefs about mathematical knowledge. Mathematics Teacher Education and
Development, 16(2), 4-24.
Strutchens, M. E., Huang, R. Losano, L., Potari, D., da Ponte, J. P., de Costa Trindade Cyrino,
M. C., & Zbiek, R. M. (2017). The mathematics education of prospective secondary teachers
around the world. Springer Open.
Superfine, A. C., Amador, J., & Bragelman, J. (2019). Facilitating video-based discussions to support
prospective teacher noticing. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 54, 1–18.
54 O. Chapman

Szydlik, J. E., Szydlik, S. D., & Benson, S. R. (2003). Exploring changes in pre-service elementary
teachers’ mathematical beliefs. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 6, 253–279.
Taylor, S. V., & Sobel, D. M. (2011). Culturally responsive pedagogy: Teaching like our students’
lives matter (4th ed.). Emerald Group.
Thanheiser, E. (2009). Preservice elementary school teachers’ conceptions of multidigit whole
numbers. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 40(3), 251–281.
Thanheiser, E. (2010). Investigating further preservice teachers’ conceptions of multidigit whole
numbers: Refining a framework. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 75(3), 241–251.
Tirosh, D. (2000). Enhancing prospective teachers’ knowledge of children’s conceptions: The case
of division of fractions. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 31(1), 5–25.
Wachira, P., Keengwe, J., & Onchwari, G. (2008). Mathematics preservice teachers’ beliefs and
conceptions of appropriate technology use. Association for the Advancement of Computing in
Education Journal, 16(3), 293–306.
Weldeana, H. N., & Abraham, S. T. (2014). The effect of an historical perspective on prospective
teachers’ beliefs in learning mathematics. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 17, 303–
330.
Whitacre, I., & Nickerson, S. D. (2016). Prospective elementary teachers making sense of multidigit
multiplication: Leveraging resources. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 47(3),
270–307.
Williams, S., & Leatham, K. R. (2017). Journal quality in mathematics education. Journal for
Research in Mathematics Education, 48(4), 369–396.
Yanik, H. B. (2011). Prospective middle school mathematics teachers’ preconceptions of geometric
translations. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 78, 231–260.
You, Z., & Quinn, R. J. (2010). Prospective elementary and middle school teachers’ knowledge of
linear functions: A quantitative approach. Journal of Mathematics Education, 3, 66–76.

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate
credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and
indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative
Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by
statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder.
The Evolution of Research
on Mathematics Teachers’ Competencies,
Knowledge and Skills

Nils Buchholtz , Gabriele Kaiser , and Björn Schwarz

1 Introduction

What characterizes competent mathematics teachers, what types of knowledge do

they need in order to be able to teach successfully, and what skills do they draw
upon for successful teaching? These questions have long concerned mathematics
education research, teacher education and educational policy. The NCTM standards
(2000), for example, refer specifically to teacher knowledge as a ground to start
from, stating that “[t]eachers must know and understand deeply the mathematics
they are teaching and be able to draw on that knowledge with flexibility in their
teaching tasks” (p. 17). Teachers need not only sufficient disciplinary mathematical
knowledge and knowledge of the school subject (Bromme, 1994). As Shulman (1986,
1987) argues, teachers need a specialized knowledge base for teaching that is different
from pure mathematical knowledge and that differs from other professions, thus
coining the term of pedagogical content knowledge. However, to determine what
teachers should know, what other aspects constitute teacher competencies, and to
specify how teachers acquire these in teacher education, as well as how teachers use
their skills and act competently in practical situations in teaching is not an easy task.
Teacher competencies are also related to underlying beliefs about the role of teachers

N. Buchholtz
University of Oslo, Moltke Moes vei 35, 0851 Oslo, Norway
N. Buchholtz (B) · G. Kaiser
University of Hamburg, Von-Melle-Park 8, 20146 Hamburg, Germany
e-mail: [email protected]
G. Kaiser
e-mail: [email protected]
B. Schwarz
Faculty II, Mathematics, University of Vechta, Driverstraße 22, 49377 Vechta, Germany
e-mail: [email protected]

© The Author(s) 2023 55

A. Manizade et al. (eds.), The Evolution of Research on Teaching Mathematics,
Mathematics Education in the Digital Era 22,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-31193-2_3
56 N. Buchholtz et al.

and the teaching profession, which are culturally shaped. All these entities are subject
to change over time and are continually evolving. For example, further challenges
arise over time as new demands emerge in the context of teachers’ professional
practice—such as the increasing integration of technology and digitization, which
also require thinking about additional necessary teacher competencies.
In the framework of presage-process–product research underlying this volume
(see Chap. 1), Medley (1987) names the facet of teacher competence (Type E) as a
central variable within the research on teaching, which he understands as the “knowl-
edges [note: plural!], skills, and values which a teacher possesses” (p. 105) and which
he considers being “the tools of teaching” (ibid.). Teacher competence has thus an
impact on student learning (the outcome of teaching), as it enables teachers to teach
successfully and competently in classroom situations. However, it becomes clear that
in order to be able to assess this effect, additional mediating variables should be taken
into account as good as possible (see Chap. 2). For example, pre- and post-active
teacher activities (Type D), such as planning, assessment, reflection and out-of-
class activities of mathematics teaching (see Chap. 3) and interactive mathematics
teacher activities (Type C), that take place when in the presence of the students (see
Chap. 4). Yet, teacher competencies play a central role in the quality of instruction.1
Characterized by a cognitivist and individualist perspective, what most research on
teacher competence today seem to agree on is that teachers’ professional knowledge
is central within teacher competence and is considered an essential component of the
job-specific prerequisites for successful classroom action. It represents an important
cognitive resource for interpreting classroom situations and generating informed
decisions for actions needed for successful and competent teaching (Baumert &
Kunter, 2006; Gitomer & Zisk, 2015; Guerriero, 2017).
Since the beginning of presage-process–product research, and based on theoretical
reflections on a subject-specific characterization of teacher cognitions in teaching,
which were initiated in the U.S. in the late 1980s, the question of the theoretical
conceptualization and empirically examination of teachers’ professional knowledge
has become increasingly important (e.g. Carpenter & Fennema, 1992; Carpenter
et al., 1988, 1989; Fennema et al., 1996; Neubrand, 2018; Petrou & Goulding,
2011; Rowland, 2014). The research initially sought to identify and isolate more
general variables of successful teaching, but has since taken somewhat different
forms. Presage-process–product research meanwhile is transitioned into the content-
dependent, more situation-specific study of teachers’ professional knowledge and its
implications for the quality of mathematics instruction. In recent years, a new branch
of research on the theoretical description and empirical measurement of professional
knowledge of mathematics teachers has become firmly established in the interna-
tional mathematics education research discipline (a.o. Ball et al., 2008; Baumert
et al., 2010; Buchholtz et al., 2014; Carrillo-Yañez et al., 2018; Davis & Simmt,
2006; Even & Ball, 2009; Hill et al., 2004, 2008a, 2008b; Kaiser et al., 2014, 2017;

1 For further student-related variables as well as external and internal context variables that play a
role in the relation of teacher competence and student outcome see Chapter 1 and the other Chapters
in this volume.
The Evolution of Research on Mathematics Teachers’ Competencies, … 57

Krauss et al., 2008; Kunter et al., 2013; Lindmeier, 2011; Manizade & Martinovic,
2016; Manizade & Mason, 2011; Rowland & Ruthven, 2011; Scheiner et al., 2019).
However, this work already builds on research approaches that have developed over
the past 30 years, as we will show in this chapter.
On the theoretical level, following the seminal work of Shulman (1986, 1987),
different dimensions of knowledge are often distinguished in the study of teachers’
professional knowledge, depending on assumed aspects of content, referring to the so-
called domain specificity. This classification of teachers’ professional knowledge has
also been used in large-scale international comparative studies of the effectiveness of
teacher education programs, such as TEDS-M 2008 (Blömeke et al., 2014a, 2014b;
Tatto et al., 2012) and its predecessor study MT21 (Schmidt et al., 2007, 2011).
Despite the abundance of studies in this area, however, there is still no agreement
on a unified theoretical conceptualization because different conceptualizations are
based on different domains attributed to teachers’ professional knowledge, differ in
their theoretical assumptions, and also have different grain-size of the knowledge
elements considered (Even, et al., 2017; Neubrand, 2018).
However, the complexity of the construct of professional knowledge in contem-
porary research on Type E has not only increased as a result of different theoretical
conceptualizations, but also because of the question of the extent to which it is
situationally available in school practice as a cognitive prerequisite ‘in the head of
a teacher’ in the form of requirements-related knowledge and skills. When such
knowledge is operationalized and measured context-independently for empirical
studies (for example in psychometric scalable knowledge tests), research to date
showed mixed results as to whether or not it is possible to separate different knowl-
edge domains empirically (Bednarz & Proulx, 2009; Buchholtz et al., 2014; Char-
alambous et al., 2019; Depaepe et al., 2013). Current discourses within research on
teaching, however, put up for discussing the extent to which a context-independent
investigation of teachers’ professional knowledge seems to be useful at all. Thus,
on various occasions, the importance of approaches that allow for a more situation-
specific measurement of teachers’ cognitive processes in teaching has been pointed
out to strengthen the contextual study of teacher competence (e.g., Kaiser et al.,
2015; Shavelson, 2010). Since then, scholarly advancements in the last decade
have consisted in the differentiation of the current conceptualizations for teaching
mathematics according to the theoretically-sound and empirically-based integra-
tion of action-oriented knowledge facets (Blömeke et al., 2015; Kaiser et al., 2017;
Neubrand, 2018). Among other things, this has led to current mathematics educa-
tion research approaches to the study of teacher competencies, such as the Knowl-
edge Quartet (Rowland, 2008a; b), Lindmeier’s action-based competence approach
(Lindmeier, 2011; Lindmeier et al., 2020), and the German TEDS research program
(Kaiser & König, 2019). These research approaches focus more on the situational
manifestation of professional knowledge and its relation to perceived instructional
quality (Even et al., 2017). At the same time, however, the call for a situation-
embedded study of knowledge is countered by the fact that the more contextually
knowledge is analyzed in studies, the even more difficult it becomes to empirically
58 N. Buchholtz et al.

distinguish knowledge from other factors such as teacher personality or affective

variables (Even et al., 2017).
Newer challenges in the description and study of teachers’ professional knowledge
are also posed by the ever-changing demands of professional practice, which have
increased significantly since the late 1980s so there is a constant need to rethink
what specialized teacher competencies are needed for successful teaching. Medley
(1987) identifies this as a distinct branch of research in teacher competence (Type
E and Type D research, p. 111), which is normatively oriented and includes both
preactive teacher behaviors like planning or evaluating as well as situational aspects
of competence. For example, current topics in research on teaching include the study
of teachers’ diagnostic skills. These are becoming increasingly important because of
the need to deal with an ever-increasing linguistic and cultural diversity of students in
the classroom due to transnationalization processes and multiple cultural attributions.
Furthermore, novel challenges concerning competencies in the use of technology and
digital media in mathematics teaching and dealing with the challenges of digitization
play a role (e.g., Mishra & Koehler, 2006) as well as skills and attitudes for achieving
equity and educational justice in mathematics classrooms (Schoenfeld et al., 2019).
This chapter provides an overview of the most important developments in the field
of describing professional competencies of mathematics teachers, especially taking
up the perspective of the development of research over time since Medley’s (1987)
reflections. However, this overview chapter does not follow the criteria of a system-
atic review; rather, we provide a narrative review (Snyder, 2019) to give as good
and comprehensive as possible an overview on the progress of the research in the
field. As a result, however, the perspective is inevitably subjective, and not all work
is included. First, we will discuss the development of research on teacher compe-
tencies, knowledge and skills over time, before discussing various facets of teacher
competencies and teacher professional knowledge separately in Sect. 2. Section 3
deals with the different conceptualization and operationalization of teacher compe-
tencies in key studies and research programs and the further development of research
towards the consideration of situational aspects. We conclude the chapter with an
outlook on the further development of Type E research and a summary reflection.

2 Evolution of Research on Teacher Competencies,

Knowledge and Skills

Research on teachers’ competencies, knowledge and skills has been influenced by

different research directions over time. To be able to chronologically situate the
developments and to describe the further developments in terms of thematic content, it
is necessary to reflect on the underlying paradigms of research on teaching. Research
on the teaching profession has undergone several paradigm shifts since the 1960s,
changing the underlying theories and the research approaches used. In the process,
existing paradigms were critically examined for weaknesses and further developed
The Evolution of Research on Mathematics Teachers’ Competencies, … 59

so that today’s research on teacher competencies, knowledge and skills is based

on different paradigmatic approaches which have complementary strengths and set
different accents.
The so-called personality paradigm or traits paradigm, which prevailed until about
the 1960s, attempted to attribute the pedagogical effectiveness of teachers’ actions
to measured personality traits (e.g., patience or emotional stability). However, the
paradigm had its weaknesses in that it was unable to explain how these character-
istics impact different classroom situations (Bromme, 2001). Since its research has
produced few or only trivial results on the relationship between teacher action and
learning success, the paradigm is not considered very fruitful today.
Originating in teacher effectiveness research, Medley’s reflections on directly
detectable relationships between different variables in the chain of effects (Medley,
1987) on the outcomes of teaching can be assigned to the presage-process–product
paradigm, which took over from the 1960s when research on teaching became more
systematic and empirical. This research paradigm questions what effects certain
characteristics of teachers have on the desired learning outcomes of their students,
assuming stable behavior (Floden, 2001).
In the past, researchers following this paradigm deliberately did not examine
teachers’ cognitions, but rather behavioral features that are easy to control and
observe, e.g., the number and level of questions asked, the waiting time after ques-
tions, or the frequency of feedback on students’ responses (e.g., Gage & Needels,
1989). An assumption of many studies was that effective teaching practices were
domain-general, and researchers could look across teaching in different domains
and make generalizations about what teaching expertise looked like overall (Russ
et al., 2011). The assumption of the paradigm, that a teacher’s behavior exerted a
direct influence on student’s learning experienced significant criticism in later years,
in part because the focus in observing teachers in some studies tended to be only on
isolated surface characteristics and did not look at more complex structures of instruc-
tional quality (e.g., deep structures rather than surface structures) or the combination
of multiple variables, including those of Types E and F2 (Bromme, 2001). It further
became clear that the impact of specific teacher actions depended on the context and
the learner much more than assumed and findings on teacher behavior were not as
transferable to the realities of different classrooms as one had hoped for (Weinert
et al., 1989). However, back in the 1980’s, researchers only had access to different
(less advanced) research tools (e.g., compared to today’s multilevel structure equa-
tion modelling), and considered different evidence in their work. One outcome of
the criticism was the programmatic remodelling of the paradigm, basically in the
expert paradigm (Ornstein, 1995). But presage-process–product research neverthe-
less continued to evolve. An important aspect of presage-process–product research
that continues to shape research on the teaching profession today is the holistic
approach that seeks to make connections between teacher behavior and student

2 This criticism does not undermine the overall framework developed by Medley in general, as it
is open to the conceptualization of the variables studied and also takes into account corresponding
contextual variables.
60 N. Buchholtz et al.

learning in particular ways. It thus identifies relevant variables for successful teaching
as shown in recent meta-analyses on the effectiveness of teaching (Hattie, 2009;
Seidel & Shavelson, 2007). The presage-process–product paradigm thus continues
to influence research on instructional quality today and has established its standards.
Based on findings from cognitive psychology research, since the mid-1980s the
individual cognitions of the teacher had become the focus of interest in research on the
teaching profession. This approach was initially promising in that it was hoped that
an understanding of the teacher’s thinking would provide insight into why teachers
behaved in certain ways in the classroom. Again, however, the focus was in the
beginning on cross-domain, rather than initially subject-specific, approaches (Russ
et al., 2011). This changed mainly due to the growing influence of the research
program “Knowledge Growth in Teaching” by Lee Shulman (Shulman, 1986, 1987)
and the work of his research group at Stanford University. Shulman pointed out the
importance of subject matter in the study of teacher knowledge. In his famous Pres-
idential Address at the 1985 annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association and the article published in 1986, Shulman cautioned against teacher
effectiveness evaluations at the time that focused purely on generic teacher behav-
iors (such as orientation to simple rules like appropriate waiting times on student
responses). He proposed a classification of teachers’ professional knowledge that
accounted for subject-specific viewpoints and, he saw subject matter knowledge as
central to the pedagogical preparation and accessibility of subject content in the
classroom. The most important consideration for the research on teacher cogni-
tions at that time was his postulation of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK),
which differs from the knowledge required by other professions, such as mathemati-
cians. PCK is specifically oriented towards teaching and includes knowledge about
different student cognitions and teaching approaches. “Within the category of peda-
gogical content knowledge I include, for the most regularly taught topics in one’s
subject area, the most useful forms of representation of those ideas, the most powerful
analogies, illustrations, examples, explanations, and demonstrations—in a word, the
ways of representing and formulating the subject that make it comprehensible to
others” (Shulman, 1986, p. 9). Shulman himself did not aim for the development of
a catalog of corresponding knowledge content but specified his idea of PCK in his
article published the following year, “Knowledge and Teaching: Foundations of the
New Reform” (Shulman, 1987) as a “specific amalgam” of knowledge about subject
content and pedagogy, which focuses on subject representations and concepts of
understanding as well as misconceptions. Shulman (1987, p. 8) distinguishes various
forms of knowledge in his typology of professional knowledge:
• Content knowledge,
• General pedagogical knowledge (strategies of classroom management and orga-
nization),
• Curricular knowledge (including materials that serve as “tools of the trade” for
teachers),
The Evolution of Research on Mathematics Teachers’ Competencies, … 61

• Pedagogical content knowledge, a special “amalgam” of subject content and

pedagogy that is found exclusively among teachers and forms the basis of their
professional understanding,
• Knowledge of learners and their characteristics,
• Knowledge of educational contexts (e.g., about working of groups, administration
and funding of school districts, or the character of communities and cultures),
• Knowledge of educational goals and values and their philosophical and historical
grounds.
Later on, pedagogical knowledge, content knowledge, and pedagogical content
knowledge had a great impact in terms of the theoretical design of research studies
on teachers’ professional knowledge.
According to Shulman, teachers must transform subject content into pedagog-
ical forms such as examples, illustrations, and classroom tasks that make the content
accessible to learners. This transformation of subject matter into pedagogically effec-
tive forms of learning is understood as the central intellectual task of the teacher and
has become the defining characteristic of pedagogical content knowledge (Deng,
2007a, 2007b). Thus, for Shulman, PCK means the integration of subject matter
knowledge and pedagogical knowledge that enables teachers to translate subject
matter knowledge into pedagogically effective forms of presentation that match
learners’ abilities and interests. Shulman’s work, however, did not go uncriticized and
the criticism led to further developments in research on teacher knowledge. Among
other things, it was noted that Shulman had a static understanding of knowledge as
something that could be acquired and applied regardless of the complexity of the
instructional context, and that the idea of “transforming” or “translating” subject
matter into pedagogical forms amounted to a routine, mechanistic transmission of
a fixed canon of knowledge. Shulman’s critics objected that mathematical knowl-
edge itself could also be assumed to be multidimensional and dynamic in nature,
from which it follows that teachers’ knowledge is characterized by its “interactive
and dynamic nature” (Fennema & Franke, 1992, p. 162). Other scholars adopted this
dynamic view of knowledge, essentially viewing it as physically and socially situated
in the act of teaching in a particular context (Bednarz & Proulx, 2009; Döhrmann
et al., 2018; Meredith, 1995).
This situatedness of teachers’ cognitions was taken up by the so-called expert
paradigm. The presage-process–product research at that time looked more for the
general abilities and skills of teachers and was less concerned with the question of
whether these individual bundles of behaviors could actually be found in a person in
reality. The expert paradigm focused on the successful teacher “as a whole” (Bromme,
2001; Schön, 1983), and the focus henceforth was on teachers’ knowledge and skills.
Central to this development was the work of Berliner (2001), for example, in which he
calls the teacher an ‘expert teacher’ and speaks of ‘teaching expertise’. According to
the expert paradigm, teachers are called experts because they can successfully manage
a very specialized, complex task such as school teaching. Expertise is manifested,
for example, in the immediacy of action expected of a responsible teacher in his
or her teaching and the resulting time pressure of acting as well as in acting under
62 N. Buchholtz et al.

information deficit concerning the current situation, the complexity and dynamics
of which are continuously changing due to the students’ behavior. In this context,
teachers draw on specific knowledge and skills, which can be technically described
within the research approach through detailed analyses of requirements—such as
those derived from psychology (e.g., Bromme, 1992, 2008).
A recent further development of the expert paradigm has been the approach of
professional competence of teachers for about twenty years (Kunter et al., 2013). In
this approach, teachers’ knowledge and skills are not only identified using require-
ment analyses in terms of the expertise paradigm but are furthermore complemented
by the examination of personality traits such as motivation and self-regulation. The
concept of competence was introduced into the discussion by Franz Emmanuel
Weinert (1999, 2001) about twenty years ago as part of an influential review of
different definitions of competence in a report prepared for the OECD. In describing
professional action competence, Weinert states:
“The theoretical construct of action competence comprehensively combines those
intellectual abilities, content-specific knowledge, cognitive skills, domain-specific
strategies, routines and subroutines, motivational tendencies, volitional control
systems, personal value orientations, and social behaviors into a complex system.
Together, this system specifies the prerequisites required to fulfill the demands of
a particular professional position, social role, or personal project” (Weinert, 1999,
p. 10). In summary, competence can thus be defined as “the ability to successfully
meet complex demands on a particular context through the mobilization of psychoso-
cial prerequisites (including both cognitive and noncognitive aspects)” (Rychen &
Salganik, 2003, p. 43).
A feature of this definition of competence is that it is first understood as context-
based. Second, in addition to purely cognitive components, it includes affective
components such as volitional, motivational and social readiness to apply the compe-
tence in situations. It should also be noted that there is a distinction between compe-
tence as a general overarching concept, and the distinction between individual compe-
tencies if individual content-related competence facets are meant. According to
this understanding, the professional competence of mathematics teachers consists
of subject-related and subject-overlapping cognitive dispositions—teachers’ profes-
sional knowledge (cf. also Baumert & Kunter, 2006)—as well as additional affective
personality traits like beliefs, motivation or values (Hannula et al., 2019) specifically
for the subject mathematics. These form the basis for mastery of specific situations
that arise in professional demands.
Today’s research on teacher competencies, knowledge, and skills invokes the
different approaches of these paradigms. These are perceived as complementary so
that the boundaries between the different paradigms often fade. For example, the
current approach to professional competence combines the systematic analysis of
teachers’ characteristics and abilities of the presage-process–product paradigm with
the approach of researching teacher cognitions and the approach of looking at certain
characteristics of teachers’ personality, such as motivation and values. Consequently,
Medley’s variables of Type E are still valid as the main units of analyses in research
The Evolution of Research on Mathematics Teachers’ Competencies, … 63

studies, even with today’s advances in research on mathematics teaching and teacher
education.

3 Components of Teachers’ Professional Competencies

Taking into account Shulman’s (1986, 1987) reflections on the professional require-
ments of teachers, which we will discuss in more detail in the next section, the
professional competencies of mathematics teachers and its components.

3.1 Content Knowledge

Teachers need knowledge of relevant facts, concepts, and their relations oriented
to the subject body of knowledge, as well as subject-specific procedures for gener-
ating knowledge and justifying it. This means that teachers of mathematics must
be proficient in mathematics, which can be expressed, for example, by the “five
strands” of mathematical proficiency by Kilpatrick et al. (2001), which are: concep-
tual understanding, procedural fluency, strategic competence, adaptive reasoning,
and productive disposition. The deeper understanding of reasoning also implies that
argumentation and proving is part of the professional knowledge of teachers so
that they are able “to explain why a particular proposition is deemed warranted,
why it is worth knowing, and how it relates to other propositions” (Shulman, 1986,
p. 9). Neubrand et al. (2009) address the connections of teachers’ content knowl-
edge to more general mathematical skills such as explaining, communicating, and
even modeling, and include insights into the history and epistemology of mathe-
matics among the content knowledge of mathematics teachers. Somewhat later than
Shulman, Bromme (1994)—a representative of the expert paradigm—also formu-
lated on this basis the central insight that when describing teachers’ content knowl-
edge, a distinction should be made between the knowledge of the discipline and that
of the school subject, since the school subject has a “life of its own” (p. 74), with its
own body of knowledge and epistemologies. In mathematics education research, this
distinction by Bromme contributed to the identification of professional knowledge of
school mathematics (Deng, 2007a, 2007b), or elementary mathematics from a higher
standpoint in relevant studies (Buchholtz et al., 2013) going back to approaches by
Felix Klein (1908/2016). Dreher et al. (2018), for example, conceptualized this type
of knowledge as so-called school related content knowledge (SRCK).
64 N. Buchholtz et al.

3.2 Pedagogical Content Knowledge

Although Shulman identified two components that are central to PCK, namely knowl-
edge of instructional strategies and representations, and knowledge of students’
(mis)conceptions, he did not specify PCK for mathematics. To describe the subject-
specific PCK for mathematics, it is not sufficient to focus only on mathematical
content, which would neglect cognitive and social preconditions of the learning
processes of students. In terms of content, mathematical pedagogical content knowl-
edge presupposes an understanding of subject knowledge, but central to this is
knowledge of the potential of school subject matter for learning processes (curricula
and syllabi, learning goals and principles), knowledge of subject-related student
cognitions (student ideas and errors, learning prerequisites), and knowledge of
subject-specific instructional strategies (representations, subject-related diagnostics,
performance measurement, and subject-related explanatory and mediation strate-
gies). Subsequently, Shulman’s model has been refined more and more, also in
response to criticism (for an overview, see the systematic review on PCK by Depaepe
et al., 2013). Grossman (1990) for example distinguished four components that are
central to teachers’ PCK: (1) knowledge of students’ understanding, (2) knowledge of
curriculum, (3) knowledge of instructional strategies, and (4) knowledge of purposes
for teaching. Depaepe et al. (2013) even distinguish a total of eight different facets
based on their systematic review: (1) knowledge of students’ (mis)conceptions and
difficulties, (2) knowledge of instructional strategies, (3) knowledge of mathematical
tasks and cognitive demands, (4) knowledge of educational ends, (5) knowledge of
curriculum and media, (6) context knowledge, (7) content knowledge, and (8) peda-
gogical knowledge. A relevant extension of Shulman’s understanding of PCK was
undertaken in the U.S. in the late 2000s in the Learning Mathematics for Teaching
(LMT) project, amongst others, through the formulation of the construct mathemat-
ical knowledge for teaching (MKT) or content knowledge for teaching mathematics
(CKTM) by Ball and colleagues (e.g., Ball et al., 2008; Hill et al., 2004, 2005, 2008a,
2008b), which we will discuss in more detail below.
If one takes a closer look at the relationship between mathematics and pedagogy
within the construct of PCK, however, some aspects can be identified that are more
strongly influenced by the subject, while other aspects are more clearly related to
pedagogy (see also Chick et al., 2006). With respect to a normative description of
the content of the PCK, the perspectives of referring to the scientific discipline of
mathematics education (i.e., mathematics, psychology, educational science, general
didactics), which have been discussed since the 1970s and which continue to shape the
mathematics education discourse today, provide orientation (Buchholtz et al., 2014).
By more subject-related pedagogical content knowledge we can therefore under-
stand primarily mathematical aspects of teaching and learning mathematics. This
includes, for example, knowledge about subject-specific approaches to teaching,
basic ideas, and mental representations of mathematical content, e.g., fractions,
The Evolution of Research on Mathematics Teachers’ Competencies, … 65

percentages, or the concept of derivation, and being able to identify critical mathe-
matical components within concepts that are fundamental for understanding; knowl-
edge about the interconnectedness and interdependence of mathematical concepts (to
establish connections between the different subject areas of mathematics education
and their mathematical backgrounds, connections to other subjects in the sense of
interdisciplinary learning, and connections between mathematical concepts and the
real world (Freudenthal, 1991)); knowledge about fundamental mathematical ideas
and mathematical activities (e.g., abstraction or algorithmic thinking); knowledge
of students’ subject-specific preconcepts and barriers to understanding, as well as
levels of conceptual rigour and formalization (important in analysing and interpreting
student solutions and student questions); knowledge of the role of everyday language
and mathematical language in concept formation; knowledge of subject-motivated
approaches to mathematical content (e.g., different approaches to the concept of
probability; justifications for number range extensions); knowledge about subject-
matter-based diagnostics of student solutions and errors (e.g., student misconcep-
tions; appropriateness of student solutions); as well as knowledge about different
types of tasks (important for using tasks as a starting point for learning processes).
Under more teaching-related pedagogical content knowledge in mathematics,
we can locate perspectives beyond mathematical subject knowledge, which focus
more on educational-psychological areas, but which are constitutive for mathematics
education. These include knowledge about concepts of mathematical education (e.g.,
theoretical concepts of mathematical thinking and general competencies such as
modeling, problem-solving, and reasoning); knowledge about dealing with different
forms of heterogeneity in mathematics education (e.g., the use of different teaching
goals in mathematics education, differentiation, and individualization); knowledge
about dyscalculia, giftedness, and special education support (important for devel-
oping support plans for dyscalculic and gifted learners or inclusive learning groups,
taking into account specific learning requirements); knowledge about forms and
concepts for teaching and learning mathematics in schools (e.g., genetic learning,
discovery learning, dialogical learning, extracurricular learning); knowledge about
educational standards, curricula, and textbooks for the subject of mathematics; and
knowledge about aims and forms of assessment in mathematics education (formative
and summative).
The different requirements for PCK make clear that this knowledge is closely
connected to content knowledge because the teacher consciously must choose
between all the possible representations the subject provides for teaching (Neubrand
et al., 2009). This may be one of the reasons for which there are still mixed findings
of the empirical separation of these different knowledge facets (Charalambous et al.,
2019; Depaepe et al., 2013), depending on respective measures. However, it is also
clear from these lists that there are overlaps with general pedagogical knowledge—
which we describe in the next section, for example in the area of assessment and in
the area of dealing with heterogeneity, and that subject-specific curricular aspects
also play a role (Grossman, 1990), which Shulman (1987) had rather assigned to
general curricular knowledge.
66 N. Buchholtz et al.

3.3 General Pedagogical Knowledge

What kind of general pedagogical knowledge a mathematics teacher should possess is

not an easy question. As König et al. (2011) indicate, the shape of general pedagogy is
strongly influenced by cultural perspectives on the objectives of schooling and on the
role of teachers (Hopmann & Riquarts, 1995). However, König et al. (2011), identify,
based on a literature review, two core tasks: instruction and classroom management.
“Less agreement exists as to what extent and what kind of knowledge about coun-
seling and nurturing students’ social and moral development or knowledge about
school management should also be included in the area of general pedagogy” (König
et al., 2011, p. 189). When it comes to knowledge about effective instruction, theories
of learning, an understanding of the various educational philosophies, and general
knowledge about learners (Grossmann & Richert, 1988) should be added to teachers’
GPK along with knowledge about effective classroom management. By combining
research on the quality of instruction and general didactics based on task analyses,
König and colleagues were able to develop a framework for mathematics teachers’
GPK consisting of four different dimensions of pedagogical knowledge. Thus GPK in
the model of König et al. (2011) comprises knowledge about structures (structuring
of learning objectives, lesson planning and structuring the lesson process, lesson
evaluation), knowledge about motivation, and classroom management (achievement
motivation; strategies to motivate single students or the whole group, strategies to
prevent and counteract interferences, effective use of allocated time and routines).
Furthermore knowledge about adaptivity (strategies of differentiation, use of a wide
range of teaching methods) and knowledge about assessment (assessment types and
functions, evaluation criteria, teacher expectation effects).

3.4 Beliefs

Research on teacher action assumes that the application of professional knowledge in

action situations presupposes corresponding subjective beliefs (Felbrich et al., 2014;
Schmotz et al., 2010). This relation makes the connection between Medleys Type E
and Type F (Chapter 1.1 on pre-existing mathematics teacher characteristics) clear
since pre-service teachers already have initial beliefs about teaching and learning
and about mathematics at the beginning of their studies, which also influences the
acquisition of professional knowledge (Blömeke et al., 2014a, 2014b; Buchholtz,
2017). Beliefs are thought to serve an orienting and action-guiding function for
applying learned knowledge (Schmotz et al., 2010; Schoenfeld, 1998; Thompson,
1992). However, despite intensive research on teachers’ beliefs, especially in the
context of pedagogical-psychological oriented approaches, no precise and selective
definition of the concept of beliefs can be discerned so far (Leder, 2019; Törner,
2002). Philipp (2007) defines beliefs as “the lenses through which one looks when
interpreting the world” (p. 258). Richardson (1996) proposes a domain-unspecific
The Evolution of Research on Mathematics Teachers’ Competencies, … 67

definition of beliefs that are based on a broader understanding. She understands

beliefs to be “psychologically held understandings, premises, or propositions about
the world that are felt to be true” (Richardson, 1996, p. 103). This refers to a person’s
epistemological stands towards an object, which includes affective attitudes and the
readiness to act (cf. Grigutsch et al., 1998) and which, in contrast to knowledge, are
dependent on the degree of individual agreement (Beswick, 2005, 2007). Still beliefs
are seen by many researchers as largely cognitive in nature (Beswick, 2018). So far,
however, it has not been sufficiently clarified to what extend beliefs contain cogni-
tive components, and which components can be identified. With regard to long-term
development of beliefs, however, it can be assumed according to the current state of
research that they are relatively stable with respect to restructuring, and to a certain
extent can act as psychological “filters” and/or “barriers” (Reusser et al., 2011). On
the other hand, however, beliefs can change in teachers’ professional development
(Eichler & Erens, 2015; Swars et al., 2009). For mathematics teachers, despite the
vagueness of the term, there is a broad consensus on the differentiation of profession-
related beliefs (Ernest, 1989). Among others, it is assumed that beliefs can be domain-
specific (Eichler & Erens, 2015; Törner, 2002) or even situation-specific (Kuntze,
2011; Schoenfeld, 2010). With respect to epistemological beliefs about the structure
of mathematics, according to Grigutsch et al. (1998), the emphasis on the formal
aspect of mathematics (formalism aspect) or an orientation towards procedures and
calculation schemes (schema orientation) can be brought to the fore with respect to
static views. With respect to dynamic views, the application aspect and the processual
character of mathematics are mostly emphasized (cf. Grigutsch et al., 1998). In addi-
tion, beliefs about the acquisition of mathematical knowledge or the teaching and
learning of mathematics (Handal, 2003; Kuntze, 2011; Staub & Stern, 2002) repre-
sent another significant dimension of epistemological beliefs. Here, transmission-
oriented beliefs, in which students are viewed as passive recipients of knowledge,
are often distinguished from constructivist-influenced beliefs that endorse the prin-
ciples of constructive learning (Staub & Stern, 2002). Although the question of
how teacher beliefs influence student achievement is far from conclusive, it is likely
that dynamic beliefs about mathematics and constructivist teaching–learning beliefs
are more strongly related to an emphasis on processual, iterative mathematics in
instructional settings (Reusser et al., 2011).

3.5 Motivation and Self-regulation Skills

Motivational research in psychology counts motivation as a personal trait which

refers to the individually varying personal characteristics that constitute the reasons
for and the persistence of human behaviour (Kunter, 2013; Pintrich, 2003; Rhein-
berg, 2006). It serves as an important predictor of how successful people can handle
situational demands that occur in teaching. Thus, motivation and self-regulation are
vital for teachers to succeed in their profession in the long term (Alexander, 2008;
Kunter et al., 2013; Woolfolk Hoy, 2008). The beginnings of research on teacher
68 N. Buchholtz et al.

motivation in the 1970s were still in the study of why people decide to become
teachers (Lortie, 1975). Within presage-process–product research, the motivational
orientation would likely be described as a characteristic of beginning teacher candi-
dates (Type F, Chapter 1.1) and connections would be sought between career choice
motivation at career entry and teachers’ learning outcomes (with the goal of selec-
tive admission to the teaching career). Medley (1987) describes this as Type FE
research (research in teacher selection, p. 111). However, because affective person-
ality traits have (re)entered the professional competence research, contemporary
research on professional teacher competencies examines differences in motivation
and self-efficacy between practicing teachers, such as in the form of intrinsic moti-
vation and enthusiasm for the subject of mathematics and for teaching, and further,
what influence these forms of enthusiasm have on teaching quality and, if applicable,
student achievement (Kunter, 2013). By this, the research goes far beyond Type F
and Type E research. The description of the manageable psychological construct of
self-efficacy by Bandura (1997) in the late 1990s also contributed significantly to this
development. Self-regulatory skills are now also part of many studies of professional
teacher competence, as the teaching profession is believed to have implications for
teacher health and well-being due to its high demands. In order to meet the demanding
challenges over extended periods of time, teachers need to develop self-regulation
skills in order to maintain their occupational commitment over time and to preclude
unfavorable motivational and emotional outcomes (Kunter et al., 2013).

4 Different Conceptualizations of Teacher Knowledge

As knowledge is considered a major component of teacher competencies, we

will focus on recent conceptualizations of mathematics teacher knowledge in the
following. Worldwide, many conceptualizations of professional knowledge are based
on Shulman’s fundamental description, such as in the U.S. the Learning Mathematics
for Teaching project by the research group around Deborah Ball (LMT; cf. Hill
et al., 2008a, 2008b), the study on Mathematics Knowledge in Teaching (Rowland &
Ruthven, 2011) in the U.K., as well as different frameworks in Australia (Beswick &
Chick, 2020; Chick et al., 2006). In Germany, the COACTIV study builds on this
work (Kunter et al., 2013) but also frameworks developed by other researchers (Buch-
holtz et al., 2013; Dreher et al., 2016, 2018). International comparative studies such
as MT21 (Schmidt et al., 2007, 2011) or the Teacher Education and Development
Study in Mathematics (TEDS-M; Blömeke et al., 2014a, 2014b; Tatto, et al., 2012),
also built on this work and investigated teachers’ professional knowledge at the end
of their education with a framework based on Shulman. A more systematic overview
of the description of professional knowledge by teachers can be found, for example,
in the ICMI study by Even and Ball (2009), in the Handbook by Wood et al. (2008),
or in various different publications such as by Cochran-Smith and Zeichner (2005),
Rowland (2014), Neubrand (2018) or Manizade and Orrill (2020). In the following,
The Evolution of Research on Mathematics Teachers’ Competencies, … 69

we describe some of these key frameworks that have been more widely received
internationally.

4.1 Mathematical Knowledge for Teaching (MKT)

A model that has been widely acknowledged and applied internationally is

the Michigan group’s Mathematical Knowledge for Teaching. This approach to
describing and measuring teachers’ professional knowledge consists of developing a
practice-based theory of the mathematical resources entailed by the work of teaching
on the basis of the knowledge facets identified by Shulman. To this end, extensive
observational categories were derived from mathematics tasks and observation of
primary teachers’ practical work with students. Thus, rather than normatively speci-
fying Shulman’s classification in technical terms, the project took, as its starting point,
a requirements analysis that first identified three key responsibilities of teachers. The
requirements were “(1) [t]o provide effective opportunities to learn substantial math-
ematics and treat the mathematics with intellectual integrity (Bruner, 1960); (2) to
be able to hear student thinking, take it seriously, and make it an integral part of the
instruction; and (3) to be committed to the learning of every student, and further to
the learning of the class as an intellectual community” (Ball & Bass, 2009, p. 26).
The goal of the project was initially to empirically study instruction to characterize
the mathematical knowledge necessary “to carry out the work of teaching mathemat-
ics” (Hill et al., 2005, p. 373; Ball & Bass, 2003). In the process, knowledge facets
were also specified in more detail (Ball et al., 2005, 2008), resulting in the develop-
ment of a model of professional knowledge (the MKT model). MKT covers three
categories that relate to teachers’ subject matter knowledge: (1) common content
knowledge (CCK, i.e., mathematical knowledge and skills used in settings other
than teaching), which describes knowledge held in common with professionals in
other mathematically intensive fields; (2) specialized content knowledge (SCK, i.e.,
mathematical knowledge and skills that are unique to the teaching of mathematics);
and (3) horizon content knowledge (HCK, i.e., an awareness of how distinct math-
ematical topics are related to each other), which Bass and Ball (2009) described
as an “elementary perspective on advanced knowledge that equips teachers with a
broader and also more particular vision and orientation for their work” (Bass & Ball,
2009, p. 34). In contrast, there are three categories that can be considered constituent
of teachers’ PCK: (4) knowledge of content and students (KCS, i.e., knowledge
about students’ mathematical thinking or typical student errors); (5) knowledge of
content and teaching (KCT, i.e., knowledge to introduce a new concept or method);
and (6) knowledge of content and curriculum (i.e., knowledge on educational goals,
standards, and grade levels where particular topics are typically taught) (Ball et al.,
2008). Later on, the project developed measures of MKT (Hill et al., 2004) and
used teachers’ scores as a predictor of students’ mathematics achievement. They
found that “teachers’ mathematical knowledge was significantly related to student
achievement gains in both first and third grades […]” (Hill et al., 2005, p. 371).
70 N. Buchholtz et al.

Internationally, the model gained much recognition and was transferred or applied in
many other countries including Ireland, Norway and Indonesia (Blömeke & Delanay,
2012; Delanay et al., 2008; Fauskanger, 2015; Ng et al., 2012). However, although
widely used the model has also been criticized as the empirical differentiation of the
dimensions has not been shown sufficiently and it is not clear whether the model
can be transferred to the secondary level (Speer et al., 2015). Furthermore, its oper-
ationalization for the empirical measurement of teachers’ knowledge and the use of
multiple-choice operationalization items in a respective instrument have been crit-
icized because this operationalization might underestimate the complexity of some
of the knowledge facets (especially those involving students learning and thinking)
(Manizade & Mason, 2011).

4.2 The Knowledge Quartet

Tim Rowland and his colleagues in the United Kingdom took a perspective away
from the empirical testing of teachers’ knowledge that is present in the Michigan
project and other projects. They analyzed videotaped data from classroom obser-
vations and proposed a framework for describing the knowledge the teacher enacts
in the classroom. The aim of their project, which became known as “Knowledge
Quartet”, was to make visible and describe the professional knowledge and beliefs
acquired during training in classroom teaching situations in which this knowledge
becomes visible (Rowland, 2008a, 2008b). Their theoretical framework for the obser-
vation, analysis and development of mathematics teaching has been developed in
the context of primary education, although approaches to transfer to the secondary
level exist (Rowland et al., 2011). The approach of the study followed methods
similar to grounded theory research. The identified theoretical model consisted of
four categories: (1) foundation, which describes the teachers’ knowledge base; (2)
transformation, which includes situations in which knowledge about chosen repre-
sentations, examples, analogies, explanations, etc. is revealed—a category that takes
up the ideas of PCK; (3) connection, which describes situations in which students’
misconceptions are revealed, and the teacher knows about what is ‘hard’ or ‘easy’
to grasp for the students; and finally, (4) contingency, which refers to unexpected,
unplanned moments, i.e. students’ unexpected responses and questions (Rowland
et al., 2005). The framework is now used in several countries by collaborating
colleagues (including Norway, U.K., the U.S., Ireland, Turkey, Italy, Cyprus and
Australia). However, qualitative reconstructive studies with a rather smaller sample
size dominate the study of teacher knowledge here (e.g., Maher et al., 2022; Petrou,
2009).
The Evolution of Research on Mathematics Teachers’ Competencies, … 71

4.3 Modelling Teachers’ Knowledge in Relation to Teaching

Practice

Researcher groups from Australia, Canada and the U.S. developed frameworks for
empirical research on teachers’ knowledge which especially account for the blurri-
ness of Shulmans knowledge domains when it comes to teaching practice. The work
of the Michigan group was criticized for that “the precise way in which they conceive
of knowledge and how aspects of such a conception beyond ‘facts that are known’ is
incorporated in their model is not clear” (Beswick et al., 2012, p.133). Furthermore,
teachers “do not always employ the same sort of knowledge in apparently equivalent
situations, and they draw upon a range of types of knowledge concerning many of
their everyday tasks, moving among them seamlessly and flexibly” (ibid., p.154).
In the work of the Australian researchers Beswick and colleagues, therefore, the
conception of knowledge also includes teachers’ beliefs and confidence as central
components in corresponding frameworks, thus also taking into account affective
competence characteristics in particular, which were thought to be more intertwined
with knowledge facets here than in other frameworks because they have such a
major impact on teachers’ actions in practice (Beswick & Chick, 2020; Beswick
et al., 2012). To investigate the professional knowledge of Tasmanian middle school
teachers in mathematics, a profile framework was developed with eight different
facets. Specifically, the framework refers to teachers’ knowledge and readiness: (1)
to nominate how they would improve middle school students’ mathematical under-
standings and how mathematics might be used to enhance students’ learning more
broadly; (2) to outline a plan for teaching a mathematics concept that they consid-
ered important; and (3) to rate their confidence about developing their students’
understanding of a range of middle school mathematics topics, and their ability to
make connections between mathematics and other curriculum areas. Furthermore
(4) to use of mathematics in everyday life; (5) their beliefs on mathematics teaching
and learning; (6) and to anticipate appropriate and inappropriate responses that their
students might give to mathematics problems and to describe how they could use each
of the items in their classroom. The framework furthermore contains teachers’ back-
ground variables and their perceived professional learning needs (Beswick et al.,
2012). The model developed and operationalized for an empirical study thus acts
as counter to highly analytic models such as MKT. In order to provide evidence-
based insights into how Australian teacher education prepares mathematics teachers
for their professional requirements, empirical studies examined the teacher knowl-
edge of primary and secondary mathematics teacher education students in MCK and
PCK using Rasch-scaled knowledge tests (Beswick & Goos, 2012; Goos, 2013). In
particular, the studies found close empirical relationships between the two knowl-
edge facets. Chick and her colleagues on the other hand developed a framework for
analysing primary teachers’ PCK for teaching decimals (Chick et al., 2006). Their
framework shows especially the blurriness between content knowledge and peda-
gogical knowledge. It entails three categories with a large number of sub-categories
in which pedagogy and content are thought intertwined and set in a mutual context.
72 N. Buchholtz et al.

Their PCK framework contains the knowledge of teaching strategies, knowledge of

students’ thinking, knowledge of representations, knowledge of the cognitive demand
of tasks, knowledge of explanations, as well as resources and the curriculum. Further-
more, a category “content knowledge in a pedagogical context,” covers a profound
understanding of fundamental content, knowledge to deconstruct content to its key
components, an awareness of mathematical structure and connections, as well as
procedural knowledge when for example solving problems or using an algorithm.
The third category of the framework is “pedagogical knowledge in a content context.”
It contains sub-categories of knowledge of the goals of learning, assessment prac-
tices, and classroom techniques that are needed for example when students need to
work in groups. (Beswick & Chick, 2020).
The Canadian framework “Mathematics-for-Teaching” (Davis & Simmt, 2006)
considers the complex structure of professional knowledge dynamically and distin-
guishes in knowledge acquisition “between the relatively stable aspects of mathe-
matical knowledge itself and the somewhat more volatile qualities” (Davis & Simmt,
2006, p. 297). The model distinguishes relatively stable aspects of knowledge e.g.
about curriculum structures or mathematics and dynamic aspects of “knowing”, e.g.
classroom collectivity or a subjective understanding to attend to both explicit and tacit
aspects of teachers’ mathematical knowledge. Other researchers describe the profes-
sional knowledge of mathematics teachers as situated within a specific mathematical
content.
Important in this context are the works of Manizade and Martinovic on
professional-situated knowledge in geometry (Manizade & Martinovic, 2016, 2018;
Manizade & Mason, 2011) in the U.S. and Canada, respectively, which are charac-
terized by the fact that Shulman’s CK and PCK are situated and considered and scru-
tinized for very specific mathematical topics commonly taught in secondary mathe-
matics, such as the area of trapezoids (see also e.g., rational numbers, Depaepe et al.,
2015). The researchers highlight the importance of the development of measures
of professionally-situated knowledge. They focus on developing valid and reliable
measurements of mathematics teachers’ situational manifestation of PCK and CK
within specific geometry contexts. In their work, Manizade and Martinovic (2016)
describe the following five dimensions of such knowledge, including: (1) geom-
etry knowledge; (2) knowledge of student challenges and conceptions; (3) ability
to ask diagnostic questions; (4) knowledge of applicable instructional strategies and
tools; and (5) ability to provide geometric extensions with respect to a specific topic
in geometry. Martinovic and Manizade (2017, 2018) describe the development of
instruments—which they referred to as probes—for assessing teachers’ knowledge
for teaching geometry. Unlike assessing mathematics teacher competence on a more
generic level, they argue the benefits of developing assessment instruments within a
well-defined and narrow topic in mathematics, and of combining different measures
to ensure the validity of the assessed construct.
The Evolution of Research on Mathematics Teachers’ Competencies, … 73

4.4 Teachers’ Knowledge About the Integration

of Technology in the Classroom

With the increase of the integration of technologies and digital tools in the teaching
of mathematics, necessary new developments emerged for conceptualizations of
teacher knowledge. Based on the premise that technology integration efforts should
be creatively designed or structured for particular subject matter ideas in specific
classroom contexts, Mishra and Koehler (2006) developed the TPACK framework
based on Shulman’s description of PCK to describe the teacher knowledge needed
when integrating technology in teaching. The TPACK framework was also later
revised and adapted (Koehler & Mishra, 2008, 2009). The framework includes
seven categories of knowledge: Technological knowledge (TK) includes the tech-
nical knowledge of using emerging media, including digital media, such as programs,
devices, or hardware. It also includes pedagogical knowledge (PK), content knowl-
edge (CK), and four other categories defined by the intersections of these knowledge
categories. These facets embrace the technological content knowledge (TCK), which
is the knowledge of how technology and subject knowledge affect each other. From
the perspective of mathematics education, this includes knowledge about technical
possibilities for representing mathematics, for example, through dynamic geometry
programs, pedagogical content knowledge (PCK), and technological pedagogical
knowledge (TPK), which is knowledge about how the use of technologies affects
general teaching and learning processes. In the intersection of all knowledge areas
lies the so-called technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK), which
describes a combination of subject-specific PCK with knowledge about the use of
technology for learning. TPACK also takes into account the relationship between
teachers’ decisions and the contextual factors of teaching, such as class size, envi-
ronment, resources, and culture (Koehler & Mishra, 2009). The TPACK framework
was specifically designed to enable research on the knowledge teachers need to effec-
tively integrate technology into their teaching in a particular content area. Mathe-
matics educational research has increasingly adopted the rather generic framework in
recent years to describe mathematics-specific requirements of each knowledge facet
and to explore how these develop, for example, for the area of curriculum develop-
ment or in terms of describing instructional practices (Niess et al., 2009). Further-
more, the framework has been applied to observe mathematics teachers’ practices
in using technology in teaching and to describe them at the level of the knowledge
facets involved (Muir et al., 2016; Patahuddin et al., 2016).

4.5 COACTIV

Also based on the approaches of the Michigan group and the work of Shulman, a study
with representative samples of German secondary school teachers developed in the
mid-2000s to investigate teachers’ professional knowledge and its empirical relation
74 N. Buchholtz et al.

to student achievement. The key factor was the facilitation of a national extension
of the 2003 PISA sample, in which individual and grade-level aggregated student
performance from the PISA study could be extended longitudinally and related to
teacher characteristics of about 300 teachers teaching in these grades. The COACTIV
research program (Baumert et al., 2010; Kunter et al., 2013) aimed to investigate the
professional competencies of practicing mathematics teachers, including making
statements about the relationship to student achievement. Standardized achievement
tests of teacher professional knowledge were used (Krauss et al., 2008). The frame-
work for teacher knowledge developed by COACTIV is based on content knowledge,
but identifies three different facets of subject-specific knowledge: first, knowledge
of student conceptions and prior knowledge (e.g., knowledge about typical student
errors or the difficulty of mathematical tasks); and secondly, knowledge of subject-
specific instructional strategies (for example, knowledge about representations and
making content “accessible”). An innovative feature of the COACTIV theoretical
framework was that subject-specific knowledge was operationalized in part through
knowledge about task quality and the cognitive potential of the tasks used in the
classroom. In this context, a corresponding classification of tasks used placed partic-
ular emphasis on the content-specific cognitive activation of mathematical tasks
(Neubrand et al., 2013). This classification allowed “the recognition, for example, of
how conceptual thinking is incorporated in a lesson, how teachers select the tasks, and
if that selection influences the learning progress of the students” (Neubrand, 2018,
p. 606). The research program investigated the competence of practicing German
mathematics teachers differentiated in the areas of content knowledge and peda-
gogical content knowledge. Among other things, COACTIV found that systematic
differences in performance existed between teachers for higher track secondary level
in content knowledge, some of which could be attributed to differences in teacher
education characteristics. A central finding of the study was also that the content
knowledge of teachers was a necessary prerequisite for the acquisition of pedagog-
ical content knowledge, but that ultimately the pedagogical content knowledge of
a teacher had a greater explanatory power for predicting student performance than
their content knowledge (cf. Kunter et al., 2013)—which did not mean, however, that
content knowledge was less important in teacher education.

4.6 TEDS-M

The studies from the TEDS-M research program focus on different aspects of profes-
sional competencies, each with a different emphasis. While earlier international
comparative studies such as TEDS-M 2008 (Blömeke et al., 2014a, 2014b; Tatto et al.,
2012) or its predecessor study MT21 (Schmidt et al., 2007, 2011) focused mainly
on knowledge-related (dispositional) aspects and knowledge at the end of teacher
education, subsequent studies of the TEDS-M research program in Germany included
in addition situational aspects of professional competence and thus also focus to a
greater extent on the competencies of practicing teachers. Particular attention in the
The Evolution of Research on Mathematics Teachers’ Competencies, … 75

following first is given to the results of the TEDS-M 2008 study, which was commis-
sioned by the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achieve-
ment (IEA) and examined the teacher professional knowledge of prospective primary
and secondary mathematics teachers in 16 participating countries. With regard to the
underlying framework, the TEDS-M 2008 study and its predecessor study MT21 refer
to the different knowledge facets of Shulman (1986, 1987) and differentiate PCK two-
dimensionally, namely along with different requirements for teachers (Döhrmann
et al., 2012). Within the theoretical framework between teaching-related demands like
“Mathematics Curricular Knowledge” and “Knowledge of Planning for Mathematics
Teaching,” as well as learning process-related demands like “Enacting Mathematics
for Teaching and Learning” are distinguished (Tatto et al., 2012, p. 131). Curric-
ular and instructional planning requirements include the selection of subject-specific
teaching content for students, as well as its justification, simplification, and prepara-
tion using various representations. This therefore includes knowledge of mathematics
curricula, assessment methods, and teaching methods. Interaction-related require-
ments, which reflect the teacher’s activities during the lesson, intend to include the
classification of student answers against the background of cognitive levels, possible
errors, and error patterns. These are therefore analytical and diagnostic skills that
prospective teachers should possess. An overview of international research find-
ings is provided by Tatto et al. (2012). Furthermore, Blömeke and Delanay (2012)
describe the current state of research from TEDS-M 2008 in a review article from the
perspective of similarities and differences between TEDS-M 2008 and the Learning
Mathematics for Teaching study (LMT; Hill et al., 2008a, 2008b). Meanwhile, several
complementary and in-depth national analyses have emerged from TEDS-M 2008
and MT21, looking in detail at specific issues in participating countries ( 2014a,
2014b; Blömeke et al., 2009a, 2009b). Furthermore, within the TEDS-M research
program TEDS-LT followed as a new study, expanding the concepts of TEDS-M 2008
for a German sample to both a longitudinal design and more subjects, as German
and English were included besides mathematics (Blömeke et al., 2011, 2013).

5 Recent Extensions in the Concept of Mathematics

Teacher Competence

Despite the blurry lines between CK and PCK, like Kaiser and König (2019) note,
several studies to date have provided evidence that the knowledge facets as proposed
by Shulman (1987) can be theoretically and empirically differentiated and separated
(e.g., Blömeke et al., 2016; Krauss et al., 2008), provided that appropriate instru-
ments, topics and sampling are used. Fundamental to this were scientific studies that
examined the structure of professional knowledge in particular. Regarding the corre-
lations between the specific facets, it turned out that, “as Shulman (1987) with his
“amalgam” hypothesis on the nature of PCK suggested PCK is related to both CK
and GPK, whereas CK and GPK are more distant to each other” (Kaiser & König,
76 N. Buchholtz et al.

2019. p. 603f.). For example, in the COACTIV study, a strong correlation between
CK and PCK was found (0.61) (Baumert et al., 2010). Important scientific devel-
opments about the professional competence of teachers can be located especially
in the last five to ten years. Since teachers access different forms of their profes-
sional knowledge in different instructional contexts—so the assumption—it seems
reasonable to focus not only on the structure but especially on its application in
different teaching situations when examining professional knowledge (Even et al.,
2017; Kaiser et al., 2015; Rowland, 2008b). Thus, as a new guiding question in
research on mathematics teacher competencies, knowledge and skills, if we follow
up on Medley’s Type E, it was added how content knowledge, pedagogical content
knowledge, and general pedagogical knowledge can be surveyed in connection with
teaching practice using suitable instruments, which led in particular to the investiga-
tion of situation -specific skills, in other studies referred to as professional noticing
(Sherin et al., 2011; Van Es & Sherin, 2008).

5.1 Situational Aspects of Mathematics Teachers’

Professional Competencies

When situational aspects of teachers’ professional competencies are addressed in the

context of empirical studies, the main aim is to survey competencies as closely as
possible to real situations from everyday teaching. With their conceptualization of
competence as a continuum, Blömeke et al. (2015) aimed to overcome an opposi-
tion that had increasingly emerged between different approaches to understanding
competence. On one hand, there existed the analytical approach of dispositional
aspects of competence, which formed essentially the basis of cognitively oriented
empirical studies from educational research mainly using paper-and-pencil tests.
According to this approach, one starts from analytically separable areas of compe-
tence (e.g., the knowledge facets) which can then be measured and considered in
terms of their structural relationships. The goal here is to promote specific compe-
tencies as a resource for behavior in specific situations. As we described, compe-
tence here includes both cognitive and affective-motivational domains. The analyt-
ical approach was now opposed by a holistic approach in the research tradition
from organizational psychology, which focused on the observation of behavior and
performance in an appropriate real-life context. Competence then influences this
behavior, whereby competence is still understood as a collection of diverse cognitive
and affective-motivational components that constantly change—depending on the
situation and requirements. The idea of Blömeke and her colleagues was to combine
both approaches in a common continuous model. Specifically, they assume that the
behavior of, for example, a teacher in concrete situations is influenced by his or her
competence (in the sense of the holistic approach). However, competence is then
not understood as a constantly changing collection of different components, but as a
The Evolution of Research on Mathematics Teachers’ Competencies, … 77

fixed sum of clearly describable individual components (in the sense of the analytical
approach).
The starting point of the new model of competence as a continuum is the disposi-
tion of a teacher, which is characterized by cognitive (CK, PCK, GPK) and affective-
motivational areas (a.o. beliefs). These cognitive and affective-motivational dispo-
sitions are complemented by situation-specific skills, which are also referred to as
professional noticing (here, the teachers’ noticing discussion plays a role, in partic-
ular, see Sherin et al., 2011). That is, in a specific situation, a teacher first perceives the
situation, interprets what is perceived, and makes appropriate decisions. The teacher
does this influenced by the situation at hand, but of course also by their basic dispo-
sition. Based on the teacher’s perception, interpretation, and decision, their actual
actions in the situation then emerge. It is therefore said that professional noticing
consisting of the areas of perception, interpretation, and decision-making plays a
mediating or transforming role between disposition and actual action which is an
observable performance. While pure surveys with tests represent a proven possi-
bility for the investigation of competence in the sense of the analytical approach
(for example with instruments of MKT or TEDS-M), it is immediately clear that
situational aspects are difficult to assess in this way, because the reality of teaching
can only be represented in test items to a limited extent. An alternative way of
assessing competence in a situation-related manner is the use of video vignettes or
dynamic geometry software as a stimulus for answering test items. Subsequently,
many recent studies investigating situational teacher competence built on the use of
video vignettes (e.g., Bruckmaier et al., 2016; Kaiser & König, 2019; Kersting, 2008;
Kersting et al., 2010; Knievel et al., 2015; Seidel & Stürmer, 2014). Martinovic and
Manizade (2020) for instance used interactive dynamic instruments (that incorpo-
rate dynamic software such as GeoGebra) to mimic the classroom simulations and
a variety of student responses to a given mathematics problem question. This way,
they evaluated teachers’ professionally situated knowledge (PCK and CK) based on
teachers’ responses to the questions that follow up a dynamic simulation.

5.2 Further Developments of the Studies of the TEDS-M

Research Program

The further developments of the TEDS-M research program in Germany, which aim
at investigating the competence development of mathematics teachers in the first
years of their professional activity, are also based on this approach. Central to this
is the outlined understanding of competence as a continuum. In addition, expertise
research (Berliner, 2001) with its basic distinction between experts and novices forms
a central pillar of the conceptual framework for further developments. Specifically,
the different areas of teacher knowledge from TEDS-M were conceptually supple-
mented by the situation-specific skills of professional noticing, which were surveyed
with video vignettes aimed at eliciting different aspects of expertise. The TEDS-M
78 N. Buchholtz et al.

Follow up study (TEDS-FU) for example measured perception, interpretation, and

decision-making as facets of professional noticing of in-service mathematics teachers
(Kaiser et al., 2015); The relation of knowledge and noticing concerning GPK was
evaluated by König et al. (2014), differentiating mathematics teachers’ pedagogical
competence into knowledge and noticing facets. Kaiser and König (2019, p. 605)
also report structural connections in this context, with a connection between disposi-
tional and situational facets of professional competence being particularly evident in
interpreting classroom perception: “Whereas teacher knowledge and interpretation
skills are moderately related to each other (0.37), perception is only loosely related
to interpretation (0.17) and knowledge (0.13).”

5.3 Relationships of Teacher Competencies to Instructional

Quality and Student Achievement

The results presented so far give us clues about the relationship between teachers’
knowledge and their skills. What needs to be questioned, however, is why appro-
priate skills were considered valuable components of teacher competence in the
first place. One obvious answer is that skills in the area of professional noticing
help with the design of instruction and are linked to this assumption that ultimately
student achievement can also be improved by good instruction. Specifically, some
studies in recent years have surveyed the direct relationship between teacher skills
and instructional quality (Hill et al., 2008a, 2008b; Santagata & Lee, 2021). In
the TEDS-Instruct study and the TEDS-Validate study, for example, two observers
each assessed lower secondary mathematics teaching on different criteria using a
comprehensive rating manual that focused on four facets of teaching quality, namely
efficient classroom management, constructive support, the potential for cognitive
activation, and content-related structuring (for details Schlesinger et al., 2018). At
the same time, results from the subject-related competence facets were available
for the participating teachers, which were collected using TEDS-M and TEDS-FU
instruments (Blömeke et al., 2020). Thereby, efficient classroom management did
not correlate significantly with the subject-related competence facets. The remaining
three quality dimensions correlate significantly positively with teachers’ professional
noticing of mathematics teaching, but not consistently with subject-related knowl-
edge facets (Jentsch et al., 2021). As TEDS-Validate and TEDS-Instruct furthermore
had access to the results of students’ achievement tests, the studies especially offer
the opportunity to fully observe the linkage between teachers’ competences, instruc-
tional quality, and students’ achievements. Results revealed that with regard to the
dimensions of instructional quality cognitive activation was found as a predictor for
students’ progress in achievement. In addition, general pedagogical knowledge and
situation-specific classroom management expertise (CME) serve as predictors for
instructional quality (GPK for all three dimensions, CME only for cognitive acti-
vation). Furthermore, there is a direct effect of teachers’ professional competence
The Evolution of Research on Mathematics Teachers’ Competencies, … 79

on students’ achievement but without mediation by the instructional quality (König

et al., 2021). Also, other studies investigated the relationships between professional
competence, teaching quality, and student achievement (cf. Kaiser & König, 2019,
p. 606). In the COACTIV study, a strong positive effect of PCK on student learning
progress was found to be mediated by the quality of instruction. In particular, the
dimensions of cognitive activation and individual learning support played a crucial
role. For CK, however, the mediation model applied only to a very limited extent.
Despite the high correlation with PCK, teachers’ CK had lower predictive power
for students’ learning progress (Baumert et al., 2010). Similarly, Hill et al. (2005)
and Hill and Chin (2018) furthermore showed that teachers’ knowledge and their
instructional quality were significantly related to students’ outcomes.

6 Concluding Remarks

In the present chapter, we provided an overview of important lines of development and

the evolution of mathematics education research on professional teacher competen-
cies, knowledge and skills. Research has evolved from the process–product paradigm
and has been developed especially in the period of 30 years after Medley’s (1987)
reflections. The starting point in this process were basic theoretical reflections on
teachers’ professional knowledge, which were strongly influenced by cognitivism.
Subsequently, an independent branch of research in mathematics education devel-
oped, which dealt with the professional competence of teachers, thus broadening
the focus by not only taking single cognitive aspects into account. As in Medley’s
time, the starting point to this shift in the research was the intention to measure
and describe what makes a good teacher and how to improve student achievement
in mathematics. From the critique of the studies in the following years, research
evolved further towards the inclusion of more situation-specific teacher competen-
cies, examining connections and effects between the different variables within the
chain of effects, namely teachers’ competence, instructional quality, and student
achievements.
What have these developments in common? The developments represent decisive
improvements with regard to the systematic inclusion of personality characteristics
of teachers as well as the contextual conditions in which teacher competencies come
into play. It is clear that different conceptualizations of teacher competencies still take
into account, to varying degrees, the same variables that Medley (1987) had already
considered, although in the meantime a stronger emphasis on the subject-specific
characteristics of mathematics has also been taken into account.
However, new conceptual challenges arose as a result of further developments.
Thus, after many years, as we describe, currently a large variety of frameworks
on teacher competencies, knowledge and skills is available internationally, each
describing teacher competence differently and thus setting different emphases.
Conceptualizations are based on different domains attributed to teachers’ profes-
sional knowledge, differ in their theoretical assumptions, and also have different
80 N. Buchholtz et al.

grain-size of the knowledge elements considered (Even et al., 2017; Neubrand, 2018).
On the one hand, the boundaries of what is understood by teacher competencies in
certain domains are pragmatically determined from theoretical considerations or
in the context of empirical studies, but on the other hand, Delphi methods, or the
Grounded Theory Approach, for example, could also be used to develop content-
valid conceptualizations (Manizade & Mason, 2011; Martinovic & Manizade, 2017).
Either way, however, the conceptualizations of teacher competencies, knowledge,
and skills for research purposes remain normative—and thus dependent on cultural
traditions, epistemologies, and values. We expect the field to evolve further with
great progress in the next years.
While we often assume that mathematics education is culture-neutral, research
indicates that the way in which we express ourselves and view mathematics is in fact
highly cultural (Leung et al., 2006). Although many of these different frameworks
are used in several countries to assess teacher competencies, the cultural dependency
of the frameworks should not be overlooked (Blömeke & Delanay, 2012), so that
a transfer to other educational systems is by no means trivial and should require
validation studies (e.g. Yang et al., 2018). In the future, therefore, it can be assumed
that the cultural sensitivity of research on teacher competencies will be more critically
scrutinized. International research on teacher competencies can nevertheless benefit
from this polyphony, although it suffers from it at the same time. The multiplicity and
diversity of frameworks need not be seen as confusion but can be seen as richness—if
one takes a comparative perspective, however, it seems profitable when frameworks
and conceptualizations are synthesized and compared based on their similarities and
differences.
What is clear from our overview, however, is that after more than three decades
of developing research on teacher competencies, knowledge, and skills, there are
still methodological challenges to empirical measurement. Certainly, current tools
of measuring allow us to capture teacher competencies more accurately than in
the past. Methodological advances such as multilevel structural equation modelling
(Teo & Khine, 2009) allow for the consideration of numerous relevant (background)
variables and differences between individuals, classes, and schools when examining
relationships between teacher competencies and student outcomes. These analyses
can be used to identify interactions between teachers’ characteristics, personal and
affective traits, and various other factors, all those that are related to teacher compe-
tencies. Nevertheless, even today we do not have the means to realize Medley’s
vision of taking into account the interrelationships of all variables in studies, and
often only proxies can be used for variables to be measured so that even in the future
the validity of measurement instruments, in particular, will have to be critically
analyzed. However, these methodological advances should still not lead research
on teacher competencies to neglect mediating variables in the chain of connections
between teacher competencies and student outcomes. Teaching activities in instruc-
tional quality as a mediating variable, and thus the situatedness of teacher compe-
tencies has played and probably will play an increasingly central role as a site for
observing and measuring competencies, especially in recent years.
The Evolution of Research on Mathematics Teachers’ Competencies, … 81

References

Alexander, P. A. (2008). Charting the course for the teaching profession: The energizing and
sustaining role of motivational forces. Learning and Instruction, 18(5), 483–491.
Ball, D. L., & Bass, H. (2003). Toward a practice-based theory of mathematical knowledge for
teaching. In B. Davis & E. Simmt (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2002 Annual Meeting of the
Canadian Mathematics Education Study Group (pp. 3–14). CMESG/GCEDM.
Ball, D. L., & Bass, H. (2009). With an eye on the mathematical horizon: Knowing mathematics for
teaching to learners’ mathematical futures. In M. Neubrand (Ed.), Beiträge zum Mathematikun-
terricht 2009: Vorträge auf der 43. Tagung für Didaktik der Mathematik vom 2.-6. März 2009
in Oldenburg (Vol. 1, pp. 11–22). WTM-Verlag.
Ball, D. L., Hill, H. C., & Bass, H. (2005). Knowing mathematics for teaching: Who knows mathe-
matics well enough to teach third grade, and how can we decide? American Educator, 29, 14–17,
20–22, 43–46.
Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it
special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389–407.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Freeman.
Baumert, J., & Kunter, M. (2006). Stichwort: Professionelle Kompetenz von Lehrkräften. Zeitschrift
für Erziehungswissenschaft, 9, 469–520.
Baumert, J., Kunter, M., Blum, W., Brunner, M., Voss, T., Jordan, A., Klusmann, U., & Tsai, Y.-M.
(2010). Teachers’ mathematical knowledge, cognitive activation in the classroom, and student
progress. American Educational Research Journal, 47(1), 133–180.
Bednarz, N., & Proulx, J. (2009). Knowing and using mathematics in teaching: Conceptual and
epistemological clarifications. For the Learning of Mathematics, 29(3), 11–17.
Berliner, D. C. (2001). Learning about and learning from expert teachers. International Journal of
Educational Research, 35(5), 463–482.
Beswick, K. (2005). The beliefs/practice connection in broadly defined contexts. Mathematics
Education Research Journal, 17(2), 39–68.
Beswick, K. (2018). Systems perspectives on mathematics teachers’ beliefs: Illustrations from
beliefs about students. In E. Bergqvist, M. Österholm, C. Granberg, & L. Sumpter (Eds.),
Proceedings of the 42nd conference of the international group for the psychology of mathematics
education (Vol. 1, pp. 3–18). PME.
Beswick, K. (2007). Teachers’ beliefs that matter in secondary mathematics classrooms. Educa-
tional Studies in Mathematics, 65(1), 95–120.
Beswick, K., Callingham, R., & Watson, J. (2012). The nature and development of middle school
mathematics teachers’ knowledge. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 15(2), 131–157.
Beswick, K. & Chick, H. (2020). Beliefs and pedagogical content knowledge for teachers of math-
ematics. In D. Potari, & O. Chapman (Eds.), International handbook of mathematics teacher
education: Volume 1: Teacher knowledge, beliefs and identity in mathematics teaching and its
development (2nd ed., pp. 185–209). Brill Sense.
Beswick, K., & Goos, M. (2012). Measuring pre-service primary teachers’ knowledge for teaching
mathematics. Mathematics Teacher Education and Development, 14(2), 70–90.
Blömeke, S., & Delaney, S. (2012). Assessment of teacher knowledge across countries. ZDM
Mathematics Education, 44(3), 223–247.
Blömeke, S., Bremerich-Vos, A., Haudeck, H., Kaiser, G., Nold, G., Schwippert, K., & Willenberg,
H. (Eds.). (2011). Kompetenzen von Lehramtsstudierenden in gering strukturierten Domänen.
Erste Ergebnisse aus TEDS-LT. Waxmann.
Blömeke, S., Bremerich-Vos, A., Kaiser, G., Nold, G., Haudeck, H., Keßler, J., & Schwippert, K.
(Eds.). (2013). Weitere Ergebnisse zur Deutsch-, Englisch- und Mathematiklehrerausbildung
aus TEDS-LT. Waxmann.
Blömeke, S., Busse, A., Kaiser, G., König, J., & Suhl, U. (2016). The relation between content-
specific and general teacher knowledge and skills. Teaching and Teacher Education, 56, 35–46.
82 N. Buchholtz et al.

Blömeke, S., Buchholtz, N., Suhl, U., & Kaiser, G. (2014a). Resolving the chicken-or-egg causality
dilemma: The longitudinal interplay of teacher knowledge and teacher beliefs. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 37, 130–139.
Blömeke, S., Gustafsson, J., & Shavelson, R. J. (2015). Beyond dichotomies—Competence viewed
as a continuum. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 223(1), 3–13.
Blömeke, S., Hsieh, F.-J., Kaiser, G., & Schmidt, W. H. (Eds.). (2014b). International perspectives
on teacher knowledge, beliefs and opportunities to learn. Springer.
Blömeke, S., Kaiser, G., König, J., & Jentsch, A. (2020). Profiles of mathematics teachers’
competence and their relation to instructional quality. ZDM—Mathematics Education, 52(2),
329–342.
Blömeke, S., Schwarz, B., Kaiser, G., Seeber, S., & Lehmann, R. (2009a). Unter-
suchungen zum mathematischen und mathematikdidaktischen Wissen angehender GHR- und
Gymnasiallehrkräfte. Journal für Mathematik-Didaktik, 30(3/4), 232–255.
Blömeke, S., Seeber, S., Kaiser, G., Schwarz, B., Lehmann, R., Felbrich, A., & Müller, C.
(2009b). Differentielle Item-Analysen zur Entwicklung professioneller Kompetenz angehender
Lehrkräfte während der Lehrerausbildung. In O. Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia, K. Beck, D. Sembill,
R. Nickolaus, & R. Mulder (Eds.), Lehrerprofessionalität—Bedingungen, Genese, Wirkungen
und ihre Messung (pp. 311–327). Beltz—Verlag.
Bromme, R. (2001). Teacher Expertise. In N. Smelser & P. Baltes (Eds.), International encyclopedia
of the social and behavioral sciences (pp. 15459–15465). Pergamon.
Bromme, R. (1992). Der Lehrer als Experte. Zur Psychologie des professionellen Wissens. Huber.
Bromme, R. (1994). Beyond subject matter: A psychological topology of teachers’ professional
knowledge. In R. Biehler, R. W. Scholz, R. Straesser, & B. Winkelmann (Eds.), Mathematics
didactics as a scientific discipline: The state of the art (pp. 73–88). Kluwer.
Bromme, R. (2008). Lehrerexpertise. In W. Schneider & M. Hasselhorn (Eds.), Handbuch der
Pädagogischen Psychologie (pp. 159–167). Hogrefe.
Bruckmaier, G., Krauss, S., Blum, W., & Leiss, D. (2016). Measuring mathematics teachers’ profes-
sional competence by using video clips (COACTIV video). ZDM Mathematics Education,
48(1–2), 111–124.
Bruner, J. (1960). The process of education. Harvard University Press.
Buchholtz, N., Kaiser, G., & Blömeke, S. (2014). Die Erhebung mathematikdidaktischen Wissens—
Konzeptualisierung einer komplexen Domäne. Journal für Mathematik-Didaktik, 35(1), 101–
128.
Buchholtz, N., Leung, F. K. S., Ding, L., Kaiser, G., Park, K., & Schwarz, B. (2013). Future
mathematics teachers’ professional knowledge of elementary mathematics from an advanced
standpoint. ZDM Mathematics Education, 45(1), 107–120.
Buchholtz, N. (2017). The acquisition of mathematics pedagogical content knowledge in university
mathematics education courses: Results of a mixed methods study on the effectiveness of teacher
education in Germany. ZDM Mathematics Education, 49(2), 249–264.
Carpenter, T. P., & Fennema, E. (1992). Cognitively guided instruction: Building on the knowledge
of students and teachers. International Journal of Educational Research, 17(5), 457–470.
Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Peterson, P. L., & Carey, D. (1988). Teachers’ pedagogical content
knowledge of students’ problem solving. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 19(5),
385–401.
Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Peterson, P. L., Chiang, C. P., & Loef, M. (1989). Using knowledge
of children’s mathematics thinking in classroom teaching: An experimental study. American
Educational Research Journal, 26(4), 499–532.
Carrillo-Yañez, J., Climent, N., Montes, M., Contreras, L. C., Flores-Medrano, E., Escudero-Ávila,
D., Vasco, D., Rojas, N., Flores, P., Aguilar-González, A., Ribeiro, M., & Muñoz Catalán,
M. (2018). The mathematics teacher’s specialised knowledge (MTSK) model. Research in
Mathematics Education, 20(3), 236–253.
The Evolution of Research on Mathematics Teachers’ Competencies, … 83

Charalambous, C. Y., Hill, H. C., Chin, M. J., et al. (2019). Mathematical content knowledge and
knowledge for teaching: Exploring their distinguishability and contribution to student learning.
Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 23, 579–613.
Chick, H. L., Baker, M., Pham, T. & Cheng, H. (2006). Aspects of teachers’ pedagogical content
knowledge for decimals. In Proceedings of the 30th Conference of the International Group for the
Psychology of Mathematics Education, 16–21 July 2006, Prague, Czech Republic (pp. 297–304).
PME.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Zeichner, K. (Eds.). (2005). Studying teacher education: The report of the
AERA panel on research and teacher education. Erlbaum.
Davis, B., & Simmt, E. (2006). Mathematics-for-teaching: An ongoing investigation of the
mathematics that teachers (need to) know. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 61(3), 293–319.
Delaney, S., Ball, D. L., Hill, H. C., Schilling, S. G., & Zopf, D. (2008). “Mathematical knowledge
for teaching”: Adapting U.S. measures for use in Ireland. Journal of Mathematics Teacher
Education, 11(3), 171–197.
Deng, Z. (2007a). Knowing the subject matter of a secondary school science subject. Journal of
Curriculum Studies, 39(5), 503–535.
Deng, Z. (2007b). Transforming the subject matter: Examining the intellectual roots of pedagogical
content knowledge. Curriculum Inquiry, 37(3), 279–295.
Depaepe, F., Torbeyns, J., Vermeersch, N., Janssens, D., Janssen, R., Kelchtermans, G., Verschaffel,
L., & Dooren, W. (2015). Teachers’ content and pedagogical content knowledge on rational
numbers: A comparison of prospective elementary and lower secondary school teachers.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 47, 82–92.
Depaepe, F., Verschaffel, L., & Kelchtermans, G. (2013). Pedagogical content knowledge: A system-
atic review of the way in which the concept has pervaded mathematics educational research.
Teacher and Teacher Education, 34, 12–25.
Döhrmann, M., Kaiser, G., & Blömeke, S. (2018). The conception of mathematics knowledge for
teaching from an international perspective: The case of the TEDS-M study. In Y. Li & R. Huang
(Eds.), How Chinese acquire and improve mathematics knowledge for teaching (pp. 57–83).
Brill/Sense.
Döhrmann, M., Kaiser, G., & Blömeke, S. (2012). The conceptualization of mathematics compe-
tencies in the international teacher education study TEDS-M. ZDM—The International Journal
on Mathematics Education, 44(3), 325–340.
Dreher, A., Lindmeier, A., & Heinze, A. (2016). Conceptualizing professional content knowledge of
secondary teachers taking into account the gap between academic and school mathematics. In C.
Csíkos, A. Rausch, & J. Szitányi (Eds.), Proceedings of the 40th conference of the international
group for the psychology of mathematics education PME (pp. 219–226). PME.
Dreher, A., Lindmeier, A., Heinze, A., & Niemand, C. (2018). What kind of content knowledge do
secondary mathematics teachers need? A conceptualization taking into account academic and
school mathematics. Journal für Mathematik-Didaktik, 39, 319–341.
Eichler, A., & Erens, R. (2015). Domain-specific belief systems of secondary mathematics teachers.
In B. Pepin & B. Rösken-Winter (Eds.), From beliefs to dynamic affect systems in mathematics
education. Exploring a mosaic of relationships and interactions (pp. 179–200). Springer.
Ernest, P. (1989). The Knowledge, Beliefs and Attitudes of the Mathematics Teacher: a model.
Journal of Education for Teaching, 15(1), 13–33.
Even, R., & Ball, D. L. (Eds.). (2009). The professional education and development of teachers of
mathematics: The 15th ICMI study. Springer.
Even, R., Yang, X., Buchholtz, N., Charalambous, C., & Rowland, T. (2017). Topic study group
No. 46: Knowledge in/for teaching mathematics at the secondary level. In G. Kaiser (Ed.),
Proceedings of the 13th international congress on mathematical education (pp. 589–592).
Springer.
Fauskanger, J. (2015). Challenges in measuring teachers’ knowledge. Educational Studies in
Mathematics, 90, 57–73.
84 N. Buchholtz et al.

Fennema, E., Carpenter, T. P., Franke, M. L., Levi, L., Jacobs, V. R., & Empson, S. B. (1996). A
longitudinal study of learning to use children’s thinking in mathematics instruction. Journal for
Research in Mathematics Education, 27, 403–434.
Fennema, E., & Franke, L. M. (1992). Teachers’ knowledge and its impact. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.),
Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 147–164). NCTM.
Felbrich, A., Kaiser, G., & Schmotz, C. (2014). The cultural dimension of beliefs: An investigation
of future primary teachers’ epistemological beliefs concerning the nature of mathematics in 15
countries. ZDM Mathematics Education, 44, 355–366.
Floden, R. E. (2001). Research on effects of teaching: A continuing model for research on teaching.
In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed., pp. 3–16). American
Educational Research Association.
Freudenthal, H. (1991). Revisiting mathematics education. China lectures. Kluwer.
Gage, N. L., & Needels, M. (1989). Process-product research on teaching: A review of criticisms.
The Elementary School Journal, 89, 253–300.
Gitomer, D. H., & Zisk, R. C. (2015). Knowing what teachers know. Review of Research in
Education, 39, 1–53.
Goos, M. (2013). Knowledge for teaching secondary school mathematics: What counts? Interna-
tional Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 44(7), 972–983.
Grigutsch, S., Raatz, U., & Törner, G. (1998). Einstellungen gegenüber Mathematik bei Mathe-
matiklehrern. Journal für Mathematik-Didaktik, 19, 3–45.
Grossman, P. L. (1990). The making of a teacher: Teacher knowledge and teacher education.
Teachers College Press.
Grossman, P. L., & Richert, A. E. (1988). Unacknowledged knowledge growth: A re-examination
of the effects of teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 4(1), 53–62.
Guerriero, S. (2017). Pedagogical knowledge and the changing nature of the teaching profession.
OECD Publishing.
Handal, B. (2003). Teachers’ mathematical beliefs: A review. The Mathematics Educator, 13, 47–57.
Hannula, M., Leder, G. C., Morselli, F., Vollstedt, M., & Zhang, Q. (2019). Affect and mathematics
education. Fresh perspectives on motivation, engagement and identity. ICME-13 monographs.
Springer.
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning. A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement.
Routledge.
Hill, H. C., Ball, D. L., & Schilling, S. G. (2008a). Unpacking “pedagogical content knowledge”:
Conceptualizing and measuring teachers’ topic-specific knowledge of students. Journal for
Research in Mathematics Education, 3(4), 372–400.
Hill, H. C., Blunk, M., Charalambous, C., Lewis, J., Phelps, G. C., Sleep, L., et al. (2008b). Math-
ematical knowledge for teaching and the mathematical quality of instruction: An exploratory
study. Cognition and Instruction, 26(4), 430–511.
Hill, H. C., & Chin, M. (2018). Connections between teachers’ knowledge of students, instruction,
and achievement outcomes. American Journal of Education, 55(5), 1076–1112.
Hill, H. C., Rowan, R., & Ball, D. L. (2005). Effects of teachers’ mathematical knowledge for
teaching on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 41, 371–406.
Hill, H. C., Schilling, S. G., & Ball, D. L. (2004). Developing measures of teachers’ mathematics
knowledge for teaching. The Elementary School Journal, 105(1), 11–30.
Hopmann, S., & Riquarts, K. (Eds.). (1995). Didaktik und/oder Curriculum: Grundprobleme einer
international-vergleichenden Didaktik. Beltz.
Hofstede, G. (1983). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 28(4), 625–629.
Jentsch, A., Schlesinger, L., Heinrichs, H., Kaiser, G., König, J., & Blömeke, S. (2021). Erfassung
der fachspezifischen Qualität von Mathematikunterricht: Faktorenstruktur und Zusammenhänge
zur professionellen Kompetenz von Mathematiklehrpersonen. Journal für Mathematik-Didaktik,
42, 97–121.
The Evolution of Research on Mathematics Teachers’ Competencies, … 85

Kaiser, G., Blömeke, S., Busse, A., Döhrmann, M., & König, J. (2014). Professional knowledge of
(prospective) mathematics teachers: Its structure and development. In P. Liljedahl, C. Nicol, S.
Oesterle, & D. Allan (Eds.), Proceedings of the PME 38 and PME-NA 36 (Vol. 1, pp. 35–50).
PME.
Kaiser, G., Blömeke, S., König, J., Busse, A., Döhrmann, M., & Hoth, J. (2017). Professional
competencies of (prospective) mathematics teachers—cognitive versus situated approaches.
Educational Studies in Mathematics, 94(2), 161–182.
Kaiser, G., Busse, A., Hoth, J., König, J., & Blömeke, S. (2015). About the complexities of video-
based assessments: Theoretical and methodological approaches to overcoming shortcomings of
research on teachers’ competence. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education,
13(2), 369–387.
Kaiser, G., & König, J. (2019). Competence measurement in (mathematics) teacher education and
beyond: Implications for policy. Higher Education Policy, 32, 597–615.
Kersting, N. B. (2008). Using video clips of mathematics classroom instruction as item prompts
to measure teachers’ knowledge of teaching mathematics. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 68(5), 845–861.
Kersting, N. B., Givvin, K. B., Sotelo, F. L., & Stigler, J. W. (2010). Teachers’ analyses of classroom
video predict student learning of mathematics: Further explorations of a novel measure of teacher
knowledge. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1–2), 172–181.
Kilpatrick, J., Swafford, J., & Findell, B. (2001). Adding it up helping children learn mathematics.
National Academy Press.
Klein, F. (1908/2016). Elementary mathematics from a higher standpoint (Vol. 1). (German original
published 1908). Springer.
Knievel, I., Lindmeier, A. M., & Heinze, A. (2015). Beyond knowledge: Measuring primary
teachers’ subject-specific competences in and for teaching mathematics with items based on
video vignettes. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 13(2), 309–329.
Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2008). Introducing TPCK. AACTE Committee on Innovation and
Technology (Ed.), The handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK) for
educators (pp. 3–29). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)?
Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60–70.
König, J., Blömeke, S., Jentsch, A., Schlesinger, L., Felske, C., Musekamp, F., & Kaiser, G. (2021).
The links between pedagogical competence, instructional quality, and mathematics achievement
in the lower secondary classroom. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 107(1), 189–212.
König, J., Blömeke, S., Klein, P., Suhl, U., Busse, A., & Kaiser, G. (2014). Is teachers’ general
pedagogical knowledge a premise for noticing and interpreting classroom situations? A video-
based assessment approach. Teaching and Teacher Education, 38, 76–88.
König, J., Blömeke, S., Paine, L., Schmidt, B., & Hsieh, F.-J. (2011). General pedagogical knowledge
of future middle school teachers. On the complex ecology of teacher education in the United
States, Germany, and Taiwan. Journal of Teacher Education, 62(2), 188–201.
Krauss, S., Brunner, M., Kunter, M., Baumert, J., Blum, W., Neubrand, M., et al. (2008). Pedagog-
ical content knowledge and content knowledge of secondary mathematics teachers. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 100(3), 716–725.
Kunter, M. (2013). Motivation as an aspect of professional competence: Research findings on teacher
enthusiasm. In M. Kunter, J. Baumert, W. Blum, U. Klusmann, S. Krauss, & M. Neubrand (Eds.),
Cognitive activation in the mathematics classroom and professional competence of teachers
(pp. 273–289). Springer.
Kunter, M., Baumert, J., Blum, W., Klusmann, U., Krauss, S., & Neubrand, M. (Eds.). (2013).
Cognitive activation in the mathematics classroom and professional competence of teachers.
Springer.
Kuntze, S. (2011). Pedagogical content beliefs: Global, content domain-related and situation-
specific components. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 79(2), 273–292.
86 N. Buchholtz et al.

Leder, G. C. (2019). Mathematics-related beliefs and affect. In M. Hannula, G. Leder, F. Morselli,

M. Vollstedt, & Q. Zhang (Eds.), Affect and mathematics education. ICME-13 monographs.
Springer.
Leung, F. K. S., Graf, K.-D., & Lopez-Real, F. J. (2006). Mathematics education in different cultural
traditions: A comparative study of East Asia and the West. In F.K.S. Leung, K.-D. Graf, & F.J.
Lopez-Real (Eds.), Mathematics education in different cultural traditions. A comparative study
of East Asia and the West. The 13th ICMI study (pp. 1–20). Springer.
Lindmeier, A. (2011). Modeling and measuring knowledge and competencies of teachers: A
threefold domain-specific structure model for mathematics. Waxmann.
Lindmeier, A., Seemann, S., Kuratli-Geeler, S., Wullschleger, A., Dunekacke, S., Leuchter, M.,
et al. (2020). Modelling early childhood teachers’ mathematics-specific professional competence
and its differential growth through professional development—An aspect of structural validity.
Research in Mathematics Education, 22(2), 168–187.
Lortie, D. C. (1975). School teacher: A sociological study. The University of Chicago Press.
Maher, N., Muir, T. & Chick, H. (2022). Analysing senior secondary mathematics teaching using
the Knowledge Quartet. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 110, 233–249. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s10649-021-10125-1.
Manizade, A. G., & Martinovic, D. (2018). Creating profiles of geometry teachers’ pedagogical
content knowledge. In P. Herbst, U. H. Cheah, P. Richard, & K. Jones (Eds.), International
perspectives on the teaching and learning of geometry in secondary schools (pp. 127–144).
Springer.
Manizade, A. G., & Martinovic, D. (2016). Developing an interactive instrument for measuring
teachers’ professionally situated knowledge in geometry and measurement. In P. Moyer-
Packenham (Ed.), International perspectives on teaching and learning mathematics with virtual
manipulatives (pp. 323–342). Springer.
Manizade, A. G., & Mason, M. (2011). Using Delphi methodology to design assessments of
teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 76(2), 183–207.
Manizade, A. G., & Orrill, C. H. (Eds.). (2020). International perspectives on frameworks for
mathematics teachers’ knowing and quality of mathematics instruction. [Special issue]. Research
in Mathematics Education, 22(2). https://doi.org/10.1080/14794802.2020.1798809
Martinovic, D., & Manizade, A. G. (2017). Using grounded theory to extend PCK framework at the
secondary level. Education Sciences, Special Issue: Critical Issues in Mathematics Education.,
7(60), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci7020060
Martinovic, D., & Manizade, A. G. (2020). Teachers using GeoGebra to visualize and verify conjec-
tures about trapezoids. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education,
20, 485–503.
Martinovic, D., & Manizade, A. G. (2018). The challenges in the assessment of knowledge for
teaching geometry. ZDM Mathematics Education, 50(4), 613–629.
Medley, D. M. (1987). Evolution of research on teaching. In M. J. Dunkin (Ed.), The international
encyclopedia of teaching and teacher education (pp. 105–113). Pergamon.
Meredith, A. (1995). Terry’s learning: Some limitations of Shulmans’ pedagogical content
knowledge. Cambridge Journal of Education, 25(2), 175–187.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework
for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.
Muir, T., Callingham, R., & Beswick, K. (2016). Using the IWB in an early years mathematics
classroom: An application of the TPACK framework. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher
Education, 32(2), 63–72.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). (2000). Principles and standards for school
mathematics. NCTM.
Neubrand, M. (2018). Conceptualizations of professional knowledge for teachers of mathematics.
ZDM Mathematics Education, 50, 601–612.
Neubrand, M., Jordan, A., Krauss, S., Blum, W., & Löwen, K. (2013). Task analysis in COACTIV:
Examining the potential for cognitive activation in German mathematics classrooms (Chap. 7).
The Evolution of Research on Mathematics Teachers’ Competencies, … 87

In M. Kunter, J. Baumert, W. Blum, U. Klusmann, S. Krauss & M. Neubrand (Eds.), Cognitive

activation in the mathematics class-room and professional competence of teachers (pp. 125–
144). Springer.
Neubrand, M., Seago, N., Agudelo-Valderrama, C., DeBlois, L., Leikin, R., & Wood, T. (2009).
The balance of teacher knowledge: Mathematics and pedagogy. In R. Even, & D.L. Ball (Eds.),
The professional education and development of teachers of mathematics. New ICMI study series
(Vol. 11). Springer.
Ng, D., Mosvold, R., & Fauskanger, J. (2012). Translating and adapting the mathematical knowledge
for teaching (MKT) measures: The cases of Indonesia and Norway. The Mathematics Enthusiast,
9(1/2), 149–178.
Niess, M. L., Ronau, R. N., Shafer, K. G., Driskell, S. O., Harper S. R., Johnston, C.,
Browning, C., Özgün-Koca, S. A., & Kersaint, G. (2009). Mathematics teacher TPACK stan-
dards and development model. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education
[Online serial], 9(1). https://citejournal.org/volume-9/issue-1-09/mathematics/mathematics-tea
cher-tpack-standards-and-development-model.
Ornstein, A. C. (1995). The new paradigm in research on teaching. The Educational Forum, 59(2),
124–129.
Patahuddin, S. M., Lowrie, T., & Dalgarno, B. (2016). Analysing mathematics teachers’ TPACK
through observation of practice. Asia-Pacific Edu Res, 25, 863–872.
Petrou, M. (2009). Adapting the knowledge quartet in the Cypriot mathematics classroom. In
V. Durand-Guerrier, S. Soury-Lavergne, & F. Arzarello (Eds.), CERME 6—working group
10: Mathematical curriculum and practice (pp. 2020–2029). Institut National De Recherche
Pédagogique.
Petrou, M., & Goulding, M. (2011). Conceptualising teachers’ mathematical knowledge in teaching.
In T. Rowland & K. Ruthven (Eds.), Mathematical knowledge in teaching (pp. 9–25). Springer.
Philipp, R. A. (2007). Mathematics teachers’ beliefs and affect. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second
handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning: A project of the National Council
of Teachers of Mathematics (pp. 257–315). NCTM.
Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in
learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 667–686.
Reusser, K., Pauli, C, & Elmer, A. (2011). Berufsbezogene Überzeugungen von Lehrerinnen und
Lehrern. In E. Terhart, H. Bennewitz & M. Rothland (Eds.), Handbuch der Forschung zum
Lehrerberuf (pp. 478–495). Waxmann.
Rheinberg, F. (2006). Motivation. Kohlhammer.
Richardson, V. (1996). The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach. In J. Sikula (Ed.),
Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 102–119). Macmillan.
Rowland, T. (2008a). The purpose, design and use of examples in the teaching of elementary
mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 69(2), 149–163.
Rowland, T. (2008b). Researching teachers’ mathematics disciplinary knowledge. In P. Sullivan &
T. Wood (Eds.), Knowledge and beliefs in mathematics teaching and teaching development.
The international handbook of mathematics teacher education (Vol. 1, pp. 273–298). Sense
Publishers.
Rowland, T. (2014). Frameworks for conceptualizing mathematics teacher knowledge. In S. Lerman
(Ed.), Encyclopedia of mathematics education (pp. 235–238). Springer.
Rowland, T., Huckstep, P., & Thwaites, A. (2005). Elementary teachers’ mathematics subject knowl-
edge: The knowledge quartet and the case of Naomi. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education,
8(3), 255–281.
Rowland, T., Jared, L., & Thwaites, A. (2011). Secondary mathematics teachers’ content knowledge:
The case of Heidi. In M. Pytlak, T. Rowland & E. Swoboda (Eds.), Proceedings of the seventh
congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (pp. 2827–2837).
University of Rzeszow.
Rowland, T., & Ruthven, K. (Eds.) (2011). Mathematical knowledge in teaching (Mathematics
Education Library, Vol. 50). Springer.
88 N. Buchholtz et al.

Russ, R. S., Sherin, B., & Sherin, M. G. (2011). Images of expertise in mathematics teaching. In Y.
Li & G. Kaiser (Eds.), Expertise in mathematics instruction (pp. 41–60). Springer.
Rychen, S., & Salganik, L. H. (2003). A holistic model of competence. In S. Rychen & L. H.
Salganik (Eds.), Key competencies for a successful life and a well-functioning society (pp. 41–
62). Hogrefe & Huber.
Santagata, R., & Lee, J. (2021). Mathematical knowledge for teaching and the mathematical quality
of instruction: A study of novice elementary school teachers. Journal of Mathematics Teacher
Education, 24, 33–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-019-09447-y
Scheiner, T., Montes, M. A., Godino, J. D., Carrillo, J., & Pino-Fan, L. R. (2019). What makes
mathematics teacher knowledge specialized? Offering alternative views. International Journal
of Science and Mathematics Education, 17(1), 153–172.
Schlesinger, L., Jentsch, A., Kaiser, G., König, J., & Blömeke, S. (2018). Subject-specific charac-
teristics of instructional quality in mathematics education. ZDM Mathematics Education, 50(3),
475–490.
Schmidt, W. H., Blömeke, S., & Tatto, M. T. (2011). Teacher education matters. A study of the
mathematics teacher preparation from six countries. Teacher College Press.
Schmidt, W., Tatto, M. T., Bankov, K., Blömeke, S., Cedillo, T., Cogan, L., Han, S. I., Houang,
R., Hsieh, F. S., Paine, L., Santillan, M., & Schwille, J. (2007). The preparation gap: Teacher
education for middle school mathematics in six countries (MT21 report). MSU Center for
Research in Mathematics and Science Education.
Schmotz, C., Felbrich, A., & Kaiser, A. (2010). Überzeugungen angehender Mathematiklehrkräfte
für die Sekundarstufe I im internationalen Vergleich. In S. Blömeke, G. Kaiser, & R.
Lehmann (Eds.), TEDS-M 2008—Professionelle Kompetenz und Lerngelegenheiten angehender
Mathematiklehrkräfte für die Sekundarstufe I im internationalen Vergleich (pp. 279–306).
Waxmann.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1998). Toward a theory of teaching-in-context. Issues in Education, 4, 1–94.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (2010). How we think. A theory of goal- oriented decision making and its
educational applications. Routledge.
Schoenfeld, A. H., Baldinger, E., Disston, J., Donovan, S., Dosalmas, A., Driskill, M., Fink, H.,
Foster, D., Haumersen, R., Lewis, C., Louie, N., Mertens, A., Murray, E., Narasimhan, L.,
Ortega, C., Reed, M., Ruiz, S., Sayavedra, A., Sola, T., … Zarkh, A. (2019). Learning with
and from TRU: Teacher educators and the teaching for robust understanding framework. In
K. Beswick (Ed.), International handbook of mathematics teacher education, volume 4, the
mathematics teacher educator as a developing professional (pp. 271–304). Sense Publishers.
Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner, how professionals think in action. Basic Books.
Seidel, T., & Shavelson, R. J. (2007). Teaching effectiveness research in the last decade: Role
of theory and research design in disentangling meta-analysis results. Review of Educational
Research, 77, 454–499.
Seidel, T., & Stürmer, K. (2014). Modeling and measuring the structure of professional vision in
preservice teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 51(4), 739–771.
Shavelson, R. J. (2010). On the measurement of competency. Empirical Research in Vocational
Education and Training, 1, 43–65.
Sherin, M. G., Jacobs, V. R., & Philipp, R. A. (2011). Mathematics teacher noticing. Seeing through
teachers’ eyes. Routledge.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational
Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard
Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22.
Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines.
Journal of Business Research, 104, 333–339.
Speer, N., King, K., & Howell, H. (2015). Definitions of mathematical knowledge for teaching:
Using these constructs in research on secondary and college mathematics teachers. Journal of
Mathematics Teacher Education, 18(2), 105–122.
The Evolution of Research on Mathematics Teachers’ Competencies, … 89

Staub, F., & Stern, E. (2002). The nature of teachers’ pedagogical content beliefs matters for
students’ achievement gains: Quasi-experimental evidence from elementary mathematics.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 344–355.
Swars, S. L., Smith, S. Z., Smith, M. E., & Hart, L. C. (2009). A longitudinal study of effects of a
developmental teacher preparation program on elementary prospective teachers’ mathematics
beliefs. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 12(1), 47–66.
Tatto, M., Schwille, J., Senk, S., Bankov, K., Rodriguez, M., Reckase, M., Ingvarson, L., Rowley,
G., & Peck, R. (2012). Policy, practice, and readiness to teach primary and secondary math-
ematics in 17 countries: Findings from the IEA teacher education and development study in
mathematics (TEDS-M). IEA.
Teo, T., & Khine, M. S. (2009). Structural equation modelling in educational research: Concepts
and applications. Sense Publishers.
Thompson, A. G. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and conceptions: A synthesis of the research. In D. A.
Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning: A project of the
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (pp. 127–146). Macmillan Publishing Co Inc.
Törner, G. (2002). Mathematical beliefs—A search for a common ground: Some theoretical consid-
erations on structuring beliefs, some research questions, and some phenomenological observa-
tions. In G. Leder, E. Pehkonen, & G. Törner (Eds.), Beliefs: A hidden variable in mathematics
education? (pp. 73–94). Kluwer.
van Es, E. A., & Sherin, M. G. (2008). Mathematics teachers’ “learning to notice” in the context of
a video club. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(2), 244–276.
Weinert, F. E. (1999). Concepts of competence. Manx Planck Institute for Psychological Research
[Published as a contribution to the OECD project Definition and selection of competencies:
Theoretical and conceptual foundations (DeSeCo)]. DeSeCo.
Weinert, F. E. (2001). Concept of competence: A conceptual clarification. In D. Rychen & L.
Salganik (Eds.), Defining and selecting key competencies (pp. 45–65). Hogrefe & Huber.
Weinert, F. E., Schrader, F.-W., & Helmke, A. (1989). Quality of instruction and achievement
outcomes. International Journal of Educational Research, 13, 895–914.
Wood, T., et al. (2008). The international handbook of mathematics teacher education (Vols. 1–4).
Sense Publishers.
Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2008). What motivates teachers? Important work on a complex question.
Learning and Instruction, 18(5), 492–498.
Yang, X., Kaiser, G., König, J., & Blömeke, S. (2018). Measuring Chinese teacher professional
competence: Adapting and validating a German framework in China. Journal of Curriculum
Studies, 50(5), 638–653.

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate
credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and
indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative
Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by
statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder.
The Research on Mathematics Teaching
and Planning: Theoretical Perspectives
and Implications of Teachers’ Pre-post
Classroom Activities

Agida G. Manizade , Alexander S. Moore , and Kim Beswick

1 Introduction

In this chapter, we focus on research in mathematics teaching such as mathematics

teacher planning, assessment, and other teacher-related activities when students are
not present (“pre- and post-active”; Type D). These are the types of activities that
mathematics teachers do to promote student learning while no students are present;
in other words, this chapter focuses on the invisible part of teaching mathematics.
These activities are important means by which the teacher exercises control over their
teaching and are also the main way that a teacher’s professional knowledge, compe-
tencies, skills, and beliefs (Type E; see Fig. 3 in Chap. 1, this volume) impact the
process of teaching mathematics. Type E is necessary but not sufficient for producing
quality student–teacher interactions in the mathematics classroom (e.g., Sullivan
et al., 2009). Enactment of the teaching practice interactively with students is a
direct result of teachers’ pre- and post-active (Type D) actions. Type D, therefore,
determines how well the teacher performs the main interactive function of teaching
mathematics (Type C) and how successfully the teacher accomplishes the purpose of

A. G. Manizade (B)
Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Radford University, 801 E. Main St, 204 Whitt Hall,
Radford, VA 24142, USA
e-mail: [email protected]
A. S. Moore
School of Education, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24061, USA
e-mail: [email protected]
K. Beswick
School of Education, University of New South Wales, Morven Brown Building, Kensington,
NSW 2052, Australia
e-mail: [email protected]

© The Author(s) 2023 91

A. Manizade et al. (eds.), The Evolution of Research on Teaching Mathematics,
Mathematics Education in the Digital Era 22,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-31193-2_4
92 A. G. Manizade et al.

teaching. Our perspective is premised on the belief that theory drives teaching prac-
tice, and, in this chapter, we demonstrate how that connection functions in relation
to teacher’s pre- and post-active actions (Type D).
The chapter includes a discussion of how teachers relate the problems they
encounter in the practice of teaching mathematics to their professional knowledge,
competencies, skills, and beliefs in deploying their available resources and their
own abilities. Teachers’ subjective decision-making is based on the Type E elements
that they possess, and the configuration of a teacher’s Type E elements “stabilizes
[the teacher’s] world” (Žižek, 2012, p. 367, as cited in Brown, 2016, p. 86) through
their subjective, decision-making process. This decision-making process could be
based, for instance, on the most recent professional development presentation that
they attended and ideas that they bought into, or on a conference presentation that
their principal attended and practices subsequently imposed on the teachers. In either
case, and even without having attended a recent conference, teachers’ choices and
objectified beliefs are a product of the constraints within which they are working
(Ingram & Clay, 2000). Thus, their decision-making process produces observable
pre-post classroom actions that are the focus of this chapter. We also address the
ways in which cultural and digital contexts affect Type D. Additionally, we discuss
the theoretical and methodological challenges associated with conceptualization of
the Type D domain, instrumentation, and research design.

1.1 Statement of the Problem

It is important to study Type D because teacher planning, which includes introducing

key ideas, selecting associated tasks, and creating assessments to measure student
understanding, has a great effect on the learning opportunities for students (Akyuz
et al., 2013; Sullivan et al., 2009). It provides for targeted understanding of the
lesson content, managing classroom transitions, and allows for a focus on classroom
processes (Clark & Yinger, 1987). This applies not only to daily lesson plans, but also
to unit plans that cover a range of related topics (Roche et al., 2014). McAlpine et al.
(2006) specifically called for more research on the ways in which teachers think
and the connection between teachers’ thinking and its influence on their teaching
actions. This connection is hypothesized to be particularly useful in studying the
relationship between teachers’ “theories-in-use” and teachers’ thinking (Kane et al.,
2002; McAlpine et al., 2006). Sullivan et al. (2009) called for more professional
development to improve teachers’ abilities to take a mathematical task and convert
it into a “meaningful learning experience” (p. 85), noting that Type E was necessary
but not sufficient for this conversion. Thus, regardless of a teacher’s perspective on
teaching mathematics as described by the theoretical framework that we present
in this chapter (see Fig. 1), research on improving Type D is important because it
contains the potential for improving the quality of mathematics instruction (Lewis
et al., 2013).
 Perspectives on Planning &
Teaching Mathematics

Cognitive Culturally Project &

Situated Learning Social
Behaviorism Learning Structuralism Problem Solving Relevant Problem Based
Theory Constructivism
Theory Pedegogy Learning

Corresponding Goals for

Mathematics Teaching

Planning
The Research on Mathematics Teaching and Planning: Theoretical …

Classroom Interaction

Reflection Anticipation Assessment

93

Fig. 1 Epistemological perspectives on teachers’ Type D

94 A. G. Manizade et al.

Depending on the importance the teacher assigns to planning, the outcomes of

planning manifest in different ways through the observable and enacted lesson. Zazkis
et al. (2009) compared Japanese teachers’ planning—which was focused on the
process of student learning and discovery of concepts—and American teachers’
planning—which was focused on specific content outcomes. They found that the
ways in which teachers talked about the professional act of planning varied greatly
between the two groups and differences aligned with the observable outcome of the
written lesson plan and its enactment. If teachers think of planning as a high-level
professional task that is an important part of the act of teaching, then the produced
written plan and its enactment lead to different types of teaching than is the case for a
teacher who does not think of planning as having a central role in their practice (Zazkis
et al., 2009). Designing lesson plans that incorporate teachers’ goals and are focused
on “students’ anticipated learning” (Akyuz et al., 2013, p. 94) has been the focus
of key reform-based documents, including Adding It Up (Kilpatrick et al., 2001).
Further, Hiebert et al. (2003) emphasized the importance of developing teachers’
Type D: “[T]eachers need to design lessons with clear goals in mind, monitor their
implementation, collect feedback, and interpret the feedback in order to revise and
improve future practice” (p. 206).
Regardless of the knowledge, competencies, skills, and beliefs that teachers
develop in their teacher preparation programs, they often go back to the way they
were taught when faced with the challenges of the everyday classroom: “People
learn to teach, in part, by growing up in a culture—by serving as passive appren-
tices for 12 years or more when they themselves were students. When they face the
real challenges of the classroom, they often abandon new practices and revert to
the teaching methods their teachers used” (Hiebert et al., 2003, p. 201). It becomes
extremely important therefore to develop teachers’ abilities to plan quality mathe-
matics lessons with specific goals in mind, and to use student data to make decisions
about subsequent planning and instruction. As McAlpine et al. (2006) suggested, we
need to develop a “language” (p. 129) for talking about teachers’ Type D activity
to fully realize it as a domain of mathematics education research. To develop this
necessary “language” for Type D research, we propose the conceptual framework
in Fig. 1 for discussing literature related to Type D. We subscribe to Akyuz et al.’s
(2013) definition of Type D, that cyclically relates preparation (pre-active) to reflec-
tion, anticipation, assessment, and revision (post-active). In their model relating these
variables, reflection, anticipation, and assessment interrelate laterally with each other,
all of which then inform revision. Revision, then, cycles back to preparation as the
pre-active variable.
The chapter can be thought of as broken into three main themes. In the first theme,
we situate our current work: we discuss the connection between Type D and Type E
(knowledge, competencies, skills, and beliefs), followed by a discussion of the goals
of Type D broadly. The second theme constitutes the bulk of the chapter: we discuss
each of the epistemological perspectives in Fig. 1, including a definition, goals of
teaching, and examples from the literature. The third theme provides commentary
on the first two themes: we discuss pros and cons of each perspective, followed by
a commentary on the relationship of each perspective to cultural contexts, and we
The Research on Mathematics Teaching and Planning: Theoretical … 95

conclude with a brief discussion of the implications of each perspective on the task
of lesson planning. We close by noting implications for future directions of research
as a result of the intervention we offer in the present chapter.

2 The Connection of Type D to Knowledge, Competencies,

Skills, and Beliefs

Teachers’ knowledge, competencies, skills, and beliefs (Type E) are connected to the
way they plan their mathematics instruction and influences their decision-making,
evidenced in the ways they implement their lessons. In some cases, this connection
is conscious, and in other cases, it is unconscious. There are various factors that
can affect teachers’ lesson planning and instruction, including their beliefs about
the nature of mathematics, such as whether they hold an instrumental, Platonist,
or problem-solving view (Beswick, 2005; Ernest, 1989); learning theories; and the
pedagogical practices and approaches in which they have been trained. Most impor-
tantly, teachers can use combinations of these factors to produce and implement a
lesson, and to assess students.
Kilpatrick et al. (2001), for example, discussed the connection between Types
C, D, E, and F—what they call teaching for mathematical proficiency—with the
following components:
(1) conceptual understanding of the core knowledge required in the practice of
teaching;
(2) fluency in carrying out basic instructional routines;
(3) strategic competence in planning effective instruction and solving problems that
arise during instruction;
(4) adaptive reasoning in justifying and explaining one’s instructional practices and
in reflecting on those practices so as to improve them; and
(5) productive disposition towards mathematics, teaching, learning, and the
improvement of practice.
(Kilpatrick et al., 2001, p. 380)
We align components (1) and (2) with Type E; component (3) with Types D and
C; component (4) with Type D; and component (5) with Type F.
While theories may influence teachers consciously and unconsciously, typically
once they are with their students, they operate (and make pedagogical—and specif-
ically, planning—decisions and choices) in a way that strives for synchronicity and
harmony between their previous experiences of successes in teaching; their knowl-
edge, competencies, and skills; their unique mixes of students and content for each
of their course preparations; and the institutional constraints within which they are
working (cf. Ingram & Clay, 2000). While a theory of learning may influence these
decisions and choices, it wouldn’t necessarily have to “inform” them per se. For
example, if a teacher has attended a “project-based learning” workshop, they may be
motivated to try some of the techniques or lessons they were exposed to, but they are
96 A. G. Manizade et al.

likely to do so as an adaptation of their existing lesson-planning practices. Regardless

of the reasons behind specific instances of decision-making that are evident in their
lesson planning, assessment, or instruction, we focus on the teachers’ objectified
beliefs—that is, observable behaviors—that ostensibly have been chosen because
they stabilize the teacher’s world. The focus of this chapter is not, then, on the “why”
of the decision-making processes, but rather on “how” it manifests in the observable
research components of Type D.
In science education, researchers (e.g., Carlson et al., 2019) have reconceptualized
teachers’ knowledge to include Enacted Pedagogical Content Knowledge (ePCK)
and Personal Pedagogical Content Knowledge (pPCK), both of which include knowl-
edge associated with Type D, namely, planning and reflection. These researchers
defined ePCK as knowledge for planning and reflection that is situated within the
school, classroom, and individual students’ interactional contexts (cf. Ingram & Clay,
2000) with the teacher and the teacher’s subject matter knowledge and discipline-
related skills. Personal PCK includes the PCK influences that have occurred over
the teacher’s life, experiences, and interactions with other professionals (e.g., fellow
teachers, researchers, coursework, professional development, reading journal arti-
cles) that have accumulated to shape and inform their ePCK. In other words, pPCK
builds over time and experience to increase the sophistication with which they deploy
their knowledge in thinking about, planning, and reflecting on their lessons. Addi-
tionally, ePCK is a subset of pPCK, meaning that the enacted—viz. observable—
knowledge of a teacher is contained within their set of personal PCK, indicating that
observable Type D can be conceived as objectification of personal knowledge and
epistemological commitments. Thus, utilizing epistemological frameworks facili-
tates insight when studying teachers’ Type D. When conceptualized in this way,
the teacher’s pPCK is a privately held knowledge that is unique to the teacher,
whereas ePCK is the mode of the teacher’s knowledge with which the students most
directly interact. The connection between ePCK and pPCK reveals that teachers’
epistemological commitments, knowledge about how students learn mathematics,
and corresponding knowledge about how best to teach mathematics interrelate both
at a micro-level (e.g., planning a particular lesson) and a macro-level (e.g., shaped
over their lives, experiences, and professional formation). It is pertinent, therefore, for
mathematics education researchers to consider how the objectifications of this knowl-
edge—as Type D observable behaviors in the form of decisions and choices—shape
their teaching. As we explore in this chapter, some epistemological commitments
have been explored apropos of Type D whilst others warrant further investigation by
researchers.

3 Goals of Pre- and Post-active Teacher Activities

The purpose of this chapter is to focus on the decisions and choices teachers make
while students are not present. Ultimately, these decisions and choices—regard-
less of any espoused epistemology or pedagogy—directly impact their lesson plans,
The Research on Mathematics Teaching and Planning: Theoretical … 97

which become the basis for what they subsequently enact in the classroom. Tricoglus
(2007) explored planning and collaboration amongst mathematics teachers, revealing
that teachers’ development of tasks and lesson plans involves cyclical thinking as
they become more knowledgeable about them. The study highlighted three types of
thinking that teachers engaged in when planning: deliberative thinking, which is the
considered thought that generates ideas and future plans; interpretive thinking, which
is the part in the process where decisions are made and problems are managed; and
metacognition, which is evaluative, reflective thinking. These three types of thinking
are the basis for teachers’ decisions and choices about the tasks and lesson plans they
create, and are informed by their perspectives on teaching and learning mathematics.
As teachers think about their beliefs and knowledge in this cyclical process, they
formulate goals for their teaching as well as actions they intend to take to reach them
(Aguirre & Speer, 2000; Akyuz et al., 2013; Schoenfeld, 1998).
In Fig. 1, we provide a framework emergent from the literature presenting eight
categories that researchers have used when describing lesson planning and mathe-
matics instruction. These eight categories are not strictly types of learning theories
but rather the perspectives that researchers have characterized teachers as appearing
to be enacting, through their decisions and choice-making, to represent observable
and objectified beliefs, knowledge, competencies, and skills (Type E). The aim of
Type D is to articulate “the learning goals for the lesson, and the hypotheses that link
planned instructional activities with expected learning outcomes” (Hiebert et al.,
2003, pp. 207–208). Importantly, the focus of the teaching can be either on the goal
of the lesson, or on the activities included in the lesson, regardless of the perspec-
tive the teacher adopts. When the focus is on the goal of the lesson, the teacher
is likely to consider common student challenges with respect to the mathematical
concepts taught, typical questions or difficulties students might experience based on
their developmental levels, as well as ways to address those challenges and difficul-
ties (West & Staub, 2003). However, if the focus is on the activity itself, then it is
less likely that teachers will think of students’ conceptual development of the mathe-
matics. Instead, the focus lands on the “how to”: lessons can become more prescribed
and rigid, which potentially allows for missed opportunities when teachable moments
arise (e.g., Akyuz et al., 2013).
Regardless of teachers’ theoretical frameworks or beliefs about teaching math-
ematics or the nature of mathematics, all teachers operate within institutional,
economic, cultural, familial, and logistical constraints (Ingram & Clay, 2000). Thus,
the goals adopted by teachers for their teaching can be diverse, encompassing
achieving high standardized test scores, developing interest in mathematics in their
students, preparing students for futures of entering the workforce or college, meeting
curricular demands of the administration, communicating ideas about mathematics,
enabling students to solve a given problem multiple ways or to see the connection
between different mathematical ideas, and describing patterns students might see
in the world using mathematics. These are different performance or learning goals,
and while not mutually exclusive, they cannot all be goals for a single lesson. The
teacher will consciously and unconsciously use goals to formulate the actions they
take when planning a lesson or assessing student work. For example, if a teacher’s
98 A. G. Manizade et al.

goal is for the students to be able to talk to each other about the mathematics, then
the lesson planning decisions will be very different from what they would be if the
goal was for students to be able to replicate the process presented by the teacher in
instruction.
Despite the many challenges, the teacher must know how to create and carry
out their plan and, most importantly, how to be flexible with their plan in changing
classroom circumstances (Akyuz et al., 2013). A teacher will be faced with goals
from other sources such as department chairs, parents, principals, school boards,
state departments of education, co-workers, and so forth. Each of these sources has
an interest in what the teacher is doing in the classroom. The goals produced by these
parties and subsequently imposed on the teacher, whether directly or indirectly, exist
in addition to the teacher’s own goals. The best-case scenario is that the teacher’s
goals and the goals of these other sources are in harmony. However, if that is not
the case, and the teacher has the job of synthesizing disparate goals from various
sources, the result will be that the teacher’s goals—as objectified beliefs, observed
through their lesson planning process—become a product of stabilizing the reality
of their world and being.

4 Theoretical Perspectives for Teaching Mathematics

that Are Present in Type D

In this section, we discuss and define each of the perspectives in Fig. 1, the goals for
teaching associated with each, and provide some examples from the literature. The
literature surveyed was selected for the representativeness each article provided for
illustrating each of the epistemological perspectives in Fig. 1 apropos of Type D. An
EBSCOhost search of the electronic library system of a major research university in
the United States with keywords related to Type D was performed. We operated with
three inclusion criteria: (1) Western context (US, Europe, Australia, New Zealand,
etc.) for either the author or study setting; (2) articles written between 2000 and the
present; and (3) articles must be about mathematics education specifically. Literature
by a Western author performing a study in a non-Western context was also excluded.
We then manually accessed each article to screen to relevance. Articles in which
the primary focus was not on Type D were excluded. On reviewing the included
literature, we noticed the emergence of eight epistemological themes with respect to
the way the articles were situating and discussing Type D. We organized the literature
into these eight themes, as seen in Fig. 1.
In each of the examples discussed, some researchers explicitly cited a theoret-
ical perspective from Fig. 1, and in others, our characterization of a study as having
employed a particular epistemological perspective is based on our interpretation of
the researchers’ work. The examples given are in no way exhaustive but rather serve
to demonstrate each particular perspective in recent literature. While we acknowl-
edge that cultural context is of great importance in understanding Type D, we only
The Research on Mathematics Teaching and Planning: Theoretical … 99

considered research from the Western context in the survey of literature that follows.
A more complete discussion of the cultural context of the eight epistemological
perspectives is included later in the chapter.

4.1 Situated Learning Theory as Perspective

4.1.1 Definition

Situated learning theory (SLT), originally developed in the work of Lave and Wenger
(Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998), represented a departure from other learning
theories in existence in the 1990s by situating knowledge in the community rather than
in individuals. The tonality shift here from individuals to communities is important
to distinguish situated learning theory from other sociocultural theories of learning:
epistemology itself is exclusively located in the community, entirely “decentered”
(Lave & Wenger, 1991, p. 86) from the individual, and exists as a historical func-
tion of time including the future. This perspective differs from social constructivism
because situated learning theory does not posit any individual possession of knowl-
edge. Instead, knowledge is experienced and participated in rather than possessing
deterministic ontology, because at any point in time it is not possible to capture the
community’s learning as such. An individual person’s role in this epistemology exists
in their emergent formation of an identity as a member of that community.
A useful metaphor for conceptualizing SLT is apprenticeship (Lave & Wenger,
1991). The apprentice first must initiate a connection to one of the commu-
nity members, an act that expresses the aspiring apprentice’s desire to participate
in the community. The apprentice then trains under the tutelage of one of the
experts in the community. The community discourse proceeds through interactions
between oldtimers and newcomers (Lave & Wenger, 1991). Oldtimers are estab-
lished members of the community who have participated in the community and its
activities for a long time. Newcomers are novices and just beginning their appren-
ticeship journey into the community. Through this process, the apprentice—over
time—becomes an expert and an oldtimer in their own right, thus bringing in new
apprentices and repeating the cycle. If a student—a newcomer—desires to become
a member of a community, they must initiate an apprenticeship with an expert, and
spend the substantial amount of time required performing the labor and activities of
the community to become an expert theirself. If one were to ask either the oldtimer
or the newcomer when—exactly—they had learned to become a central member of
the community or an expert, their answer would involve their entire career, perhaps
with one or two critical moments when their status as an expert was validated by
other member(s) of the community. Traditionally, university mathematics depart-
ments function in this way, where students are immersed in the practices of the math-
ematics community under the apprenticeship of their professors (experts). However,
if a mathematics teacher does not think like a mathematician, they are unlikely to
train their newcomers to think as mathematicians. In this case, instead of raising up
100 A. G. Manizade et al.

newcomers as experts (mathematics doers as people who are able to perform “doing
mathematics” tasks; see Stein et al., 2000, p. 16), they will raise people who can act
mathematically by producing a memorized sequence of procedures, a devolvement
that more closely resembles behaviorism.

4.1.2 Goals of Teaching

For the teacher taking the perspective of SLT, the goal of their teaching is to build and
operate a model of apprenticeship and legitimate peripheral participation (LPP)—the
novice participation of newcomers who are not yet central to the community nor close
to its experts—in the classroom. “[T]he important point concerning learning [in SLT]
is one of access to practice as resource for learning, rather than to instruction. Issues of
motivation, identity, and language deserve further discussion” (Lave & Wenger, 1991,
p. 80). The teacher acts as the expert—the oldtimer—who is responsible for enabling
the students—the newcomers—to engage in LPP into the community of mathematics.
Of course, the teacher cannot expect that all their students will become professional
mathematicians in the future, but that is not the purpose of the students’ LPP. Rather,
the students’ LPP in the community of mathematics represents their experience of
mathematics “learning”—that is, the experience of the peripheral participation is
homologous to the content being learned. In other words, the content of knowledge-
learning is conceived as the process of becoming a certain type of person in the
mathematics classroom. There is a critical bifurcation that must be at the forefront
of the teacher’s mind, and that will determine whether the students’ LPP is indeed
located within the landscape of the community of mathematics, or if it is located
within the (nominal) community of public-school actors, wherein the focus is more
closely aligned with following a perfect sequence of steps as with the behaviorist
approach. If the former has been achieved in the teacher’s mindset, then the teacher
is prepared to enact teaching from the SLT perspective. In practice, this may involve
modeling for students the correct mathematical language (Morgan et al., 2014; cf.
Pimm, 2014) and discourse patterns, how to solve problems and practice commu-
nicating their thinking (Sfard, 2008), and the rigor needed to perform mathematical
labor in the normative cadence and standards of the community (Herbel-Eisenmann
et al., 2015).
The SLT perspective is different from the behaviorist perspective in that the latter is
concerned with student outcomes on assessments. In the latter, knowledge outcomes
are outcomes in and for themselves, rather than being related to a process of becoming
a certain type of person who has a sense of belonging in the mathematics commu-
nity. In SLT, the product of LPP is that students develop a mathematical identity
that affords them membership in the mathematics community—even if at a very
surface level—because they have been trained to act and think like mathematicians,
so in situations where mathematics is at the fore, their mathematical identity acts
as a membership card for that situation. When using technology in the mathematics
classroom from the SLT approach, teachers use educational technology to propose
and provide opportunities to solve complex problems that students would not be able
The Research on Mathematics Teaching and Planning: Theoretical … 101

to solve without technology, instead of using technology as a black-box where mathe-

matical reasoning is not required in order for learners and teachers to produce a correct
answer (Gueudet & Pepin, this volume; Goos et al., 2000; Leung & Bolite-Frank,
2015; Straesser, 2002).

4.1.3 Examples from the Literature

Sfard (2008) has contributed greatly to the development of SLT as a perspective

in mathematics education. One of the key notions developed by Sfard was that of
commognition, which is a neologism of “communication” and “cognition.” The
notion of commognition emphasizes that “cognitive processes and interpersonal
communication are … different manifestations of basically the same phenomenon”
(Sfard, 2008, p. 83), thus showing that the psychological aspect of other perspectives
in Fig. 1 are homologous to the acts of LPP in the SLT perspective. Her theoret-
ical work has led other scholars such as Krummheuer (2011) to develop empirical
representations of what it looks like to see LPP occurring in a mathematics classroom
between teachers and students. Pertinent for this chapter is the way in which teachers
plan their interaction with students. The SLT teacher will have planned for things
like “eavesdropping” during active learning student activities, to qualify the students’
participation in the activity and help students maintain the desired direction of their
LPP, presumably towards the “doing mathematics” of the mathematical topic of the
planned lesson. The SLT teacher would anticipate during the planning process key
observable behaviors of the students, qualified through the characteristics of “doing
mathematics” for the mathematical topic of the lesson. This is similar to the “key
questions” that are typically taught to future teachers as a lesson planning tactic
(Atkin & Karplus, 1962). The work of Sfard, Krummheuer, and others elucidate
the dangers of assuming that cognition and participation are separate phenomena:
psychological phenomena do not occur without the environment, culture, history,
and materiality of people in community with each other. Thus, in SLT, the “psy-
chology”—if it can indeed be called that—of mathematics teaching and learning is
precisely homologous to the participation of teachers and students in the LPP dyad
of oldtimers and newcomers.
Dawkins and Weber (2017) described the process of teaching students how to
prove in an undergraduate mathematics class. They seemed to herald the time-
honored mathematical practice of developing a proof argument as an encultura-
tion mechanism into the enlightened learning state that is ostensibly desired for all
students of mathematics. While Dawkins and Weber’s article deals with undergrad-
uate mathematics, their critique directly translates to K-12 mathematics by aligning
with the “doing mathematics” (Stein et al., 2000, p. 16) level of activity as described
in curriculum standards such as those from the National Council of Teachers of
Mathematics. In teacher preparation programs across the US (from which context
we are writing the present chapter), pre-service teachers are trained to design and
implement tasks that point towards an end-goal of being at the “doing mathemat-
ics” level. Indeed, the obsession with “doing mathematics” led Baldino and Cabral
102 A. G. Manizade et al.

(2021) to question the qualifications applied by the teachers to the students who are
ostensibly attempting to “do mathematics” in the classroom. Is the students’ effort
(i.e., labor) good enough to be considered “doing mathematics?” This qualification
is for the teacher to decide, and in thus deciding, excludes knowledge from students
who are not laboring in the intended way, that is, in the way that a mathemati-
cian would be. This judgement differential crystallizes the hidden dimension of the
teacher’s exercise of power in the SLT learning environment: that it is not clear who
the “mathematicians” are, nor is it clear what their practice might be or not be.

4.2 Behaviorism as Perspective

4.2.1 Definition

Behaviorism as an approach for teaching mathematics originated in classical

psychology (e.g., Bloom, 1956; Gagne et al., 1993; Skinner, 1938; Thorndike, 1898,
1905). In mathematics classrooms, the goal of the behaviorist is to elicit a desired
response when a given stimulus is presented and to make undesired responses less
likely based on consequences (see Freudenthal, 1978). This relationship between
consequences and behaviors is called conditioning. Many behaviorists take the stance
that students are “born as blank slates,” and thus without mathematics, and that by
learning the desired behaviors, acquire mathematical knowledge. The learning of
mathematics is thus largely the result of the classroom environment being structured
with the behavior–consequence doublet at its fore. In the current educational envi-
ronment, behaviorism is still widely used if we look at the software and programs
being utilized by teachers and schools, where students are given games to play
that are focused on efficient achievement of low-level skills rather than engaging in
conceptual understanding of higher-order tasks (e.g., Reflex Math software). Another
example is when technology is used as a master (Geiger, 2005; Goos et al., 2000;
Martinovic & Manizade, 2014), meaning that the technology knows the mathematics
and the student believes or takes-for-granted any output produced by the software—
lacking knowledge, competencies, and skills to engage his or her mathematical
thinking to evaluate the outcome produced by the technology.

4.2.2 Goals of Teaching

The goal of the behaviorist approach is to create a perfect sequence of steps when
teaching a mathematical topic that can be taught to a student procedurally with an
expectation that the student will be able to repeat this sequence to produce the desired
outcome. The main goal is to master the procedure and produce a desired outcome
rather than examine the idea, construct new meaning, or make connections to other
ideas within mathematics.
The Research on Mathematics Teaching and Planning: Theoretical … 103

Psychology has historically described two types of behaviorism—classical condi-

tioning and operant conditioning (Ormrod, 2020). The operant paradigm is more
widely used in mathematics education settings, such as by pairing a reward with
a desired behavior such as correctly answering mathematics problems. The goal
of operant conditioning is to change current behavior towards the desired behavior
by incentivizing with rewards. In the case of mathematics education, the desired
behavior becomes the ability to correctly replicate procedures on tasks, and contrasts
with a student’s own mathematical thinking because the student is being rewarded for
replicating the steps as prescribed by the teacher rather for exercising creative agency
over their own mathematics. The result of this, in the classroom, is that mathematics
procedures are reproduced in students with high efficacy and efficiency; it is easy
for the teacher to see that her students are performing the mathematics in the desired
way and that the entire class is making progress. This is useful in training students to
be prepared for standardized tests. Thus, the goals of the behaviorist teacher are to
create a classroom environment that focuses on the desired behaviors as propagated
by the teacher, along with a culture of expecting rewards for those desired behaviors.
In this way, the behaviorist teacher’s goals are more focused on conditioning the
behavior (e.g., reproducing a procedure) rather than understanding the mathematical
concepts involved in the procedure.

4.2.3 Examples from the Literature

Kilpatrick et al. (2001) described vignettes of teachers’ planning and subsequent

lesson enactment that follow the behaviorist perspective. In one example, Mr.
Angelo (pseudonym) planned a lesson on multiplication by selecting only exam-
ples that would make it “likely that all students [would] be able to produce correct
answers” (p. 329), as long as they memorized the presented rule. Despite these
researchers’ elucidation of this early in the twenty-first century, more recent research
has continued to detect the same behaviorist phenomena in mathematics classrooms.
Amador and Lamberg (2013) found that veteran teachers were guided by a behav-
iorist orientation towards their lesson planning, whereas novice teachers were not—
the latter tended towards cognitive learning theory instead, which will be discussed
in the next section. For the veteran teachers, lesson planning was guided by what
Amador and Lamberg characterized as a testing trajectory, borrowing the term and
structural diagram from Simon’s (1995) work on Hypothetical Learning Trajectories
(HLTs). In the testing trajectory, lesson plans were reverse engineered to produce a
desired behavior in the students: that they could read, understand, and answer test
questions correctly. In this type of lesson planning, the veteran teachers objectified
four types of professional knowledge: (1) their knowledge about the test content and
structure; (2) their beliefs about how to best prepare for a test; (3) their knowledge
about how students achieve apropos of specific mathematics content, i.e., anticipating
student misconceptions; and (4) their knowledge about how classroom activities and
representations directly support test preparation and align with test questions, i.e.,
104 A. G. Manizade et al.

as opposed to concept development. Interestingly, one of the veteran teachers in the

study also described her beliefs about the nature of mathematics as being inherently
procedural.
Also straddling the line between the behaviorist and cognitive learning theory
perspectives, Chizhik and Chizhik (2016) issued a call to the field to reject behav-
iorism in favor of cognitive learning theory—the latter will be discussed in the next
section. Chizhik and Chizhik embraced the cognitivism of Vygotsky (1986) and the
cognitive learning theorists as a retort to the behaviorist legacy that has overshad-
owed teacher preparation curricula on lesson planning since Tyler’s (1949) foun-
dational text on curriculum and instruction. At the time of publication of Tyler’s
work, the education field was primarily influenced by behavioral psychology, a focus
that has since shifted—at least in other areas of educational research—to cognitive
psychology. Chizhik and Chizhik (2016) argued that research on lesson planning has
not similarly updated to the cognitive perspective, remaining “stuck” in the behavioral
psychology of 70 years ago.
Technology-influenced Return to Behaviorism. The advent of technology in math-
ematics classrooms presents the danger of a return to the behaviorist approach for
teaching mathematics, by focusing on rote memorization and practice of skills that are
not based on student cognition of the mathematics presented through the technology.
When used in this way, some technology functions as a novel way to keep students
occupied with activity during class and makes it easy for teachers to monitor student
completion of work—i.e., students successfully performing a desired behavior such
as answering questions correctly—rather than students’ development of the math-
ematical concepts. The operant reward is the two-fold novelty of the use of tech-
nology in and for itself, as well as the novelty of “winning” games or completing the
puzzle correctly. In this way, the mathematics is secondary to the game’s or puzzle’s
architecture, and thus the reward is not mathematical in nature.
During the COVID pandemic, school systems across the world were forced to tran-
sition to a virtual learning environment to protect the health and safety of students.
They utilized various educational platforms and software (e.g., Mathletics, Reflex
Math, and Sumdog). These Online Mathematics Instructional Program (OMPI) plat-
forms use the behaviorist approach for teaching mathematics to motivate students
(Darragh, 2021; Jablonka, 2017). As a result, opportunities for collaboration, problem
solving, and using contextual mathematics were no longer present but were replaced
by the development of superficial mathematical skills (Darragh, 2021).
We do not suggest that all technology is inherently slanted towards the behaviorist
approach for teaching mathematics, but we do suggest that technology can be and
often is used in that way (Parkhurst et al., 2010). In the institutionalized context
of schooling, adopting any educational technology or platform is tied to teachers’
goals for teaching mathematics and their goals for students’ learning. Widely used
dynamic platforms and software such as GeoGebra or Desmos can be pedagogically
utilized in a way that is explicitly counter to the return to behaviorism (Edwards
and Jones, 2006; Hohenwarter et al., 2008; Verhoef et al., 2015). The ways teachers
use technologies present evidence of the perspective for teaching mathematics they
The Research on Mathematics Teaching and Planning: Theoretical … 105

enact, as described in the framework we present in this chapter. More research is

warranted to explore gaps between the potential of technology and the actual uses
of technology in schools, a need that is compounded by the fast-paced evolution of
technologies that are available and adopted by schools (Moore, 2020).

4.3 Cognitive Learning Theory as Perspective

4.3.1 Definition

Psychology is also the origin of cognitive learning theory (CLT) as a perspective

informing what happens in mathematics classrooms, although innovations such as
those of Piaget (1970a, 1970b) changed the perspective from a focus on behaviors to
a focus on cognitive development. This perspective includes radical constructivism,
which conceptualizes knowledge as the product of cognitive processes that construct
or form individualized understandings of concepts. Cognitive learning theory strictly
focuses on matching learning opportunities in mathematics with learners’ natural
cognitive abilities and processes. The major departure of cognitive learning theory
from behaviorism was encapsulated in the development of the notion of mental
representations and associations. Mental representations and associations describe
the ways in which students “build up their picture of the world piece by piece”
(von Glasersfeld & Steffe, 1991, p. 92); thus, knowledge is not conceived of as a
“commodity that can be transferred from a teacher to a learner” (p. 93). Mental
representations and associations are not necessarily in exact correspondence with
observable behaviors; that is, observable behavior does not necessarily capture the
entirety of what a student knows. The student has mental representations and associ-
ations, what Piaget (1970a, 1970b) called structures, that may or may not be reflected
in their behavior. Behaviors are separate from these structures. Thus, a pedagogical
approach that merely focuses on behaviors falls short of accurately designing for and
assessing the goals and products of teaching.

4.3.2 Goals of Teaching

Cognitive learning theory focuses on students’ development in thinking and provides

learning opportunities that match the progression of this development. Unlike the
behaviorist perspective where the focus is on the outcome of learning, cognitive
learning theory focuses on enhancing the process of conceptual development through
learning experiences. The goal of the teacher is to take an active role in helping
students to make connections among their ideas, thus progressing from a simple
conception of a topic towards a more complex one.
Freudenthal (1973, 1991) and Gravemeijer (2004) described the process of guided
reinvention, wherein the teacher pre-actively conducts “a thought experiment to envi-
sion a learning route the class might invent itself” (Stephan et al., 2014, p. 39) to
106 A. G. Manizade et al.

mimic the evolution of mathematical concepts over decades or centuries. As a result,

the teacher intentionally creates opportunities for students to explore and develop
their own meanings of mathematics and mathematical concepts over the course of
planned lesson units. The planned lesson units, which are teachers’ Type D, act as
the guide for students’ reinvention of concepts and personal construction of meaning
about those concepts: “[T]he learning route is designed so that the concepts emerge
as students engage in the instructional sequence. It is in this sense that we say that
students ‘reinvent’ mathematics” (Stephan et al., 2014, p. 39). In addition, the CLT
teacher can only plan for what students might do, not what they will do—and for
that matter, what students’ constructed mathematical concepts and meanings might
be as a result of their teaching.
Guided reinvention is pedagogically operationalized through work of radical
constructivists Simon and colleagues (e.g., 1995, 2018). They developed the Learning
Through Activity (LTA; Simon et al., 2018) framework based on the assumption that
teachers can promote abstraction with engineered sequences of tasks. The framework
extends from the teacher’s pre-active engineering and sequencing of tasks all the way
through students’ abstraction of concepts. The engineering and sequencing portion
of the framework is Type D; the task actively presented to students is Type C; the
reflective abstraction is Type B; and the concept as the product of students’ abstrac-
tion is Type A. Thus, the CLT teacher’s Type D consists chiefly of task engineering
and sequencing for the intended conceptual development trajectory: “If a concept is
a result of reflective abstraction, that is an abstraction derived from activity, then it
should be possible to engineer a sequence of tasks that elicits appropriate activity
that promotes abstraction from that activity” (Simon et al., 2018, p. 103).

4.3.3 Examples from the Literature

Stephan et al. (2014) presented a cogent description of guided reinvention planning

and teaching through a case study of 7th grade teachers who designed an instructional
sequence of tasks intended to guide students in reinventing the rules of positive and
negative integers, and integer operations. The task sequence started with a realistic
context of financial transactions (e.g., net worth, assets, and debts) symbolized by
integers and signs. The sequence progressed towards a purely abstract symbolization
of signed integers and their operations, so that students through this process would
explore and reinvent the meaning of these concepts for themselves.
Amador and Lamberg (2013) studied the ways in which teachers designed learning
trajectories and planned corresponding lessons within the institutional constraints of
the school, such as testing. They conceptualized the study using CLT in order to
investigate how teachers addressed the high-stakes nature of standardized testing
apropos of the daily work of teaching, and how the task of preparing students for
such tests might be different for different teachers. In order to do this, they theorized
an analog to the HLT called a testing trajectory where preparation for the testing
environment was the driver for decision-making in the planning and teaching process.
Four teachers were interviewed—three veteran teachers and one novice, first-year
The Research on Mathematics Teaching and Planning: Theoretical … 107

teacher. The three veteran teachers’ planning was guided by the testing trajectory
whereas the novice teacher’s planning was guided by conceptual development in the
form of an HLT. That is, the veteran teachers worked backwards from the known
parameters and format of the testing environment in order to theorize a hypothetical
trajectory for preparing students to answer test questions whereas the novice teacher
worked backwards from the mathematics conceptual goal in order to theorize a
hypothetical learning trajectory for students’ development of that concept. The direct
link to this conceptual outcome was not implicated in the testing environment for the
novice teacher. We identify the novice teacher as having taken the CLT perspective
whereas the veteran teachers were effectively acting as behaviorists.
Chizhik and Chizhik (2016) issued a call to embrace CLT in lesson planning
in tandem with a rejection of behaviorism. They note that, historically in teacher
education, the texts being used in teacher preparation programs (TPPs) trace their
origins to the behavioral psychology of Tyler (1949). Despite the field of education
having since moved away (since the 1970s and 1980s; e.g., Vygotsky, 1986) from
behaviorism in its predominant theoretical stance, TPP curricula on lesson planning
have not consistently made the same update. This could potentially lead to the divide
in teacher planning practices observed by Amador and Lamberg (2013). Chizhik and
Chizhik (2016) argued for a reformulation of the lesson planning TPP curriculum
to involve the following major components: (1) reconceptualize learning objectives
by theorizing a CLT-based version of Bloom’s Taxonomy; and (2) reconceptualize
instruction to maximize student engagement, sharing of ideas and thinking, and (3)
meaningful teacher feedback, with these three components being the major drivers
towards students’ success on tests.
Fernandez and Cannon (2005) conducted a case study comparison of Japanese
and US teachers’ lesson planning habits. They found that the two groups of teachers
conceptualized the task of lesson planning in very different ways. The Japanese
teachers’ views of the task of lesson planning centered on conceptualizing students
as active participants in the learning process and prioritized students’ development of
positive attitudes towards learning mathematics. The US teachers’ views of the task
of lesson planning, conversely, centered on conceptualizing themselves as effec-
tive teachers of the content. While the US teachers were concerned with student
engagement, they grouped it under the characteristics of being an effective teacher.
Thus, the difference in the two cultural paradigms of the teachers in the study meant
that the purpose of their lesson planning manifested in very different ways. The US
teachers planned with their own performance in mind, whereas the Japanese teachers
planned with their student’s cognition and affect in mind. In both cases, CLT could
be implicated, but it is certainly more evident in the Japanese teachers’ privileging of
the students’ position in the CLT paradigm. In both cases, CLT could be implicated
because of the focus on trajectorial development of the mathematical content through
the planned lesson.
Lewis et al. (2009) contributed a theoretical model that combined elements of
CLT and SLT for the purpose of application to Lesson Study (LS), a pedagogical
approach to analysis of, reflection on, and refinement of lesson plans typically done
in groups of teachers. In their model, they synthesized elements of both theories
108 A. G. Manizade et al.

in various stages of LS, with the aim of theorizing how lesson improvement mate-
rializes from the LS process. The model connects CLT with these aspects of LS:
(1) building understanding of the content area as well as students’ and colleagues’
thinking about it; (2) studying the standards, curriculum, and existing lesson plans
to decide on building blocks for the conceptual development of the target lesson; (3)
writing down lesson plan ideas that elucidate goals for student thinking—and student
learning differences—to make them visible to colleagues; (4) observe a colleague
teach a version of the lesson, paying attention to links between students’ thinking
and lesson design apropos of learning goals; and (5) noting instructional practices
that should be improved to support the learning goals of the lesson. Other aspects
of the model focused more on SLT, such as collaboration amongst colleagues and
sharing ownership of the LS process. By theorizing the LS process through the CLT
perspective, Lewis and colleagues offered a more cogent description of the work of
Simon et al. (2018) with specific regard to the task of lesson study and planning.
Finally, Sullivan et al. (2013, 2015) have used CLT to research lesson planning.
In their work, they connect Type D to Type C, with the distinction being that in Type
D, the focus is on helping teachers identify important mathematical ideas that are
fundamental for teaching a topic, whereas in Type C, they suggest that by improving
teachers’ knowledge of mathematics through collaborative planning, their ability
to plan for a given mathematical objective will improve. In their 2013 paper, they
described the ways in which teachers use the Australian national curriculum docu-
ments during planning. They found that many teachers assume agency over planning
decisions when reading and interpreting curriculum documents and execute those
decisions with resolve. Thus, they claimed that authors of curriculum document
should construct such documents with explicit focus on inspiring teachers’ decision
agency in enacting the national curriculum standards. In short, Sullivan et al. (2013)
argued that external actors in the school context (such as administrators, curriculum
developers, etc.) should focus on unlocking teachers’ planning agency potential rather
than attempting to structure or restrict it, and that collaborative planning should be
ritualized in schools. In this process, the teachers in the 2013 study took up agential
decision-making about their planning through a process of reading the curriculum
documents. Sullivan et al. (2015) closely tied this work to the CLT perspective,
by focusing on the teachers’ engagement with lesson planning practices that match
students’ cognitive process (assumedly along an HLT or similar trajectory) with the
difficulty of struggle in the lesson’s sequencing. In this way, teachers use CLT to
reduce negative student experiences with the HLT and improve the lesson without
reducing the cognitive demand—a crucial component of a successful application of
CLT—of the lesson’s tasks.
Sullivan et al. (2015) necessarily leads us to a discussion of the productive
struggle and productive failure literature. This contrasts with the didactic perspec-
tive on teaching mathematics wherein the teacher “must produce a recontextual-
ization and a repersonalization of the knowledge. It must become the student’s
knowledge” (Brousseau, 2002, p. 23, emphasis in original). The term productive
struggle is defined as a necessary student learning behavior for building conceptual
understanding and for promoting students’ sense making (Heibert & Grouws, 2007).
The Research on Mathematics Teaching and Planning: Theoretical … 109

Other researchers describe the goal of a CLT teacher as to teach for the robust under-
standing of mathematics by supporting students in productive struggle while building
understandings through actively engaging in mathematical practices (Schoenfeld,
2014; Schoenfeld & TRU Project, 2016). The TRU project team describes five dimen-
sions of powerful classrooms: (1) mathematics; (2) cognitive demand; (3) equitable
access to content; (4) agency, ownership, and identity; and (5) formative assessment
(Schoenfeld & TRU Project, 2016). They stress the importance of focusing on these
dimensions during the lesson planning and reflection process (Type D). In addition,
researchers encourage teachers to plan for students’ productive failures as a neces-
sary inseparable and cyclical portion of mathematics problem solving and learning
(Kapur, 2010, 2014; Simpson & Maltese, 2017). Warshauer et al. (2021) highlight
the importance of preservice mathematics teachers learning to identify strategies
and practices that can be used for planning and supporting productive struggle in the
classroom.

4.4 Social Constructivism as Perspective

4.4.1 Definition

In social constructivism (SC), which is based on the work of Vygotsky (1960), the
classroom community constructs knowledge and understanding as a cultural product
of students’ learning experience. In the SC mathematics classroom, the shared nature
of the knowledge is distinct from the cognitive learning theory perspective, because
the personally held mathematical knowledge of an individual student is a reflection
of the community’s construction of that knowledge rather than a personal product
of construction of mental representations. The social constructivism perspective was
further developed in varying ways by teams of scholars, including but not limited to
the work of Bishop (acculturation; 1988), Resnick (socializing; 1988), and Cobb and
Yackel (emergent perspective; 1996). Acculturation is induction of students into a
foreign or alien culture (e.g., the mathematics classroom). In the culture of the math-
ematics classroom, this process includes interacting with others to perform the activ-
ities of counting, locating, measuring, designing, playing, and explaining (Bishop,
1988) to develop mathematical knowledge. Socializing refers to social constructivism
over time, where “personal habits and traits are shaped through participation in social
interactions with particular demand and reward characteristics,” with the goal of the
student “gradually tak[ing] on the characteristics of [the teacher]” (Resnick, 1988,
p. 12). In the emergent perspective (Cobb & Yackel, 1996), cognitive and social
perspectives work in parallel, with the teacher simultaneously interpreting students’
cognition (e.g., beliefs about self and others, the nature of mathematics, concep-
tions of mathematical ideas) and students’ social interactions (e.g., classroom norms,
mathematical norms, and mathematical practices).
110 A. G. Manizade et al.

4.4.2 Goals of Teaching

The goal of the SC teacher is to involve students in a community discourse about

mathematics through teaching that is focused on classroom discussion. The discourse
promoted by the teacher is guided by the relevant mathematical tasks and investiga-
tions, with the teacher being the instrument of enculturation into the mathematizing
culture; the students meanwhile are the ones being acculturated (Bishop, 1988). By
encouraging students to form new understandings of mathematics using their inter-
pretations of prior mathematical knowledge, the teacher aims to empower students
to contribute to the reconstruction—instead of reproduction—of new mathematical
knowledge. In other words, SC teacher’s goal is to provide students with opportuni-
ties to develop subjective knowledge that must be constructed and validated through
and within sociocultural interactions so that the subjective knowledge may become
objective knowledge of the group.

4.4.3 Examples from the Literature

Purdum-Cassidy et al. (2015) used social constructivism in their study of the way
in which teachers plan for questioning (e.g., key questions on a lesson plan) in
elementary mathematics classes. In their Vygotskian framing, they noted how “con-
ceptual knowledge first occurs between learners … and then moves within the
learner” (p. 81). Social constructivism thus positions the teacher’s key point of
access—apropos their potential for impacting student learning outcomes—as that
of influencing what happens between students in the classroom. The intrapsycholog-
ical impacts that occur consequently are left to each student’s own psyches for the
purposes of meaning-making. The teacher should thus be primarily concerned with
impacting the social construction of knowledge. In their study, Purdum-Cassidy and
colleagues focused on the role of questioning (their own plans for key questions)
and the role of interpreting and answering students’ questions during the lesson—
overall what is generally called discourse in the mathematics education literature.
In particular, they note how pre-service elementary teachers struggle to plan for and
write key questions when planning a lesson. As an intervention, these researchers
investigated the possibilities of children’s books that have mathematical topics in
helping teachers plan for mathematical questioning in their lessons. Since children’s
literature is discursively organized (viz. into the format of a story), the same struc-
ture can be ported over into the structuring of questions qua discourse. Such discur-
sively structured questioning prompts the classroom community to socially construct
knowledge—vis-à-vis questioning and discourse—that is then internally reified for
each student.
Sullivan et al. (2015) investigated the connection between professional develop-
ment and teachers’ abilities to plan for scaffolding challenging mathematics tasks. In
their study, they investigated how teachers exposed to challenging tasks that require
student collaboration (such as inquiry tasks). Such tasks were initially uncomfortable
for teachers to use, but once they had been supported by professional development,
The Research on Mathematics Teaching and Planning: Theoretical … 111

teachers felt confident in planning for such tasks and were more likely to seek out
more inquiry tasks. This finding indicates that teachers are often hesitant to engage
in the SC perspective when planning for and enacting mathematics lessons, but that
this hesitation can be alleviated through the use of directed training on the approach.

4.5 Structuralism as Perspective

4.5.1 Definition

The structuralist approach originates from both mathematics and psychology. Dienes
(1960) emphasized the importance of children learning through the use of manipula-
tives (e.g., Gningue, 2016); however, classic examples of the structuralist approach
can be found in every branch of mathematics. For instance, the Poincaré and Beltrami-
Klein models for describing hyperbolic geometry are used to help learners develop
fundamental understanding of hyperbolic space that is challenging to visualize other-
wise. The focus of the structuralist perspective is on the structures and theories
that underlie the mathematics presented. This perspective is often conflated with
the constructivist approaches for teaching mathematics. It overlaps with radical
constructivism in that there is a focus on theories of cognitive development and
students’ concept formation of a specific mathematical idea. However, the struc-
turalist approach differs in that the focus is on discovering the structures that are
introduced to students by the teacher, who is using those structures as a framework
around which mathematical understanding can be developed, rather than constructing
them. An example in K-12 teaching is the use of AlgeBlocks to visually demonstrate
multiplication of polynomials, a mathematical process that would otherwise be only
abstract and symbolic (de Walle et al., 2017). The difference, thus, is that the struc-
turalist perspective is focused on discovering the existing mathematical structure of
polynomial multiplication, a structure that is already there. Conversely, the construc-
tivist perspective does not conceive of an existing structure that the student must reach
through their mathematical activity, but rather, is exploring to construct their own
concepts from scratch. The structuralist, therefore, can talk about misconceptions and
misunderstandings when a student’s understanding is incongruent with the relevant
structure, whereas constructivists do not use that term since the student’s concept is
its own referent.

4.5.2 Goals of Teaching

The goal of the structuralist teacher is to guide students in discovering a mathematical

structure, through the use of exemplary and sequenced tasks, each of which draws
particular attention to some limit-case aspect of the structure. As already mentioned,
one of the characteristics of the structuralist approach is an emphasis on the use of
manipulatives. The manipulatives allow the student to experience an embodiment of
112 A. G. Manizade et al.

the mathematical structure during their discovery process. Additionally, there is a

spiral design in the curriculum that allows for revisiting key mathematical structures
in a cycle, delving into them more deeply each time.
A relevant metaphor here is the way in which a house is built: the cornerstones of
the foundation must be located first, followed by the joists in the floors and beams in
the walls, and it is not until this skeleton is truly discovered from behind the plaster
walls (the general case examples), that the house’s structure could be said to be truly
discovered. Thus, the structuralist teacher must first check their own understanding
of the structure against the mathematical community and literature, and then locate
exemplary cases of problems that will illuminate the cornerstones, beams, and joists
of the structure. These must be carefully sequenced so that the student will follow the
same path in discovering the hierarchy of the structure; for example, it would make no
sense to study the roof trusses without first having discovered where the studs in the
walls are. This identification and sequencing of exemplary tasks then leads students
to develop a more general understanding of the structure as the teacher generalizes
these exemplary cases. In practice, this typically follows the arc of beginning with
manipulatives, then moving to a pictorial representation of the manipulatives (i.e.,
drawings), then associating the drawings with abstract symbols or ideas, and finally
removing the manipulatives altogether so that the abstract symbols represent the
structure itself in the student’s mind.
In the structuralist approach, models and manipulatives are used to help students
discover mathematical structures, but none of the models are robust enough to be
applicable in every case or to demonstrate every attribute of the mathematical struc-
ture’s complexity. The teacher, therefore, uses manipulatives to help students discover
a particular aspect or develop understanding of a particular example. These particu-
lars can then be used to develop understanding of the mathematical structure more
generally.
Mathematics education literature on multiple representations exemplify the prac-
tical use of the structuralist approach in mathematics classrooms. Researchers discuss
the importance of using multiple representations and developing fluency in flexibly
moving between them, such as visual, pictorial, graphical, numeric, and algebraic
(e.g., Ainsworth, 2006; Deliyanni et al., 2016; Goldin, 2002; Goldin & Shteingold,
2001; Mitchell et al., 2014; Stylianou, 2010). Manipulatives can be used as a tool
for making and presenting representations and can either be virtual (on computers)
or physical. Planning for these types of lessons thus includes envisioning tasks with
different representation in sequence from concrete to abstract, and tasks that promote
the students’ movement between the multiple representations’ uses. Illustrations of
classroom implications of the structuralist approach to Type D can be found in math-
ematics educators’ works designed for training pre-service teachers (e.g., Beckmann,
2022; Kilpatrick et al., 2001; Van de Walle, 2017).
The Research on Mathematics Teaching and Planning: Theoretical … 113

4.5.3 Examples from the Literature

Pierce and Stacey (2009) discussed the use of graphing calculators in a structuralist
classroom. In their study, they emphasized the importance of four aspects of lesson
planning for the use of technology within the structuralist approach: (1) focusing
on the main goal of the lesson and thoughtfully selecting multiple representations
that directly support the goal; (2) identify, for each representation, a specific purpose
aligned with student engagement; (3) “establish naming protocols for variables”
(p. 231) so that students can translate variables across technologies and represen-
tations easily; and (4) reducing any excessive cognitive demand so that technology
does not distract or detract from the lesson goal and students’ engagement with the
intended mathematics. These researchers argued that technology allows the teacher
to support the goals of the lesson as identified by the teacher during lesson planning.
Depending on the goals for the lesson, the structuralist teacher might need to restrict
the strategies that emerge during the discussion or restrict the representations being
used, or plan for the reduction of distractions due to the technology (Pierce & Stacey,
2009).
In their study of the low-performing middle school mathematics classrooms,
Panasuk and Todd (2005) present a conceptual framework within a structuralist
approach for teaching mathematics that guided the development of the instrument
titled Lesson Plan Evaluation Rubric (LPER) for the assessment of mathematics
teachers’ lesson planning process. The researchers also described a four stages of
lesson planning (FSLP) strategy comprising: (1) planning of objectives, formulated
in terms of students’ observable behavior; (2) design of homework, that matches
the lesson’s objectives; (3) inclusion of developmental activities that reflect the
lesson’s objectives and advance students’ development and learning; and (4) plan-
ning mental mathematics that include activities to stimulate students’ prior knowl-
edge, and prepare students for the acquisition of new concepts. The FSLP strategy
focuses on the development of lessons involving multiple representations such as
visual representations (diagrams, pictures, graphs, tables), verbal representations
(words), and symbolic representations (variables, expressions, operations, equations)
to address students’ misconceptions and assess students’ progress toward meeting
learning objectives. Moreover, the strategy produced lessons that were comprehen-
sive and coherent by emphasizing alignment between homework, classroom activ-
ities, and mental mathematics. The researchers claimed that to incorporate FSLP
effectively, lesson plans must be flexible yet logical in their design to accommodate
the distinctive needs of each student. Furthermore, this strategy encourages teachers
to continuously adjust and adapt to achieve the desired learning outcomes. In addi-
tion, this strategy is compatible with Gueudet and Pepin’s (this volume) concept
of coherence-in-use, which they define as the degree to which there is coherence
within teachers’ (enacted) propositions to their students, after teachers have consulted
various curricular materials.
Harbour et al. (2016) described a process of structuralist lesson planning, that
included beginning with a diagnostic interview to determine a student’s existing
114 A. G. Manizade et al.

understanding of a concept, and then comparing that understanding with a standards-

informed intended goal for the student’s understanding as a result of the lesson. The
teacher then, based on this gap, takes four considerations into their lesson planning:
(1) plan the lesson to utilize instructional strategies that explicitly focus on students’
conceptual understanding of the topic; (2) plan explicit scaffolding and feedback
opportunities into the lesson; (3) plan for student think-alouds and teacher think-
alouds; and (4) plan for the use of concrete materials, visual representations, and
numeric representations.

4.6 Problem Solving as Perspective

4.6.1 Definition

Problem solving as an instructional approach in mathematics classrooms is a type of

teaching that focuses on developing students’ problem-solving skills and abilities to
persist when faced with problems with which they have no experience, rather than
practicing skills that they have already previously learned (e.g., from prior instruc-
tion). The focus is on both the mathematical content and the process, with the inten-
tion to produce and interpret different approaches and strategies for solving the same
problem. This approach—based on the theoretical framework developed by Polya
(1945/2015) in How to Solve It—originated in the 1980s with the Cockcroft Report,
Mathematics Counts (UK), and NCTM’s Agenda for Action, all of which called for
problem solving and investigations to be included in mathematics teaching. Schoen-
feld (1983) has argued that studying problem solving requires the consideration of
different and distinct domains of behavior and knowledge—knowledge resources,
control, beliefs, heuristics, and practices—rather than purely relying on cognitive
psychology.

4.6.2 Goals of Teaching

The goal of the teacher in a classroom that focuses on problem solving as an instruc-
tional approach is to create a thinking classroom (Liljedahl, 2019; Liljedahl et al.,
2016) in which students are given tasks that encourage thinking. This is the kind
of task or activity that does not focus on precise application of a known proce-
dure, implementation of a taught algorithm, or the smooth execution of a formula.
In other words, problem solving is a messy, non-linear, and idiosyncratic process
(Liljedahl, 2020). Problem solving strategies include—but are not limited to—guess-
and-check, making lists or tables, looking for patterns, working backwards, making
a model, drawing a picture, and trying a simpler problem first. The goal of the
teacher is to encourage students to analyze each problem for what is given and what
constraints are present, to highlight the relationships between variables, and to expli-
cate the goals of solving the problem. The teacher creates opportunities for students
The Research on Mathematics Teaching and Planning: Theoretical … 115

to explain the meaning of the problem, as well as to ask reflective questions such as “I
wonder…” and “Does this make sense?” (Common Core State Standards Initiative,
2010; Kobett & Karp, 2020; Timmerman, this volume).

4.6.3 Examples from the Literature

Liljedahl (2020) listed the practices teachers have to consider when planning for
lessons in a thinking mathematics classroom. The list comprises 14 general categories
of practice that all teachers adhere to in some shape or form: (1) What are the types
of tasks we use; (2) How we form collaborative groups; (3) Where students work;
(4) How we arrange the furniture; (5) How we answer questions; (6) When, where,
and how we give tasks; (7) What homework looks like; (8) How we foster student
autonomy; (9) How we use hints and extensions to further understanding; (10) How
we consolidate a lesson; (11) How students take notes; (12) What we choose to
evaluate; (13) How we use formative assessment; and (14) How we grade.
As a case example of this approach to Type D, Lilejdahl (2015) studied teachers’
planning for problem solving in numeracy lessons. He investigated how a group of
mathematics teachers engaged in lesson planning from the problem solving perspec-
tive over the course of six months, discussing their challenges with each other whilst
shifting their goals for the lesson from a more traditional focus on students’ knowl-
edge to a focus on planning for students’ quality of participation in the problem
solving tasks. Through this shift in focus, the teachers began to plan for students’
quality of engagement with the tasks—i.e., through the act of problem solving—
rather than on designing lessons to transmit and assess a quantity of knowledge.
This shift in focus was characterized by teachers’ embrace of open-ended, complex
problems with multiple parameters that required students to engage in thinking crit-
ically about the problem and the parameters within which they would be expected to
solve the problem, in other words, the boundaries that circumscribed the problem. By
focusing on the problem and its particularities, teachers’ Type D assumed a different
form than would have been required for more traditional, knowledge-based lesson
planning. In particular, Liljedahl (2015) found that teachers who aimed at problem
solving Type D focused on how to design the task with problem solving as its goal
rather than students’ knowledge outcomes.
Another example can be found in Zazkis et al.’s (2009) theorization of the impasse
of teacher educators who teach their students to plan lessons comprehensively (i.e.,
with knowledge and outcome goals) thereby restricting the aims of mathematics
education to those captured in curriculum documents. In the article, they juxtapose
“planning teaching” (i.e., planning for knowledge and content goals) versus “teaching
planning” (i.e., planning for students’ engagement in problem solving). By utilizing
the practice of lesson plays, the authors theorized how planning for problem solving
incorporates consideration of the “contingencies of teaching” (John, 2006, p. 487,
as cited in Zazkis et al., 2009). With a shifted focus on problem solving instead of
knowledge goals, “planning for teaching” instead of “teaching how to plan" priori-
tizes the playfulness and student activities of problem solving. These activities are
116 A. G. Manizade et al.

captured in Liljedahl’s (2020) list of characteristics in aligning the teachers’ and

students’ actions as “artifacts of the [lesson] planning structure” (Zazkis et al., 2009,
p. 43), such as teachers’ responses to students’ unexpected progression through the
problem solving nature of the lesson—or in other words, alignment of teachers’
planning for the teaching of their students as opposed to teachers’ planning of the
lesson itself as an artifact.

4.7 Culturally Relevant Pedagogy as Perspective

4.7.1 Definition

Culturally relevant pedagogy (CRP; Gay, 2010, 2018; Jett, 2013; Ladson-Billings,
2014) as a teaching perspective emerged out of the Realistic Mathematics Education
movement (RME; viz. Freudenthal, 1991) in response to the rise of post-colonial
studies in education. CRP is one way of addressing the RME heuristic that mathe-
matics be contextualized to students’ cultures. As Makonye (2020) noted, the imper-
ative of CRP and contextualized mathematics is evidenced by the high rates of failure
seen in school mathematics amongst marginalized populations, many of which are the
modern product of colonialist efforts. CRP directly problematizes the Western, colo-
nialist notion that mathematics is objective, and that it is not value-laden by a culture
(viz. Bishop, 1988). The erroneous belief that mathematics is in fact objective leads
to what is experienced in modernity as the perceived universality of mathematics,
and moreover, the “truth” of mathematics. Not only is this problematic for students’
learning of mathematics, but also for mathematics teachers’ training, because the
training experiences of mathematics teachers predicate the beliefs they will have
about mathematics, and subsequently will affect the ways in which they will be
conditioned to enact their training in a classroom with students. Because of this, the
issue of CRP has just as many implications for teaching as it does for learning.
CRP is based on the assumptions that cultural groups engage in behavior that is
based in mathematics or mathematical elements, and that knowledge is produced
through and by culture and history. Thus, mathematical thinking must be consistent
with the cultural context of the students. For example, enacting CRP teaching of
students in a majority Black inner-city school in the US might consist of instruction
that focuses on the origin of mathematical concepts within that culture and word
problems or projects about mathematics within the Black culture and history of that
city.
Additionally, ethnomathematics has been a well-known research topic in mathe-
matics teaching since D’Ambrosio (1985) introduced the term. (Also, for a discus-
sion of how ethnomathematics implicates ethical responsibilities, such as through
the use of technology, see D’Ambrosio, 1999). He defined ethnomathematics as
“the mathematics which is practiced among identifiable cultural groups, such as
national-tribal societies, labor groups, children of a certain age bracket, professional
classes, and so on” (D’Ambrosio, 1985, p. 45, our emphasis). Thus, D’Ambrosio
The Research on Mathematics Teaching and Planning: Theoretical … 117

argued that ethnomathematics is conceptualized in contrast to the school mathematics

which has the aim of maintaining and reproducing economic and social structures,
“reminiscent of that given to the aristocracy when a good training in mathematics
was essential for preparing the elite (as advocated by Plato), and at the same time
allows this elite to assume effective management of the productive sector” (p. 45).
Because of this distinction, we characterize CRP as owing its intellectual heritage to
ethnomathematics but is markedly separate from it in terms of its degree of institu-
tionalization and purpose. Ethnomathematics is not concerned with the teaching of
mathematics in institutionalized settings, like schools. In fact, scholars (e.g., Pais,
2011) have revealed a growing misuse of ethnomathematical research, wherein the
economic and cultural reality of the identifiable cultural group is removed from the
ethnomathematics in the act of institutionalizing it.

4.7.2 Goals of Teaching

CRP teaching can be characterized by mathematics content that is explicitly situated

within a contextual frame unique to the culture of the students being taught. Instead
of focusing on the arbitrary nature of traditional mathematical structures, CRP bases
mathematics in cultural activities and knowledge most relevant to the students. By
doing so, teachers empower their students and present mathematics as intimately
relevant to their students’ cultural lives instead of being abstract and formalist, thus
giving mathematics a useful application for all students within the cultural context.
As a result, for the CRP teacher, mathematics teaching includes explication of the
value-laden nature of the mathematical concepts being taught, as well as adopting
a perspective that their work as a teacher is to enculturate students into the culture
of mathematics—whether that culture be Western and normative or Indigenous and
marginal. This can, in many cases, lead to a conflict between the culture of the CRP
teacher and the culture within which the mathematics is being contextualized (Bishop,
1988). Thus, teachers must be proficient in not only their content and professionally
situated knowledge of mathematics, but also in the cultural history and practices of the
students whom they are teaching. As a result, traditional curriculum materials must
be supplemented or redesigned to support CRP instructional efforts. In this process,
the CRP teacher must be careful not to essentialize students’ culture (McCarty &
Lee, 2014).

4.7.3 Examples from the Literature

An example of CRP teaching can be seen in American Indian and Indigenous studies,
such as those conducted by Ruef et al. (2020), who studied how mathematical
concepts are represented in the Ichishkíin language of the Yakima culture. In the
article, the authors weave together a complex theoretical perspective to frame their
work in a comprehensive framework of theory. In their analysis, they establish the
fact that mathematics is culturally situated in the western/American context which
118 A. G. Manizade et al.

is markedly different than for the Yakima people. One of the stories they described
from the interview data (with a Yakima Elder) is that the word for “fraction” comes
from the same root word in their native language for the process that happened when
the White European settlers broke apart their nation by giving them the “choice” of
either complete genocide or surrender of lands. The native language of the tribe uses
this term for “broken” when they are talking about fractions. This shows how subtle
the cultural situatedness of mathematics can be, and that researchers from dominant
social groups are unable to fully grasp the concept of the differences in lived expe-
rience of other peoples’ mathematics. Through the CRP perspective, implications
for teachers’ Type D “are not subtle” (Ruef et al., 2020, p. 316): mathematics can
function as a form of White supremacy qua White knowledge production. Thus, the
CRP teacher understands the culture of the students they teach, allowing them to plan
lessons and assess student learning within that cultural frame. As Ruef et al. (2020)
concluded, the work of planning for mathematics lessons and assessing student
work—informed by CRP—is built around the concomitance of students’ cultural
language and mathematical concepts so that students and teachers are connected
through the place and time in which they are engaged in mathematics learning. The
Alliance of Indigenous Math Circles (www.aimathcircles.org) offers resources for
teachers interested in planning CRP mathematics lessons in the Indigenous American
Indian context.
Jett (2013) wrote about the context of working in pre-service mathematics teacher
university courses so that the content and methods taught are of racial relevance
to his students. Failure to conceptualize mathematics teacher education through
a lens of cultural relevance is, for Jett, an act of fracturing the identities of pre-
service mathematics teachers as they are learning to plan and implement lessons.
Culturally responsive pedagogy, thus, becomes a key driver in the ways that pre-
service mathematics teachers are taught to plan lessons because, as Ladson-Billings
(2009) said, CRP “empowers students intellectually, socially, emotionally, and polit-
ically, by using cultural referents to impart knowledge, skills, and attitudes” (p. 20).
Without CRP training in teacher education, future mathematics teachers are not
equipped to plan CRP lessons of their own. An example of this can see in a study by
Makonye (2020), who illustrated the consequences of teaching mathematics outside
of students’ cultural contexts. Makonye gave the example of interest in the banking
system and how it is irrelevant or unrelatable to students in South Africa, because
requesting interest for any money loaned is considered immoral. When being taught
about the application of interest and related mathematical concepts, South African
students face challenges because the applications are based on a culturally irrele-
vant phenomenon and thus the mathematical concept’s universality fails (Makonye,
2020).
Skovsmose (2021) offers additional implications for CRP in the planning of math-
ematics lessons, namely that situations of crisis can serve as bases of lesson plans. As
a human race, there are universally shared experiences (e.g., pandemic) that create
cultural cohesion constitutive of “cultural relevance” for all students in a classroom.
For example, a teacher could use mathematics to teach a lesson on a crisis or a critical
situation such as COVID-19 to which all students could culturally relate; the cultural
The Research on Mathematics Teaching and Planning: Theoretical … 119

context of COVID-19 is primary to all people because they have all experienced
it. From a CRP perspective, COVID-19 is a cultural phenomenon and thus can be
used to create and/or illustrate how the relevance of the mathematical activity can be
presented pedagogically within a cultural group.

4.8 Project and Problem-Based Learning as Perspective

4.8.1 Definition

Project and Problem-Based Learning (PBL) is a perspective for teaching mathematics

that is based on the assumption that mathematical knowledge has to be presented in
the real-world contexts of students’ environment. The environment provides meaning
to the mathematics or contexts out of which new knowledge can be drawn. An
example of this approach can be found in works that use nature as a context to
teach mathematics concepts (e.g., Adam, 2003/2006; Toni, 2021). On the one hand,
by exploring problems in the environment students are prompted to discover math-
ematical concepts. On the other hand, the abstract structures of mathematics can
be imposed on an environmental or contextual situation, allowing the situation or
context to be reinterpreted using mathematical concepts. The PBL teacher views
mathematics as inseparable from the environment or context in which it exists or
originates. In other words, every mathematical topic is presented within its context:
the context itself is the source of inspiration and motivation for students’ interest
in the mathematics, as well as the starting point for developing new mathematical
knowledge. This means that the teacher is not there to impose notions onto the child,
but rather, to select the influences (also see Dewey, 1897).
Based on an extensive review on PBL literature, Merritt et al. (2017) found that
different definitions existed. Most relevant for the mathematics education community
are the functional/curriculum design, constructivist, and conceptual change defini-
tions. Based on their analysis, we align the functional/curriculum design definition
with the inquiry-based learning literature, the constructivist definition with the cogni-
tive learning theory perspective discussed in the present chapter, and the conceptual
change definition with the structuralist perspective also discussed in the present
chapter. We conjecture that teachers who participate in educational experiences to
learn about PBL—such as professional development events—accept PBL as a novel
pedagogical tool without explicit reference to one of the three aforementioned defi-
nitions. Rather, when they return to their classroom and choose to plan lessons
from their newly learned PBL perspective, they retroactively assign epistemological
meaning to the lesson based on their other beliefs about mathematics teaching and
learning; these beliefs then become objectified through the planning, enactment, and
assessment of the PBL lesson. More research is needed in this area.
120 A. G. Manizade et al.

4.8.2 Goals of Teaching

The goal of PBL is for individual learners to construct mathematical concepts from
the context familiar to them. The teacher uses real-world contexts as a source
of inspiration, abstraction, meaning, and motivation for learning mathematics. As
a result, the goal of teaching mathematics from this perspective is that students
understand the mathematical concepts as intimately emergent from the context and
environment itself. Thus, the student learns the structure of the environment as a
mathematical structure along with learning the mathematical concepts. A character-
istic of this approach apropos of pedagogy is the implementation of collaborative
group projects that often utilize statistical analyses, mathematical modeling, and
exploratory activities (Capraro et al., 2013; Lee, 2018).

4.8.3 Examples from the Literature

Literature on PBL related to Type D has come from the STEM Education, Engi-
neering Education, and Science Education fields (e.g., Cheaney & Ingebritsen, 2005;
Miller & Krajcik, 2019; Mills & Treagust, 2003). For example, Miller and Krajcik
(2019) reported on a four-year action research project they did in their own classes
in teacher education, on how best to align science teacher preparation with the goals
of PBL as outlined in official curriculum documents such as the Next Generation
Science Standards (NGSS; NGSS Lead State Partners, 2013). They highlighted the
connection between the goals of PBL and developing students’ knowledge-in-use
(see Pellegrino & Hilton, 2012), which is the “capacity that learners need to apply
knowledge to make decisions and solve problems, and to evaluate when and how to
get more information when necessary” (Miller & Krajcik, 2019, p. 1). Miller and
Krajcik (2019) elucidated that planning for PBL lessons means planning for the
creation of a specific type of learning environment: a “sense-making and knowledge
generating environment” (p. 5) that is designed to pique students’ interest about
natural phenomena or situations in the real world through the pursuit of questions
about the world. As such, the teacher creating the PBL environment must estab-
lish driving questions to guide: (1) the lesson; (2) the development of the students’
knowledge-in-use; and (3) the development of artifacts (concrete representations)
as the results of the PBL investigation. Specific instances of Type D in Miller and
Krajcik’s (2019) process include: (1) planning for driving questions “about a problem
to be solved or experience to be explained that promote wonderment about the world”
(p. 6); (2) including students’ participation in scientific practices in the lesson plan;
(3) planning for students’ exploration of the driving questions through “collabora-
tive sensemaking activities” (p. 6) that are designed to engage “in shared knowl-
edge building” (p. 6); (4) planning for scaffolding the development of students’
knowledge-in-use through the use of discursive pedagogical tools; and (5) assessing
the artifacts students produce as a result of the PBL lesson for the extent to which they
“scientifically address the driving questions with increasing sophistication” (p. 6).
The Research on Mathematics Teaching and Planning: Theoretical … 121

Conversely, the mathematics education literature on PBL focuses primarily on

students’ conceptual understanding of mathematics and/or beliefs about and atti-
tudes towards mathematics as a result of having participated in a PBL lesson (e.g.,
Knezek & Christiansen, 2020; Merritt et al., 2017). Merritt et al. (2017) found that
all the studies in mathematics and science PBL that they reviewed were concerned
with students’ knowledge, achievement, and affectual outcomes. The literature on
PBL and its Type D implications are relevant to mathematics teaching and teacher
education as well. Considering the growing interest in PBL and the larger increase
in focus on STEM education, this gap in the literature needs to be addressed in order
to better understand how the mathematics teacher who wishes to implement PBL
lessons plans for and assesses the impacts of those lessons.

5 Pros and Cons for Each Perspective

Each aforementioned instructional approach for teaching mathematics has advan-

tages and difficulties associated with it. Planning based on each instructional
approach therefore presents unique challenges. We survey these briefly, not exhaus-
tively, in this section.
From the Situated Learning Theory (SLT) perspective, the goal of the teacher is
to develop a students’ sense of belonging in the mathematics community (e.g., using
correct mathematical language and discourse patterns, solving problems, and prac-
ticing communication of their thinking, and doing mathematics). The knowledge is
situated in the mathematics community rather than an individual and the students are
treated as a newcomer apprentices in the community where the oldtimers—math-
ematics teachers—engage in doing mathematics as the leaders of the mathemat-
ical community. The challenge with this approach is the time needed to develop
mathematical community and the norms associated with it, including the teacher’s
identity as a member of the community—a practicing mathematician—and the
students’ identities as legitimate participants in the community’s periphery. Knowl-
edge is conceived of as identity development and belonging, either as newcomers or
oldtimers, in the community. This is challenging to plan for with a diverse and/or
large classroom of students and institutional constraints that may not afford it or value
such educational goals. An additional challenge is that the teacher needs to make the
distinction between whether the students’ mathematical labor is sufficient to support
their apprenticeship contra epistemic exclusion, and to be clear about what “doing
mathematics” might look like. The SLT teacher will also need to continuously reflect
on their own understanding of what it means to “do mathematics,” as such an inference
can be rather opaque, and thus the SLT teacher needs to consider the material labor
of their students as well: “To compensate for epistemic exclusion, we seek to develop
a reliable way to evaluate the effort to understand mathematics” (Baldino & Cabral,
2021, p. 280, emphasis in original). In our words, this effort represents students’
legitimate peripheral participation and desire to become an oldtimer.
122 A. G. Manizade et al.

The Behaviorist classroom—where the focus of mathematics teaching is on

showing students how to reproduce a perfect sequence of steps when solving a math-
ematical problem, and where the goal is on producing correct answers rather than
understanding the meaning behind the mathematical concepts—works well when
developing procedural fluency of mathematical concepts and ideas that have low
cognitive demand (e.g., skill/drill activities and technology-related tasks designed
to improve fluency). However, when addressing mathematical concepts with a high
cognitive demand or that require critical thinking, this perspective is not appropriate
for mathematics planning and teaching.
In the Cognitive Learning Theory (CLT) classroom, mathematics teachers plan
lessons that allow space for learners to develop their own structures and construct
their own meanings for mathematics. This requires additional time for mathematics
instruction and there is a danger that a lesson can become a set of unrelated activities
and lose its focus with respect to the students’ construction of the lesson’s mathe-
matical aim. To avoid this, the CLT teacher plays an active role in aligning lesson
plans with hypothetical learning trajectories, addressing individual student’s needs
throughout the construction process, and assisting learners in making connections
between big mathematical ideas.
In the Social Constructivist (SC) mathematics classroom, teachers plan for math-
ematics learning where students develop their objective knowledge of mathematics
concepts through a collaborative classroom discourse during which their subjective
knowledge is examined, dissected, and confirmed by the group. Thus, any knowl-
edge production is jointly owned by the classroom community. A challenge with SC
planning is that the mathematics teacher has to be knowledgeable of various math-
ematical approaches for a given problem, attitudes in the mathematical community,
and the processes of developing new mathematical knowledge between people.
In the Structuralist classroom, mathematics teachers plan to use various math-
ematical models that help students to simplify and reveal abstract mathematical
structures. Each model used (e.g., AlgeBlocks, Geostrips) has limitations and there-
fore cannot be used as the sole source of explanation. The emphasis is on a student
discovering underlying structures presented by the teacher instead of exploring and
constructing their own mathematical structures (as in CLT). A difficulty with plan-
ning in the structuralist classroom is that teachers have to be knowledgeable about
various appropriate models for each topic taught, the strengths and limitations of
each model, and appropriate supplementary instructional tools and strategies needed
for comprehensive understanding of essential mathematics.
In the Problem Solving (PS) classroom, the focus is on multiple strategies for
solving a given problem and being able to make connections to other strategies
or other problems, rather than the content understanding that results from it. PS
has the advantage of engaging students in mathematics making and creating new
knowledge through the experience of dealing with unfamiliar situations as opposed
to receiving knowledge through direct instruction from a teacher. It differs from
radical constructivism in that it does not focus on the concepts that are constructed
by students but rather focuses on the analytic schemes, critical thinking processes,
and intuitions they develop for solving posed problems. A difficulty in this approach
The Research on Mathematics Teaching and Planning: Theoretical … 123

is that it often is misaligned with institutional goals for mathematics teaching—

such as standardized testing of content knowledge—so that planning for PS lessons
results in planning for student outcomes that are often not represented in curriculum
documents.
The Culturally Relevant Pedagogy (CRP) approach can lead to the development
of students’ critical consciousness of social structures and inequities, as well as
centering mathematics in the cultural practices and realities most familiar to students.
This has the potential to reinvigorate students’ cultures with mathematical meaning
and—further—to position students’ lived cultural experiences as mathematical expe-
riences. The difficulty with CRP planning and teaching is that the teacher must be
an expert not only in the mathematics content taught, but also in the culture/s of
their students. Thus, curriculum materials must be tailored to provide mathematical
content within the cultural context.
In the Problem- and Project-Based Learning (PBL) classroom, teachers plan math-
ematical activities within real-world contexts, so the meaning assigned to mathe-
matical knowledge is contextualized in the real-world situations used to teach the
mathematical concepts. A PBL lesson typically includes an open-ended problem to
which students attempt to develop a solution. Planning for such lessons requires
teachers to have comprehensive knowledge about mathematics in real-world situa-
tions, as well as the pedagogical knowledge to translate this contextualized math-
ematics into planned activities and assessment strategies. Another issue with this
approach, similarly to CLT, is that students construct their own understanding of
mathematical concepts and solutions to problems, without any guarantee that those
concepts or solutions will be in complete agreement with lesson objectives, institu-
tional and curriculum documents, or community norms. Thus, planning for a PBL
lesson means incorporating additional teacher guidance (to help students in their
problem-solving process) into the lesson plan.
As we have shown, each perspective for planning and teaching mathematics has
certain benefits and drawbacks, and each is not appropriate for every lesson. Devel-
oping teachers’ Type D means developing their ability to operationalize the different
perspectives we present in this chapter as well as the ability to differentiate goals
for mathematics lessons and identify the most appropriate type of epistemological
commitment to support the teaching of different mathematics topics. Furthermore,
developing teachers’ Type D means developing self-awareness of one’s a priori
epistemological commitments about the teaching and learning of mathematics, and
how these commitments may help or detract from planning and teaching a particular
mathematics lesson.
124 A. G. Manizade et al.

6 The Epistemological Perspectives in Different Cultural

Contexts

Culture is a foundationally structuring element of human experience and the social

link between people. None of the eight epistemological perspectives are immune
from this, because it is these perspectives that describe what teachers actually do
when planning for and reflecting on their teaching work in the classroom. In the case
of SLT, apprenticeship may take very different forms in different cultural settings,
such as schooling and as apprenticeship outside of formal schooling. In the case
of behaviorism, the paradigm itself is value-laden in a unique way that may socio-
politically charge any attempts to stray from it; consider a cultural setting where
teachers are seen as the holders of knowledge and wherein students are expected to
replicate exactly what the teacher tells them to do rather than discursively engage it.
In the case of CLT, there may be cultural and institutional commitments that position
CLT as a proposition outside of the role of school. In the case of SC, as with SLT, there
may be an issue with implementing an SC agenda where discourse between students
and teachers—and between students and each other—is not culturally privileged. In
the case of structuralism, manipulatives are expensive, and not even in the wealthiest
of Western countries are manipulates available in every classroom of every school.
In the case of PS, again, this perspective is value-laden—why solve a single problem
multiple ways if the economic situation in the context calls only for one solution? In
the case of CRP, cultural context is central. However, consider the situation where
a wealthy, White, suburban school is attempting to deploy CRP without any input
from minority populations, leading inevitably to perversion of its theoretical princi-
ples; critical educators are crucial for CRP’s deployment. And finally, in the case of
PBL, like structuralism, classroom materials and resources are required, as well as
time and institutional flexibility regarding expectations of student outcomes within
prescribed timelines and alignment with state warranties (e.g., government testing).
We avow all of these cultural conditions as crucial to the employment of the eight
epistemological paradigms in Fig. 1 but the purpose of this chapter was to survey the
status of literature and knowledge regarding Type D in the recent Western context.
The constraints listed are just some of the myriad constraints under which every
teacher works (Ingram & Clay, 2000), and we leave it as an intellectual challenge
to the reader to envision what implications these cultural considerations may have
when considering Type D.

7 Implications for Lesson Planning

There are three additional implications related to Type D that teachers must consider
when planning: the layout of the learning space, instrumentation related to lesson
planning, and student assessment. We survey these briefly in this section.
The Research on Mathematics Teaching and Planning: Theoretical … 125

7.1 Layout of the Learning Space

The layout of the room, the way the physical space is prepared, the way the board
is organized, and the students’ access to manipulatives and technology are all key
aspects of lesson planning. For example, the Instructional Quality Assessment (IQA;
Boston & Smith, 2009; Boston & Wilhelm, 2017) lesson observation rubric includes a
section that requires a description of the physical classroom layout, as well as a section
about the potential of the task. Liljedahl (2020) emphasized the importance of the
space/physical layout in creating thinking classrooms, noting that the physical layout
of the room must correlate with and support the goals of the lesson. Considering the
different perspectives on planning and teaching lessons presented in this chapter,
the corresponding layouts that teachers plan for each approach must be coherent
with the teacher’s epistemological commitments, the goals of the lesson, and their
corresponding intended experiences for students.

7.2 Instrumentation Related to Lesson Planning

There are various instruments for evaluating the quality of lesson plans. These include
but are not limited to the Guide to Core Issues in Mathematics Lesson Design (West &
Staub, 2003) based on their Framework for Lesson Design and Analysis, the IQA
Lesson Plan Rubric (Boston & Smith, 2009; Boston & Wilhelm, 2017), the Lesson
Plan Evaluation Rubric (Panasuk et al., 2005), the Observation and Reflection Guide
for a Mathematics Lesson (Grant et al., 2009), the Thinking Through a Lesson
Protocol (Smith et al., 2008), and the 5E Lesson Plan Format (Goldston et al., 2010)
which originated in science education. While these tools have been invaluable over
the past two decades, lesson plan evaluation practice is lagging in research because it
does not account for various the theoretical perspectives that we have described in this
chapter. Indeed, Chizhik and Chizhik (2016) claimed that research on lesson plan-
ning is “stuck” in the behaviorist perspective. Furthermore, Medley (1987) argued
that in order to conduct quality research, the issues of conceptualization, instrumen-
tation, and design have to be addressed; thus, it is important to advance the design of
instrumentation for lesson planning that does not discriminate against any particular
theoretical perspective in which it is based. Without quality lesson planning, there
cannot be quality instruction in mathematics classrooms.

7.3 Student Assessment

Analyzing student assessment is an integral part of teachers’ reflection on their pre-

and post-classroom activities. Research related to student assessment is discussed
in depth by Radišić (this volume). The advent of educational technology and online
126 A. G. Manizade et al.

teaching has brought with it changes to student assessment. In virtual and phys-
ical mathematics classrooms, teachers use “technology as a servant” to serve as an
assessment tool (Gueudet & Pepin, this volume; Geiger, 2005; Goos et al., 2000;
Martinovic & Manizade, 2014). These considerations and more are discussed by
Gueudet and Pepin (this volume). Due to space limitations, we will not expand on
issues related to research on student assessment in this chapter.

8 Conclusion and Future Directions of Research

Teacher preparation and development programs provide “experiences designed

to increase mathematics teachers’ range of competencies” (Type J). They have
been conceptualized in our adaptation of Medley’s (1987) presage-process-product
approach to understanding the inter-relationship of the variables that impact student
learning outcomes as intervening between pre-existing mathematics teacher charac-
teristics (Type F), and the competencies, knowledge, and skills (Type E) that teachers
bring to the preactive tasks of teaching (Type D). Among Type E variables, there is
arguably a dual focus in mathematics teacher education and development programs
on teachers’ knowledge and dispositions on the one hand, and on observable class-
room competence on the other. This is evident in the oft-lamented gap between
theory and practice noted by Dewey (1904) and identified by Korthagen (2017) as
the central problem of teacher education and development throughout the twen-
tieth century. According to Charalambous and Delaney (2020), practice is used in
the mathematics education literature in at least four different ways: to distinguish
between having an idea and enacting it; as something that is repeated with a view to
improving performance; to describe the practice of teaching as having taken on the
identity of a teacher; and, to describe classroom activities that are done habitually.
While not excluding practices that occur in preparation for or following classroom
activity, in each case the emphasis is on the teachers’ actions in classrooms with
students. That is, efforts to address the theory–practice gap in teacher education and
development can been seen as an attempt to link Type E variables (mathematics
teacher knowledge, competencies, skills, and beliefs) directly to Type C variables
(interactive mathematics teacher activities that occur in the presence of students)
with insufficient attention to Type D variables such as planning.
The approach taken in this chapter to the pre- and post-active actions of teaching
foregrounds the importance of the teachers’ theoretical perspectives in determining
the goals they have for teaching and hence the kinds of activities that they plan to use
in their teaching, as well as the ways in which they reflect on and self-assess their
teaching. We argue that teachers’ pre-active competencies such as lesson and unit
planning—not simply as a technical skill or means of ensuring that novice teachers
have “thought through” what they will do in their interactions with students, but as a
theoretically driven bridge between teaching knowledge (typically characterized as
theory) and practice—has the potential to address the traditionally perceived theory–
practice gap. One way in which such an approach might manifest is in taking a step
The Research on Mathematics Teaching and Planning: Theoretical … 127

back from lesson planning proformas and the like that specify such things as how
to formulate the objectives of a lesson—to first reflect on the over-arching goals
of one’s mathematics teaching and its theoretical underpinnings. It should, thereby,
be possible to trace a coherent theoretical perspective along the chain from Type E
to Type D to Type C variables, influenced and constrained by Type J and Type I
variables.
In conclusion, we found that some theoretical perspectives with respect to Type D
have been researched well (such as CLT) while others (such as SLT and PBL) have
not. With the current impetus of reform in the digital era of mathematics education,
we believe these under-researched perspectives warrant further research with respect
to Type D to investigate their potential for improving teachers’ practice of lesson
planning, assessment, and reflection. Elevating planning from a technical skill to a
theoretically informed aspect of mathematics teaching would likely motivate further
research on the topic as called for by Kilpatrick et al. (2001) who suggested that
more research needs to be done on teacher planning, specifically, “What do teachers
read when planning?”, “How do they interpret and use what they read?”, “And how
do those uses affect their teaching?” (p. 337). The answers to each of these questions
depend upon the theoretical perspective through which the teacher views the goals
of their mathematics teaching. Consistent with this, our consideration of examples
from the literature of each of the epistemological perspectives we identified in Fig. 1
highlight the scope of and need for mathematics education researchers to be more
explicit in relation to the theoretical perspectives that underpin their own thinking
and the studies on which they report.

References

Adam, J. A. (2006). Mathematics in nature: Modeling patterns in the natural world. Princeton
University Press (Original Work Published 2003).
Aguirre, J., & Speer, N. (2000). Examining the relationships between beliefs and goals in teacher
practice. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 18(3), 327–356.
Ainsworth, S. (2006). DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple
representations. Learning and Instruction, 16(3), 183–198.
Akyuz, D., Dixon, J. K., & Stephan, M. (2013). Improving the quality of mathematics teaching
with effective planning practices. Teacher Development, 17(1), 92–106. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1080/13664530.2012.753939
Amador, J., & Lamberg, T. (2013). Learning trajectories, lesson planning, affordances, and
constraints in the design and enactment of mathematics teaching. Mathematical Thinking and
Learning, 15, 146–170. https://doi.org/10.1080/10986065.2013.770719
Atkin, J. M., & Karplus, R. (1962). Discovery or invention? The Science Teacher, 29(5), 45–51.
Baldino, R. R., & Cabral, T. C. B. (2021). Criticizing epistemic injustice: Rewarding effort to
compensate for epistemic exclusion. In D. Kollosche (Ed.), Exploring New Ways to Connect:
Proceedings of the Eleventh International Mathematics Education and Society Conference (Vol.
1, pp. 275–283). Tredition. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5393343
Beckmann, S. (2022). Mathematics for elementary and middle school teachers with activities (6th
ed.). Pearson.
Beswick, K. (2005). The beliefs/practice connection in broadly defined contexts. Mathematics
Education Research Journal, 17(2), 39–68.
128 A. G. Manizade et al.

Bishop, A. J. (1988). Mathematics education in its cultural context. Educational Studies in

Mathematics, 19, 179–191.
Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals:
Cognitive domain. Longman.
Boston, M., & Smith, M. (2009). Transforming secondary mathematics teaching: Increasing the
cognitive demands of instructional tasks used in teachers’ classrooms. Journal for Research in
Mathematics Education, 40(2), 119–156.
Boston, M. D., & Wilhelm, A. G. (2017). Middle school mathematics instruction in instructionally
focused urban districts. Urban Education, 52(7), 829–861.
Brousseau, G. (2002). Theory of didactical situations in mathematics (N. Balacheff, M. Cooper, R.
Sutherland, & V. Warfield, Trans.). Kluwer.
Brown, T. (2016). Rationality and belief in learning mathematics. Educational Studies in
Mathematics, 92, 75–90.
Capraro, R. M., Capraro, M. M., & Morgan, J. R. (Eds.). (2013). STEM project-based learning: An
integrated science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) approach. Sense.
Carlson, J., Daehler, K. R., Alonzo, A. C., Barendsen, E., Berry, A., Borowski, A., Carpendale, J.,
Kam Ho Chan, K., Cooper, R., Friedrichsen, P., Gess-Newsome, J., Henze-Rietveld, I., Hume,
A., Kirschner, S., Liepertz, S., Loughran, J., Mavhunga, E., Neumann, K., Nilsson, P., et al.
(2019). The refined consensus model of pedagogical content knowledge in science education.
In A. Hume, R. Cooper, & A. Borowski (Eds.), Repositioning pedagogical content knowledge
in teachers’ knowledge for teaching science (pp. 77–94). Springer.
Charalambous, C. Y. (2009). Preservice teachers’ mathematical knowledge for teaching and their
performance in selected teaching practices: Exploring a complex relationship [ProQuest Infor-
mation & Learning]. In Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social
Sciences (Vol. 70, Issue 1–A, p. 121).
Charalambous, C. Y., & Delaney, S. (2020). Mathematics teaching practices and practice-based
pedagogies: A critical review of the literature since 2000. In D. Potari & O. Chapman (Eds.),
International Handbook Mathematics Teacher Education: Volume 1 (2nd ed., pp. 355–390).
Brill Sense.
Charalambous, C. Y., & Pitta-Pantazi, D. (2016). Perspectives on priority mathematics education:
Unpacking and understanding a complex relationship linking teacher knowledge, teaching,
and learning. In L. D. English & D. Kirshner (Eds.), Handbook of international research in
mathematics education (3rd ed., pp. 19–59). Routledge.
Cheaney, J., & Ingebritsen, T. S. (2005). Problem-based learning in an online course: A case study.
International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 6(3), 1–18.
Chizhik, E. W., & Chizhik, A. W. (2016). (Re)conceptualizing the purpose of the lesson plan.
Journal of Educational Thought, 49(2), 210–225.
Clark, C. M., & Yinger, R. J. (1987). Teacher planning. In J. Calderhead (Ed.), Exploring teachers’
thinking (pp. 84–103). Cassell Educational.
Cobb, P., & Yackel, E. (1996). Constructivist, emergent, and socialcultural perspectives in the
context of developmental research. Educational Psychologist, 31(3/4), 175–190.
Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2010). Mathematics standards. http://www.corestand
ards.org/Math/
Darragh, L. (2021). Innovative learning environments and the digital era: Finding space for mathe-
matics identity. In D. Kollosche (Ed.), Exploring New Ways to Connect: Proceedings of the
Eleventh International Mathematics Education and Society Conference (Vol. 1, pp. 7–28).
Tredition. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5469648
D’Ambrosio, U. (1985). Ethnomathematics and its place in the history and pedagogy of
mathematics. For the Learning of Mathematics, 5, 44–48.
D’Ambrosio, U. (1999). Literacy, matheracy, and technoracy: The new trivium for the era of tech-
nology. In P. Gates (Ed.), Proceedings of the First International Mathematics Education and
Society Conference (pp. 9–11). University of Nottingham.
The Research on Mathematics Teaching and Planning: Theoretical … 129

Dawkins, P. C., & Weber, K. (2017). Values and norms of proof for mathematicians and students.
Educational Studies in Mathematics, 95, 123–142. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-016-9740-5
Deliyianni, E., Gagatsis, A., Elia, I., & Panaoura, A. (2016). Representational flexibility and
problem-solving ability in fraction and decimal number addition: A structural model. Inter-
national Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 14(2), 397–417.
de Walle, V. J., Lovin, L., Karp, K., & Bay-Williams, J. (2017). Teaching student-centered
mathematics: Developmentally appropriate instruction for grades pre-K-2 (student-centered
mathematics, 1) (3rd ed., Vol. I). Pearson (E-book).
Dewey, J. (1897). My pedagogic creed. School Journal, 54, 77–80.
Dewey, J. (1904). The relation of theory to practice in education. In C. A. McMurry (Ed.), The
relation between theory and practice in the education of teachers: Third yearbook of the national
society for the scientific study of education, Part 1 (pp. 9–30). University of Chicago Press.
Dienes, Z. P. (1960). Building up mathematics. Hutchinson Educational.
Edwards, J. A., & Jones, K. (2006). Linking geometry and algebra with GeoGebra. Mathematics
Teaching, 194, 28–30.
Ernest, P. (1989). Philosophy, mathematics, and education. International Journal of Mathematical
Education in Science and Technology, 20(4), 555–559.
Fernandez, C., & Cannon, J. (2005). What Japanese and U.S. teachers think about when constructing
mathematics lessons: A preliminary investigation. The Elementary School Journal, 105(5), 481–
498.
Freudenthal, H. (1973). Mathematics as an educational task. Kluwer.
Freudenthal, H. (1978). Weeding and sowing: Preface to a science of mathematical education.
Springer.
Freudenthal, H. (1991). Revisiting mathematics education: The China lectures. Kluwer.
Gagne, E. D., Yekovich, C. W., & Yekovich, F. R. (1993). The cognitive psychology of school
learning. Allyn & Bacon.
Gay, G. (2010). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.). Teachers
College Press.
Gay, G. (2018). Culturally responsive teaching (3rd ed.). Teachers College Press.
Geiger, V. (2005). Master, servant, partner and extension of self: A finer grained view of this
taxonomy. In Building Connections: Theory, Research And Practice—Proceedings of the 28th
Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (pp. 369–376).
Gningue, S. M. (2016). Remembering Zoltan Dienes, a maverick of mathematics teaching and
learning: Applying the variability principles to teach algebra. International Journal for Math-
ematics Teaching and Learning, 17(2). http://www.cimt.org.uk/ijmtl/index.php/IJMTL/article/
view/17
Goldin, G. A. (2002). Representation in mathematical learning and problem solving. In L. D. English
(Ed.), Handbook of international research in mathematics education (1st ed., pp. 197–218).
Taylor and Francis.
Goldin, G., & Shteingold, N. (2001). Systems of representation and the development of mathe-
matical concepts. In A. A. Cuoco & F. R. Curcio (Eds.), The role of representation in school
mathematics (pp. 1–23). NCTM.
Goldston, M. J., Bland Day, J., Sundberg, C., & Dantzler, J. (2010). Psychometric analysis of
a 5E learning cycle lesson plan assessment instrument. International Journal of Science and
Mathematics Education, 8, 633–648.
Goos, M., Galbraith, P., Renshaw, P., & Geiger, V. (2000). Reshaping teacher and student roles in
technology rich classrooms. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 12(3), 303–320.
Grant, C. M., Mills, V., Boch, M., Davidson, E., Scott Nelson, B., & Benson, S. (2009). Secondary
lenses on learning. Corwin.
Gravemeijer, K. (1999). How emergent models may foster the constitution of formal mathematics.
Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 1(2), 155–177.
Gravemeijer, K. (2004). Learning trajectories and local instruction theories as means of support for
teachers in reform mathematics education. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 6(2), 105–128.
130 A. G. Manizade et al.

Gueudet, G., & Pepin, B. E. U. (this volume). External context-related research: Research about
digital resources as context for mathematics teachers’ professional activity. In A. G. Manizade,
N. Buchholtz, & K. Beswick (Eds.), The evolution of research on teaching mathematics:
International perspectives in the digital era. Springer.
Harbour, K. E., Karp, K. S., & Lingo, A. S. (2016). Inquiry to action: Diagnosing and addressing
students’ relational thinking about the equal sign. Teaching Exceptional Children, 49(2), 126–
133.
Herbel-Eisenmann, B., Johnson, K. R., Otten, S., Cirillo, M., & Steele, M. D. (2015). Mapping
talk about the mathematics register in a secondary mathematics teacher study group. Journal of
Mathematical Behavior, 40, 29–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2014.09.003
Hiebert, J., & Grouws, D. A. (2007). The effects of classroom mathematics teaching on students’
learning. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and
learning (pp. 371–404). Information Age Publishing.
Hiebert, J., Morris, A. K., & Glass, B. (2003). Learning to learn to teach: An “experiment” model for
teaching and teacher preparation in mathematics. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education,
6, 201–222.
Hohenwarter, M., Hohenwarter, J., Kreis, Y., & Lavicza, Z. (2008, July 7). Teaching and
learning calculus with free dynamic mathematics software GeoGebra. International Congress
on Mathematical Education.
Ingram, P., & Clay, K. (2000). The choice-within-constraints new institutionalism and implications
for sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 525–546.
Jablonka, E. (2017). Gamification, standards and surveillance in mathematics education: An illustra-
tive example. In A. Chronaki (Ed.), Mathematics Education and Life at Times of Crisis: Proceed-
ings of the Ninth International Mathematics Education and Society Conference (pp. 544–553).
University of Thessaly Press.
Jett, C. C. (2013). Culturally responsive collegiate mathematics education: Implications for African
American students. Interdisciplinary Journal of Teaching and Learning, 3(2), 102–116.
John, P. D. (2006). Lesson planning and the student teacher: Re-thinking the dominant model.
Journal of Curriculum Studies, 38(4), 483–498.
Kane, R., Sandretto, S., & Heath, C. (2002). Telling half the story: A critical review of research
on the teaching beliefs and practices of university academics. Review of Educational Research,
72(2), 177–228.
Kapur, M. (2010). Productive failure in mathematical problem solving. Instructional Science, 38(6),
523–550. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-009-9093-x
Kapur, M. (2014). Productive failure in learning math. Cognitive Science, 38(5), 1008–1022. https://
doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12107
Kilpatrick, J., Swafford, J., & Findell, B. (Eds.). (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn
mathematics. National Research Council.
Knezek, G., & Christiansen, R. (2020). Project-based learning for middle school students moni-
toring standby power: Replication of impact on STEM knowledge and dispositions. Educational
Technology Research and Development, 68, 137–162. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-096
74-3
Kobett, B. M., & Karp, K. S. (2020). Strength-based teaching and learning in mathematics: Five
teaching turnarounds for grades K-6. NCTM.
Korthagen, F. (2017). Inconvenient truths about teacher learning: Towards professional development
3.0. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 23(4), 387–405. https://doi.org/10.1080/135
40602.2016.1211523
Krummheuer, G. (2011). Representation of the notion “learning-as-participation” in everyday
situations of mathematics classes. ZDM, 43, 81–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-010-0294-1
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational
Research Journal, 32(3), 465–491.
Ladson-Billings, G. (2009). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of African American children
(2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass.
The Research on Mathematics Teaching and Planning: Theoretical … 131

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge
University Press.
Ladson-Billings, G. (2014). Culturally relevant pedagogy 2.0: A.K.A. the remix. Harvard
Educational Review, 84(1), 74–84.
Lee, J. (2018). An inquiry-based approach: Project-based learning. In J. Lee & E. Galindo (Eds.),
Rigor, relevance, and relationships: Making mathematics come alive with project-based learning
(pp. 1–12). NCTM.
Leung, A., & Bolite-Frant, J. (2015). Designing mathematics tasks: The role of tools. In A. Watson &
M. Ohtani (Eds.), Task design in mathematics education: An ICMI stud, 22, 191–228. Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09629-2
Lewis, J. M., Fischman, D., Riggs, I., & Wasserman, K. (2013). Teacher learning in lesson study.
Mathematics Enthusiast, 10(3), 583–619.
Lewis, C. C., Perry, R. R., & Hurd, J. (2009). Improving mathematics instruction through
lesson study: A theoretical model and North American case. Journal of Mathematics Teacher
Education, 12(4), 285–304. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-009-9102-7
Liljedahl, P. (2015). Numeracy task design: A case of changing mathematics teaching practice.
ZDM, 47, 625–637. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-015-0703-6
Liljedahl, P. (2019). Conditions for supporting problem solving: Vertical non-permanent surfaces. In
P. Liljedahl & M. Santos-Trigo (Eds.), Mathematical problem solving: Current themes, trends,
and research (pp. 289–310). Springer.
Liljedahl, P. (2020). Building thinking classrooms in mathematics, Grades K-12: 14 teaching
practices for enhancing learning. Corwin.
Liljedahl, P., Santos-Trigo, M., Malaspina, U., & Bruder, R. (2016). Problem solving in mathematics
education. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-40730-2_1
Makonye, J. (2020). Towards a culturally embedded financial mathematics PCK framework.
Research in Mathematics Education, 22(2), 98–116. https://doi.org/10.1080/14794802.2020.
1798809
Martinovic, D., & Manizade, A. G. (2014). Technology as a partner in the geometry classrooms.
The Electronic Journal of Mathematics and Technology, 8(2), 69–87.
McAlpine, L., Weston, C., Berthiaume, D., & Fairbank-Roch, G. (2006). How do instructors explain
their thinking when planning and teaching? Higher Education, 51, 125–155. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s10734-004-6381-x
McCarty, T., & Lee, T. (2014). Critical culturally sustaining/revitalizing pedagogy and Indigenous
education sovereignty. Harvard Educational Review, 84(1), 101–124.
Medley, D. M. (1987). Evolution of research on teaching. In M. J. Dunkin (Ed.), The international
encyclopedia of teaching and teacher education (pp. 105–113). Pergamon.
Merritt, J., Lee, M. Y., Rillero, P., & Kinach, B. M. (2017). Problem-based learning in K-8 mathe-
matics and science education: A literature review. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based
Learning, 11(2). https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1674
Miller, E. C., & Krajcik, J. S. (2019). Promoting deep learning through project-based learning: A
design problem. Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education Research, 1(7), 1–10.
Mills, J. E., & Treagust, D. F. (2003). Engineering education: Is problem-based or project-based
learning the answer? Australasian Journal of Engineering Education.
Mitchell, R., Charalambous, C. Y., & Hill, H. C. (2014). Examining the task and knowledge demands
needed to teach with representations. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 17, 37–60.
Moore, A. S. (2020). The institutionalization and situated implementation of Desmos. Virginia
Mathematics Teacher, 46(2), 45–46.
Morgan, C., Craig, T., Schuette, M., & Wagner, D. (2014). Language and communication in math-
ematics education: An overview of research in the field. ZDM, 46, 843–853. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s11858-014-0624-9
NGSS Lead State Partners. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. The
National Academies Press.
Ormrod, J. E. (2020). Human learning (8th ed.). Pearson.
132 A. G. Manizade et al.

Pais, A. (2011). Criticisms and contradictions of ethnomathematics. Educational Studies in

Mathematics, 76, 209–230.
Panasuk, R. M., & Todd, J. (2005). Effectiveness of lesson planning: Factor analysis. Journal of
Instructional Psychology, 32(3), 215–232.
Parkhurst, J., Skinner, C. H., Yaw, J., Poncy, B., Adcock, W., & Luna, E. (2010). Efficient class-wide
remediation: Using technology to identify idiosyncratic math facts for additional automaticity
drills. International Journal of Behavioral Consultation and Therapy, 6(2), 111–123.
Pellegrino, J. W., & Hilton, M. L. (2012). Developing transferable knowledge and skills in the 21st
century. National Research Council.
Piaget, J. (1970a). Genetic epistemology (E. Duckworth, Trans.). W. W. Norton & Company.
Piaget, J. (1970b). Structuralism (C. Maschler, Trans.). W. W. Norton & Company.
Pierce, R., & Stacey, K. (2009). Researching principles of lesson design to realize the pedagogical
opportunities of mathematics analysis software. Teaching Mathematics and Its Applications,
28(4), 228–233.
Pimm, D. (2014). Authority, explanation, contention and register: Language data and the surface
search for essence. ZDM, 46, 967–976. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-014-0633-8
Polya, G. (2015). How to solve it: A new aspect of mathematical method. Princeton University Press
(Original Work Published 1945).
Purdum-Cassidy, B., Nesmith, S., Meyer, R. D., & Cooper, S. (2015). What are they asking?
An analysis of the questions planned by prospective teachers when integrating literature in
mathematics. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 18(1), 79–99. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10857-014-9274-7
Resnick, L. B. (1988). Treating mathematics as an ill-disciplined discipline [Report]. University
of Pittsburgh.
Roche, A., Clarke, D. M., Clarke, D. J., & Sullivan, P. (2014). Primary teachers’ written unit plans
in mathematics and their perceptions of essential elements of these. Mathematics Education
Research Journal, 26, 853–870. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-014-0130-y
Ruef, J. L., Jacob, M. M., Walker, G. K., & Beavert, V. R. (2020). Why indigenous languages matter
for mathematics education: A case study of Ichishkíin. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 104,
313–332.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1983). Beyond the purely cognitive: Belief systems, social cognitions, and
metacognitions as driving forces in intellectual performance. Cognitive Science, 7, 329–363.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1998). Toward a theory of teaching-in-context. Issues in Education, 4, 1–94.
Schoenfeld, A. H., & The Teaching for Robust Understanding (TRU) Project. (2016). An introduc-
tion to the teaching for robust understanding (TRU) framework. Graduate School of Education.
Retrieved from http://map.mathshell.org/trumath.php
Schoenfeld, A. H. (2014). What makes for powerful classrooms, and how can we support teachers
in creating them? A story of research and practice, productively intertwined. Educational
Researcher, 43(8), 404–412. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X14554450
Sfard, A. (2008). Thinking as communicating: Human development, the growth of discourses, and
mathematizing. Cambridge University Press.
Skinner, B. F. (1938). The behavior of organisms. Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Skovsmose, O. (2021). Mathematics and crises. In Educational studies in mathematics. Advance
online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-021-10037-0
Simon, M. A. (1995). Reconstructing mathematics pedagogy from a constructivist perspective.
Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 26(2), 114–145.
Simon, M. A., Kara, M., Placa, N., & Avitzur, A. (2018). Towards an integrated theory of math-
ematics conceptual learning and instructional design: The learning through activity theoretical
framework. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 52, 95–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.
2018.04.002
Simpson, A., & Maltese, A. (2017). “Failure is a major component of learning anything”: The
role of failure in the development of STEM professionals. Journal of Science Education and
Technology, 26(2), 223–237.
The Research on Mathematics Teaching and Planning: Theoretical … 133

Smith, M. S., Bill, V., & Hughes, E. K. (2008). Thinking through a lesson: Successfully
implementing high-level tasks. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 14(3), 132–138.
Stein, M. K., Smith, M. S., Henningsen, M. A., & Silver, E. A. (2000). Implementing standards-
based mathematics instruction: A casebook for professional development. Teachers College
Press.
Stephan, M., Underwood-Gregg, D., & Yackel, E. (2014). Guided reinvention: What is it and how
do teachers learn this teaching approach? In Y. Li, E. A. Silver, & S. Li (Eds.), Transforming
mathematics instruction: Multiple approaches and practices (pp. 37–57). Springer.
Straesser, R. (2002). Mathematical means and models from vocational contexts—A German
perspective. In A. Bessot & J. Ridgway (Éds.), Education for mathematics in the workplace
(Vol. 24, p. 65–80). Kluwer Academic Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-47226-0_17
Stylianou, D. (2010). Teachers’ conceptions of representations in middle school mathematics.
Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 13, 325–434.
Sullivan, P., Clarke, D., & Clarke, B. (2009). Converting mathematics tasks to learning opportunities:
An important aspect of knowledge for mathematics teaching. Mathematics Education Research
Journal, 21(1), 85–105.
Sullivan, P., Clarke, D. J., Clarke, D. M., Farrell, L., & Gerrard, J. (2013). Processes and priorities
in planning mathematics teaching. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 25, 457–480.
Sullivan, P., Askew, M., Cheeseman, J., Clarke, D., Mornane, A., Roche, A., & Walker, N. (2015).
Supporting teachers in structuring mathematics lessons involving challenging tasks. Journal of
Mathematics Teacher Education, 18, 123–140.
Thorndike, E. L. (1898). Animal intelligence: An experimental study of the associative processes
in animals. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 2(4), i–109.
Thorndike, E. L. (1905). The elements of psychology. A. G. Seiler.
Timmerman, M. (this volume). Student mathematics learning activities.
Toni, B. (Ed.). (2021). The mathematics of patterns, symmetries, and beauties in nature. Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-84596-4_3
Tricoglus, G. (2007). Teacher planning in the development of collaborative cultures. Education
3–13, 28(1), 22–28.
Tyler, R. W. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. University of Chicago Press.
Verhoef, N. C., Coenders, F., Pieters, J. M., van Smaalen, D., & Tall, D. O. (2015). Profes-
sional development through lesson study: Teaching the derivative using GeoGebra. Professional
Development in Education, 41(1), 109–126.
von Glasersfeld, E., & Steffe, L. P. (1991). Conceptual models in educational research and practice.
The Journal of Educational Thought, 25(2), 91–103.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1960). Pazvitie vycxix pcixiqeckix fynkciu. Akad. Ped. Nauk. RSFSR.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language. MIT Press.
Warshauer, H. K., Starkey, C., Herrera, C. A., & Smith, S. (2021). Developing prospective teachers’
noticing and notions of productive struggle with video analysis in a mathematics content course.
Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 24(1), 89–121.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge
University Press.
West, L., & Staub, F. C. (2003). Content-focused coaching: Transforming mathematics lessons.
Heinemann.
Zazkis, R., Liljedahl, P., & Sinclair, N. (2009). Lesson plays: Planning teaching versus teaching
planning. For the Learning of Mathematics, 29(1), 40–47.
Žižek, S. (2012). Less than nothing: Hegel and the shadow of dialectical materialism. Verso.
134 A. G. Manizade et al.

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate
credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and
indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative
Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by
statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder.
Interactive Mathematics Teacher
Activities

Kim Beswick , Felicity Rawlings-Sanaei, and Laura Tuohilampi

1 Introduction

The focus of this chapter is on interactive mathematics teacher activities (Type

C). That is, the activities in which teachers engage in the presence of students.
Researchers are often interested in innovative pedagogies aimed at enhancing the
teaching and learning of mathematics. Studies, therefore, typically investigate class-
rooms in which teachers are participating in an intervention aimed at influencing their
practice in ways deemed desirable by researchers or are attempting some kind of atyp-
ical practice that aligns with contemporary views of effective mathematics teaching.
Fewer studies consider the nature of normative mathematics teaching practice. Those
that do are necessarily large scale and provide less rich data than is usual for studies
of atypical practice. They are, however, important for system level understanding
and as a context in which to consider innovative practice.
Manizade, Moore and Beswick (this volume) describe eight epistemological
perspectives that formed a framework for examining research on teacher’s activities,
such as lesson planning, reflecting on teaching, and assessing students, when not in
the presence of students (i.e., Type D variables). Aspects of Type D that occur prior
to teaching are intended to inform what happens when teachers interact directly with
students (Type C). Nevertheless, we know that many factors intervene to ensure that
there is rarely a direct translation from plan to practice by constraining the interactive

K. Beswick (B) · F. Rawlings-Sanaei · L. Tuohilampi

School of Education, University of New South Wales, Morven Brown Building, Kensington 2052
NSW, Australia
e-mail: [email protected]
F. Rawlings-Sanaei
e-mail: [email protected]
L. Tuohilampi
e-mail: [email protected]

© The Author(s) 2023 135

A. Manizade et al. (eds.), The Evolution of Research on Teaching Mathematics,
Mathematics Education in the Digital Era 22,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-31193-2_5
136 K. Beswick et al.

activities that are feasible or desirable. They include Type I variables such as system
and school policies and priorities, resources available to schools and choices about
their allocation, resources of the families that schools serve, and cultural consider-
ations; and Type E variables, specifically the skills, knowledge, dispositions, and
accumulated experience that individual teachers bring to their task.
Apparent disjunctions between what teacher’s say they believe about teaching
(an aspect of Type E), including their epistemological perspective, and hence plan
to do, (Type D), and what in fact happens in their classrooms (Type C) gave rise to
studies pre-dating the focus of this review that highlighted apparent discrepancies
between beliefs and practice (e.g., Frykholm, 1999; Sosniak et al., 1991). An impor-
tant development in recent decades has been a growing consensus that teachers are
reasonable when they state and enact their beliefs (Leatham, 2006) with more than
a dozen ways in which apparent discrepancies can be reasonably explained having
been documented (Liljedahl, 2008). In addition, Beswick (2003) highlighted the
influence of the differing contexts in which teachers typically talk about their beliefs
and then enact them. This certainly applies to the contexts in which teachers plan for
interacting with students (Type D) and then implement those plans (Type C). Each
of the epistemological paradigms identified by Manizade, Moore and Beswick (this
volume) allow for a degree of contingency; that is, the teacher needs to respond to the
ways in which students respond to teaching. Indeed contingency, defined as involving
deviating from the plan, responding to student’s ideas, and making use of unplanned
opportunities, is a dimension of the Knowledge Quartet that was developed based
on observations of teacher’s practice and presented as a framework for observing
mathematics teaching (Rowland & Turner, 2007). Speer (2005) argued that apparent
discrepancies between teacher’s espoused and enacted beliefs are likely artefacts of
the research methods employed, specifically a failure to consider data from practice as
well as teacher reports via surveys or interviews when attempting to infer their beliefs.
Care also needs to be taken to ensure that there are shared understandings between
teachers and researchers of the meanings of words and interpretations of events
(Beswick, 2005; Schoenfeld, 2003) which in turn are influenced by the researcher’s
beliefs. In the case of large-scale studies, choices about the scales and items included
reflect what the test designers assume to be desirable practices (Eriksson et al., 2019).
Consistent with this, research interest in particular interactive teaching practices
has followed developments in theoretical understandings of mathematics teaching
and learning and the epistemological perspectives from which practices have been
examined. As noted by Manizade, Moore and Beswick (this volume), these are not
always explicitly stated but can be inferred with varying degrees of confidence from
reports of studies. In this chapter we review what we know about teacher behaviours
in typical mathematics classrooms and discuss the range of less widespread peda-
gogical approaches that are evident in the literature. In both cases we make links
to underpinning epistemological perspectives as described by Manizade, Moore and
Beswick pointing to how these appear to have both influenced the Type C variables
that have been of interest and that may relate to practices observed, although we
recognise the difficulties inherent in making such connections. Large scale surveys,
Interactive Mathematics Teacher Activities 137

for example, necessarily rely on teacher’s self-reports rather than on direct obser-
vations. Desimone et al. (2005) cited research showing that although self-reports
are acceptably reliable and valid measures of the content taught and the teaching
strategies that are emphasised (e.g., Mullens & Gayler, 1999, as cited by Desimone
et al. 2005), they may not be well-suited to measuring aspects of practice such as
teacher-student interaction (e.g., Mullens & Kaspryzyk, 1999, as cited by Desimone
et al., 2005). According to Eriksson et al. (2019), there was almost no connec-
tion between teacher’s responses to items on an “instruction to Engage Students
in Learning Scale” and student’s achievement, leading them to recommend relying
instead upon student reports about what happens in their classrooms. Studies that
involve direct observations of teaching provide more certainty about actual class-
room events but are necessarily smaller in scale and present their own challenges for
researchers who seek to go beyond reporting what teachers and students do and say
to make inferences about their intent and motivations.
We also examine what has been found about the impacts of technology on what
happens in classrooms (real or virtual) in which teachers and students interact, and the
theoretical lenses that informed the work. We conclude with reflections on aspects of
classroom practice that have been less or un-scrutinized, but which warrant attention
in future studies.

2 Our Approach

We conducted an organically evolving search of research articles discussing teacher’s

interactions with students in mathematics classrooms. We began with a search of
relevant databases of the high-ranking mathematics education journals identified
by Williams and Leatham (2017). The databases searched were ERIC, ProQuest
Education, Informit A + Education, OECD Library, EBSCO Education Source and
JSTOR. We began with a small number of relevant articles which were searched
for relevant keywords (e.g., classroom environments, teacher-student interaction,
teacher behaviors). Further researchers engaged in the field were identified and we
focused specifically on articles that discussed teacher’s actions in classrooms, and
identified the different perspectives, methods, recommendations, and issues raised.
We restricted the sample to publications dating from 2000 and conducted further
searches by prominent authors in the field and keywords (e.g., mathematics pedagogy,
mathematics teaching, classroom practice). We refer to older literature when it is
important to framing more recent trends and identifying their progress over slightly
longer timeframes.
The matched articles were transferred into an Excel spreadsheet in which they
were categorised by title; author; date of publication; type of data (direct observation,
indirect, other); type of activity (e.g., problem solving); theoretical approach; and
whether it concerned existing practice or practice connected with an intervention. In
addition, we found articles more broadly related to the topic, such as when a particular
issue, e.g., conceptual understanding of fractions, was examined with an intervention
138 K. Beswick et al.

impacting teacher’s actions. Those articles only tangentially related were excluded
from the core analyses but were discussed in author meetings thus informing our
discussion in this chapter. For normative practices we also referred to reports of
large-scale international surveys.
The chapter is structured in two broad sections; the first describing the develop-
ment of research about widely practiced teacher student interactions, and the second
exploring studies that have considered teacher’s behaviors with students in particular
projects or in response to specific interventions. For the former, normative practices,
we rely on large scale assessments of mathematics teaching and learning whereas
for the atypical practices described in specific studies we refer to research reports
available in the mathematics education literature.

3 Normative Mathematics Teaching Practices

In this section we survey what is known about what typically happens in math-
ematics classrooms. We rely primarily on the large-scale international surveys,
Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) that assess math-
ematics achievement at Years 4 and 8 in participating countries. The first TIMSS
was conducted in 1995 but we confine our attention to those in the past two decades,
beginning with TIMSS 2003. The Programme for International Student Assessment
surveys (PISA) similarly provide insights into the classroom activities that constitute
mathematics learning for 15-year-olds in participating countries. We begin with a
brief overview of TIMSS and PISA before highlighting changes in the classroom
activity that successive iterations of these surveys have revealed.
Country participation in TIMSS has steadily increased over the years reflecting
increased interest at government and education system level in the performance of
their students relative to those in other countries. In 2003, 46 countries participated
from the continents of Africa, Asia, Australia, Europe, North America, Oceania, and
South America (Gonzales et al., 2004). By 2019 participation had risen to 64 coun-
tries, representing a broad range of geographic, demographic, and economic diversity
(Mullis et al., 2020). Although the focus of this book is on Western countries, TIMSS
is relevant because it provides an international overview of mathematics education,
allowing comparisons among countries and the identification of distinctive charac-
teristics of mathematics teaching and curriculum objectives in particular countries
of interest.
PISA, undertaken by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Develop-
ment (OECD) assesses how well 15-year-old students can apply the knowledge and
skills they have learned in the areas of reading, mathematics and science to real-life
problems and situations. Seventy-nine countries participated in PISA in 2018 (Schle-
icher, 2019), which was the seventh cycle of the international assessment since the
programme was launched in 2000. Each assessment focuses on one of the three
subjects and provides a summary assessment of the other two. So, while Mathe-
matics has been assessed by PISA once every 3 years since 2000, the mathematics
Interactive Mathematics Teacher Activities 139

domain was the main area of focus only in 2003 and 2012. Mathematics will again
be the major domain assessed in 2022.1
We focus on aspects of TIMSS and PISA that relate most directly to what
teachers do, or are able to do, in the presence of students. In terms of constraints on
teacher’s activity with students, resources including teacher’s expertise and time for
mathematics teaching, are especially salient and hence considered here.

3.1 Resources for Teaching Mathematics

Hopper et al. (2017) explained how the TIMSS Context Questionnaire gathers data
about two types of resources that affect the teaching of mathematics. These are Type
I variables, beyond the direct control of the teacher but that, nevertheless, provide
constraints and affordances for what teachers are able to do in their interactions with
students (Type C). The first are general resources such as school infrastructure (e.g.,
buildings, and grounds, heating and lighting, classroom space), teaching supplies, and
the availability of technology. The second resource type is specific to mathematics
including such things as particular software, calculators, and instructional materials.
Data are also gathered on the difficulty or otherwise of finding well-qualified mathe-
matics teachers, and on the rates of attainment of tertiary discipline and pedagogical
study deemed necessary for teaching mathematics that teachers have undertaken.
While acknowledged as crude proxy for knowledge for teaching mathematics, the
extent to which mathematics teachers have undertaken such studies contributes to
Type E variables that inform and constrain Type D and hence Type C activities.
The amount of time that teachers are able to spend with their students constrains
the kinds of activities in which they can engage. Lack of time is frequently cited by
teachers as an obstacle to implementing innovative practices in their mathematics
classrooms (e.g., Livy et al., 2021). There was a significant variation in the amount
of mathematics instructional time across the 64 countries surveyed in TIMSS 2019.
On average, the fourth-grade students received 154 h of mathematics instruction per
year, which equated to approximately 17% of total instructional time. The average
number of hours received by eighth grade students was 17 h less than in fourth
grade (137 h or 13% of the total) (Mullis et al., 2020). The increase in the amount
of mathematics instructional time since 2003 is noteworthy. Although the sample
size in TIMSS 2003 was considerably smaller (19 countries at fourth grade and 35
countries at eighth grade) the data point to a smaller time allocation: on average,
fourth-grade students in 2003 received 149 h of mathematics instruction per year,
which equated to approximately 16% of total instructional time. The average number
of hours received by eighth grade students in 2003 was 26 h less than in fourth grade
(123 h or 12% of the total) (Mullis et al., 2004). The reduction in hours dedicated

1The next PISA round was initially scheduled for 2021. It was postponed until 2022 due to the
COVID-19 pandemic.
140 K. Beswick et al.

to mathematics instruction from Year 4 to Year 8 likely reflects the broader range of
subject areas taught at eighth grade (Mullis et al., 2020).

3.2 Instructional Practices

Rožman and Klieme (2017) identified three major international trends in education
based on contemporary educational policy and discourse. These were: an increased
interest in regular assessment of student progress; greater advocacy of student-centred
pedagogies; and promotion of reasoning and problem-solving rather than the devel-
opment of computational and procedural skills as the goals of mathematics teaching.
They investigated four cycles of TIMSS (1995–1999–2003–2007) at eighth grade
across 18 countries. Only slight evidence of increased use of testing was found
across TIMSS assessments from 1995 to 2007 (Rožman & Klieme, 2017). In rela-
tion to the second trend—greater advocacy of student-centred pedagogies – there was
some evidence that associated pedagogical approaches, such as making connections
between mathematics and student’s daily lives and working in groups had increased
in several countries, most particularly in East Asia. In relation to the third trend—the
promotion of reasoning and problem-solving rather than the development of compu-
tational and procedural skills as the goals of mathematics teaching—contrary to
expectations, there was an increased practice of computational skills, with a particular
emphasis in Central and Eastern Europe. Despite an initial increase in the frequency
of problem solving, there was a decrease from 2003–2007.
In the 2003 and 2007 TIMSS studies, Year 8 students were asked about instruc-
tional practices in their classrooms considered relevant to instructional quality
(Eriksson et al., 2019). In their discussion Eriksson et al. (2019) focused on three
items, namely: (1) we listen to the teacher give lecture-style presentations, (2) we
relate what we are learning in mathematics to our daily lives and, (3) we memo-
rise formulas and procedures. As Eriksson et al. (2019) pointed out there is no
consensus as to the optimal frequency with which any of these practices should
occur. The frequency of lecturing, for example, that might be considered beneficial
depends upon what the teacher is aiming to achieve, that is their goals for teaching.
As explained by Manizade, Moore and Beswick, a teacher adopting a behaviorist
perspective is likely to be concerned with helping students to perform flawlessly the
steps of a procedure to obtain correct answers to a class of mathematical problems.
In this case telling students clearly the steps that need to be followed is likely to be
effective. In contrast, from other perspectives such as social constructivism, where
the goals of teaching relate to the quality of interactions among students and building
subjective knowledge, much less frequent use of lecture style presentations would
be deemed desirable.
TIMSS 2015 data indicated positive associations between instructional clarity and
student achievement (Hooper et al., 2017) as did TIMSS 2019 (Mullis et al., 2020)
which used updated scales to further explore this trend. Students at fourth grade in
2019 reported clearer instruction than did students in eighth grade: Most students in
Interactive Mathematics Teacher Activities 141

fourth grade (95%) reported moderate to high clarity of instruction compared with
only 46% of students in eighth grade.
TIMSS 2019, like TIMSS surveys since 1995, collected data on instructional prac-
tices and strategies. For mathematics these concerned how often students; worked
on problems on their own, explained their answers in class, and decided on their own
strategies for solving problems (Hooper et al., 2017). Just as the theoretical perspec-
tives that teachers bring to their work influence the goals they have for their teaching
(Manizade, Moore & Beswick) and hence the instructional practices that they are
likely to adopt, the choice of items included in TIMSS studies reflect the theoretical
perspectives, and their concomitant goals and practices, that are of interest to the test
designers, influenced by theoretical developments and recent research on approaches
to teaching mathematics. The three items listed from TIMSS 2019 suggest interest in
the extent to which problem solving and reasoning, and collaborative or individual
working, are fostered in mathematics classrooms. These are consistent with problem
solving and social constructivist perspectives on mathematics teaching. Researchers
have, across successive iterations of TIMSS, explored associations between partic-
ular instructional practices and mathematics achievement. As Eriksson et al. (2019)
pointed out the results of these studies do not always support theoretical assump-
tions about what constitutes instructional quality. They suggest that instructional
practices should only be considered characteristic of quality teaching if they are
found empirically to support student achievement.
TIMSS video studies were conducted in 1995 and 1999. The 1995 study involved
a total of 231 mathematics lessons in the United States (81 lessons), Germany (100
lessons), and Japan (50 lessons), while in the 1999 a total of 638 mathematics
lessons were video recorded across the seven participating countries: Australia,
Czech Republic, Hong Kong SAR, Japan, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and the
US (Neubrand, 2006). Video studies offer an opportunity for teachers (and student)
behaviors to be studied repeatedly from different theoretical standpoints, and to
address different questions about what is happening in those classrooms. Researchers
have been interested in such things as how teachers structure their lessons, the
clarity of instruction, interruptions, and how homework is treated. For example,
Neubrand (2006) re-analysed 22 lessons from each of the three participating coun-
tries in the 1995 study to explore the number and types of tasks that teachers offered
their students in the three countries. The 1999 lessons have also been examined in
terms of lesson structure, mathematical content, and instructional practices, and to
discern differences in mathematics classroom activity in different countries. Hiebert
et al., (2003) observed that while there were some similar features in the relatively
higher achieving countries, there were also distinct differences. For example, eighth-
grade lessons in all participating countries included both whole-class work and
individual/small group work. However, lessons in Australia, the Netherlands and
Switzerland allocated more time, on average, to students working individually or
in small groups. Another finding of note was that across all of the participating
countries, at least 80% of lesson time in eighth grade, on average, was dedicated
to solving mathematics problems. But there was considerable variation in respect
to drawing the relationships between mathematics problems and real-life situations
142 K. Beswick et al.

ranging from only 9% of problems per lesson in Japan to 42% of problems per lesson
in the Netherlands. Regarding computers, relatively few eighth-grade lessons in the
participating countries made use of them. However, 91% of eighth-grade lessons in
the Netherlands used calculators; a percentage much higher than in the other coun-
tries which ranged from 31 to 56% of lessons (except in Japan where no reliable
estimate could be reported due to their infrequent use). In summary, Hiebert et al.,
reported that ‘no single method of teaching eighth-grade mathematics was observed
in all the relatively higher achieving countries participating in this study’ (2003,
p. 15).
Eligible mathematics teachers and students in a representative sample of 150 PISA
participating schools in eight countries (Australia, Finland, Latvia, Mexico, Portugal,
Romania, Singapore, and Spain) responded to the OECD’s Teaching and Learning
International Surveys (TALIS) on classroom practice (OECD, 2017). Teachers and
students were asked to rate teacher’s use of eight classroom practices. These practices
were clustered according to three broad teaching strategies: structuring practices,
student-oriented practices, and enhanced learning activities. Structuring practices
entailed the explicit specification of learning goals; student practice until all students
have understood the content; and a summary presentation by the teacher of recently
learned subject matter. Student-oriented practices were the differentiation of the work
for students with learning difficulties or the ability to progress more quickly than their
peers, and groupwork that allows students to devise a collective solution to a problem
or task. Enhanced learning activities comprised students undertaking projects of at
least one week’s duration, an expectation that students explain their thinking, and
encouragement to seek multiple ways to solve problems (OECD, 2017).
Both teachers and students reported that almost all mathematics teachers across
participating countries used clear and structured teaching practices; specifically,
explicitly stating learning goals; allowing students to practice until they understand
the content; and providing summaries of recently learned content. The teacher’s use
of enhanced learning activities was also commonly reported by both teachers and
students, suggesting strong encouragement of students to solve problems in more
than one way, and a high expectation that students explain their thinking on complex
problems. The use of project work lasting at least one week was less frequent. While
used less often than the other two practices, most teachers and over half of students
confirmed the use of student-oriented practices, i.e., giving different work to students
according to their level of understanding, or the use of small groups for students to
come up with joint solutions.
Structuring practices were the most frequently used teaching practices in mathe-
matics classrooms, according to both teachers and students. According to the authors,
“Since they (structured practices) aim to deliver an orderly and clear lesson, they
could be seen as the necessary foundation for the development of any other practice.
This would explain why they are so predominant in the teaching strategies imple-
mented by teachers” (OECD, 2017, p. 7). Nevertheless, “classroom instruction time
is a scarce resource, and an overemphasis on structuring practices could limit teachers
in their use of other potentially more innovative strategies, such as enhanced learning
activities and student-oriented strategies” (OECD, 2017, p. 7).
Interactive Mathematics Teacher Activities 143

3.3 Teacher’s Use of Technology

The growing presence of digital learning technologies has brought new opportunities
and challenges for mathematics teachers. An array of mobile devices, application
software and other online technologies have transformed the landscape of mathe-
matics classrooms providing myriad pedagogical opportunities, notably in relation
to problem-solving, experimentation and collaboration. Based on the most recent
TALIS Vincent-Lancrin et al. (2019) noted that changes in the use of ICT in math-
ematics lessons has been a major driver of pedagogical innovation in mathematics
classrooms, along with professional development of mathematics teachers through
peer learning. However, the challenge for teachers to equip themselves with the requi-
site skills to effectively use new technologies and engage in higher-order pedagogical
tasks is significant. An observation made by Handal and Campbell et al. in 2012 still
has currency a decade on:
In the case of online tools, there is a vast range of technologies available, but do teachers feel
that they know how to find them and use them once located? A range of dynamic geometry
software (e.g., Geometer’s Sketchpad) and computer algebra software is available. These
tools have a steep learning curve and teachers need to be able to model these technologies
for students for use in the classroom. (2012, p. 394)

A corollary of a digitally-rich classroom is a shift in the role of the teacher and

hence what they do in their direct interactions with students. This is particularly
discernible in the context of the ‘flipped classroom’ where instructive videos typically
replace ‘traditional’ homework tasks to allow more focused teaching in class time
(Muir, 2020). In such circumstances where recorded teaching is made available to
students to engage with in their own time, the teacher and each student are effectively
interacting, albeit in a uni-directional way, asynchronously. Medley (1987) did not
envisage interactions of this kind, but they have become increasingly common as
technology has evolved and as circumstances have demanded the use of distance
learning. Teacher behaviors as they engage in virtual asynchronous teaching are an
aspect of Type C that warrants research. The content that is presented and whether
or not it is presented in a way that elicits student-centered interactions depends on
the theoretical perspective adopted by the teacher.
TIMSS 2019 investigated three areas relating to the use of technology: computer
access for instruction; technology to support learning; and tests delivered on digital
devices. Teachers were asked about availability of computers during mathematics
lessons and the types of access i.e., whether each student has a computer, the class-
room has shared computers, and/or the school sometimes gives access to computers.
Teachers reported similar levels of access to computers at fourth and eighth grades
(39% and 37% respectively), but there was variation in the level of access to
computers across countries as well as in the types of access. The type of access
most frequently reported for both fourth and eighth grades was that the school has
computers that the class can sometimes use (29% and 28% respectively). Average
student achievement was associated with access to computers at both grades, not
144 K. Beswick et al.

surprisingly given that access to computers would be related to socio-economic

advantage (Mullis et al., 2020).
TIMMS 2019 also investigated the frequency with which teachers used computer
activities to support learning in mathematics. Around two-thirds of students in both
fourth and eighth grades were in classes in which their teacher reported that they
“never or almost never” do computer activities to support learning (67% and 68%
respectively). Average student achievement was lowest for students in these classes,
with a 15 point-average difference at fourth level and an 18 point-average difference
at eighth level (Mullis et al., 2020). The way in which teachers administer tests, and
specifically whether they use computers or tablets for this purpose was also examined
with eight grade students reporting the lowest occurrence of digitally delivered tests
having the highest achievement.

4 Atypical Mathematics Teaching Practices

In this section, we consider studies that have addressed practices that have been
less common in mathematics classrooms. We discuss the topics that have attracted
researcher’s attention when it comes to teacher’s efforts to implement non-traditional
practices and discuss aspects that have been most influential in shaping teacher’s
activity in mathematics classrooms in the last two decades.
Since 2000, smaller scale studies have emphasized the examination of pedagogical
approaches based on constructivism, with many studies having involved examining
the implementation and impact of particular practices. Teacher-student interactions
have sometimes been observed directly, but artifacts such as teacher’s lesson plans
(Type D), have also been reviewed, and teacher actions inferred from them. Artifacts
of this kind provide indirect insight into what teachers do in their classrooms but need
to be interpreted carefully because of their indirectness. There are, for example, many
reasons for which a lesson may not be implemented as planned. Small scale studies
have focused on broad pedagogical approaches or perspectives (e.g., project-based
learning, culturally responsive teaching), aspects of teacher’s practices (e.g., ques-
tioning, types of listening), the organization of teaching and learning (e.g., flipped
classrooms), and classroom environments. In the sections that follow we describe
findings from these studies according to themes identified from the foci of the studies.

4.1 Pedagogical Approaches

Boaler (e.g., Boaler, 2001) has made extensive contributions to research on teacher’s
use of student-centered approaches complemented by practical work providing
resources (underpinned perhaps by a social constructivist, cognitive learning theory,
or structuralist perspective (Manizade, Moore, & Beswick)) and instructions for
teachers to inform their classroom activity. In Boaler’s work, the concept of rights of
Interactive Mathematics Teacher Activities 145

the learners, that include such things as the right to be heard, make mistakes and be
confused, requiring a degree of sensitivity from teacher’s side (Kalinec-Craig, 2017)
features as something that should guide teacher’s interactions with students. What one
considers to be the rights of a learner depends in part upon teacher’s perspective on
mathematics teaching and hence what the goal of teaching is. From a situated learning
theory or social constructivist perspective it would be quite natural to allow students
to voice their thinking whereas a teacher approaching their task from a behaviorist
perspective might see this as detracting from the effectiveness of teaching aimed
at the perfect performance of procedures. From this perspective, affording students
rights necessarily constrains the actions available to and appropriate for teachers as
they interact with students.
Fewer studies have considered how the student-centered approaches proposed are
understood by teachers, or how they are translated in classrooms. Silver et al. (2009)
analysed portfolio entries submitted by teachers. In the entries, teachers proposed
lesson plans with pedagogical features to support the development of students’ under-
standing. They found that teachers were not able to systematically embed innovative
pedagogical approaches in their best practice submissions. While this study shed light
on the degree of teacher’s adaptation to some atypical practices, the study did not
address the question of how each innovative, student-centred approach was under-
stood by teachers; that is how the teachers defined and hence might enact the atypical
practices they were proposing in their entries.
The research literature suggests that student-centered interactions and teacher’s
role in those interactions have been thoroughly researched and are well understood.
Nevertheless, large-scale studies such as TIMSS and PISA suggest these approaches
are not widely used. Reasons for the limited spread of student-centered approaches
has been the subject of considerable speculation. For example, Buschman (2004)
pointed to a “blame game”, described as teachers commonly arguing that good activi-
ties don’t exist and ‘blaming’ the supply of activities, as an explanation and canvassed
many of the features of the debate about the uptake of atypical practices in which
researchers in the field, have participated. These include: generic definitions of the
approach in question (problem-solving as a loose term that refers to enhanced under-
standing, student centeredness and shifting the teaching from drilling to supporting
genuine ideas); the realization that such practices have not been fully entertained
by teachers, implying that the suggested practices would work as expected should
the teachers only learn the way to acquire what is suggested to them; and providing
informed, but not thoroughly evidence-based speculations about the situation.
Approaches that were innovative but not student-centered were hard to find in the
body of research conducted in the last two decades, suggesting that perspectives that
underpin teaching with features that could be characterised as student centred (e.g.,
social constructivism, structuralism, problem solving, culturally relevant pedagogy,
and project and problem-based learning), are the lenses through which researchers
have envisioned effective mathematics teaching. We struggled to find studies that
examined innovative teacher-centered approaches and did not find studies taking a
fresh perspective on behaviorist approaches.
146 K. Beswick et al.

There is, however, a body of research on cognitive load theory (Paas et al., 2004;
Sweller, 2011), that has investigated teaching practices and techniques that reduce
unnecessary load on students’ working memory. Such an approach is, if not teacher-
centred, at least teacher-led, and often considered as an opposing approach to student-
led problem solving, inquiry-based learning or ‘discovery learning’ (Paas, 2004,
p. 6), although the intention of the approach is not to avoid mental challenges, but to
question the external interruptions that may appear in student-centred, inquiry-based
or collaborative problem-solving settings. Best practices to reduce (unnecessary)
cognitive load have been developed and delivered through laboratory studies, as
well as within training programs for teachers (Van Merrienboer & Sweller, 2005).
One can find comparative studies testing the effects of reduced cognitive load on
student’s learning (e.g., on geometry in Reis et al., 2012; the use of spreadsheets and
sequencing in Clarke et al., 2005) but how teachers have applied those practices in
their mathematics classrooms and the extent to which laboratory-based findings can
be reproduced in classroom contexts seems less known.
The pedagogical approaches discussed above have their roots in ideas presented in
earlier decades. For example, “a quasi-empirical” approach to mathematics teaching
was proposed by Lerman (1990). In that approach, teachers were encouraged to
take mathematical misconceptions as hypotheses (as a source of something produc-
tive) and investigate the conditions under which they might or might not work (and
why). Similarly, Ball and colleagues (e.g., Ball & Bass, 2000) have contributed to
the general understanding of student-centered, constructivist pedagogies. Schoen-
feld (e.g., 1992) has been influential in elaborating and building understanding of
problem-solving as a means of teaching mathematics. Influential elaborations such as
these have likely contributed to student-centred, inquiry-based approaches becoming
dominant in the small-scale intervention studies. Comparison of these studies with
typical mathematics teaching practices discerned from large scale studies, along with
studies that suggest many teachers may have deeply ingrained views aligned with a
behaviorist perspective on teaching (Schoenfeld, 2018) offers an explanation for the
limited traction that student centred teaching has achieved. Not only do theoretical
perspectives constrain the behaviors of teachers in their interactions with students,
but they also constrain the kinds of questions researchers ask, the way studies are
designed, and the questions that remain unanswered.
In the next section we discuss approaches in mathematics classrooms, namely,
the practices in, and organisation of, the environment of a mathematics classroom.

4.2 Aspects of Teacher’s Practices

Burkhardt (2006) reviewed the benefits and the spread of teaching modelling in
the mathematics classrooms, concluding that the approach is only moderately used
despite the opportunities it affords for student learning. Boaler (2001) described
research in which modeling was a practice that had made a difference in student’s
learning in an investigation contrasting mathematics teaching in two schools. She
Interactive Mathematics Teacher Activities 147

concluded that teachers needed to change their practices to allow students to develop
transferable problem-solving skills.
The concept of robust understanding was introduced by Schoenfeld et al. (2020)
along with a framework for teaching in ways that support the development of student’s
robust understanding of mathematics (Schoenfeld, 2018). He described activities
derived from three teacher’s lessons and analysed them in terms of the framework.
The three teachers differed in the aspects of the framework that they emphasized.
Each was able to address some aspects but struggled in others. In general, teachers
seemed to struggle to shift from pedagogies that develop procedural knowledge
to facilitating more connected understanding, and to build on student’s thinking,
making sure everyone had access to opportunities to develop their agency (Schoen-
feld, 2018). Similarly, Buschman (2004), noted that teachers often miss opportunities
to build on student’s ideas, and speculated that there is a need for more examples of
the desired practice, more collaboration among teachers, and greater acceptance of
making mistakes while adapting to new practices.
Others such as Conner et al. (2014) have examined ways in which teachers can
support argumentation, while Handal and Bobis (2004) considered thematically
structured teaching. Sullivan et al. (2003) investigated context-based teaching and
Shahrill (2013), conducted a review of teacher’s questioning, focusing on what makes
questioning effective, rather than on what teachers are actually doing in relation to
questioning.
A particular practice, “instructing between the desks” was investigated as part of
the cross-cultural Lexicon project by Clarke and colleagues (e.g., Dong et al., 2015).
In this project, aspects of teachers’ practices were labelled in order to provide a
vocabulary to make it easier for researchers and teachers to address the various aspects
of teachers’ conscious and unconscious actions in mathematics classrooms. Clarke
and his team were able to identify significant cultural differences in the ways in which
teachers facilitate students’ learning. For example, instructing between the desks
seems more casually and less systematically applied in many Western countries,
but rigorously practiced as “Kikan-shido” in some cultures (O’Keefe et al., 2006).
Linguistic aspects of mathematics teaching have also been addressed by Sfard (2021),
who elaborated on the role of language in the mathematics learning process.

4.3 The Organization of Teaching and Learning

Flipped classrooms have attracted considerable attention from mathematics educa-

tion researchers during the last two decades. The enactment of a flipped classroom
relies on technology, as the learner needs to acquire some of the content through
digital resources independently. The need for independence on the part of the learner
has been suggested to require self-determination (Deci & Ryan, 2012) from the
learner’s side and being well informed of appropriate resources from the teacher’s side
(Muir, 2020; Muir & Geiger, 2016). Muir (2020) observed a teacher implementing a
flipped classroom approach and concluded that with careful preparation, the teacher
148 K. Beswick et al.

was able to support all aspects of her students’ self-determination (competence,

autonomy, and relatedness), while also helping students to develop their conceptual
and procedural knowledge.
In addition to the well-studied flipped classroom approach, we found several
case studies of community engagement. Many of these studies were reported in
conference proceedings, but there were also a few such cases documented in journal
articles. For example, Leonard and Evans (2008) described an intervention in which
teachers worked closely with local churches in urban settings to adapt practices from
community building. The aim was to address social justice and improve cultural
responsiveness. Leonard’s and Evan’s (ibid.) study serves as an alternative example
of what teachers (with or without a research-connection) could engage with in order
to widen their perceptions of what is possible to support mathematics learning, as well
as to better meet the needs of their students as individuals with varying backgrounds.

4.4 Classroom Environments

Research studies are typically based on researchers’ initiatives inspired by their

beliefs about what constitutes good mathematics teaching. Teachers may adopt the
new practice during an intervention, but reports of what happened before and after
these interventions are rare.
Some researchers have made extensive efforts in creating resources to help
teachers apply recommended ideas independently of participation in a project.
Liljedahl (2019), for example, has suggested tangible changes in the classroom envi-
ronment. His concept of “thinking classrooms” includes the use of vertical surfaces as
a mean to support student argumentation. Working in small groups and documenting
the mathematical work on vertical boards that everyone can see has attracted atten-
tion (as evidenced in teacher groups in social media) but is hard to find evidence of
precisely how these practices have been adopted or the extent of their adoption.
Research literature is written and initiated by researchers, and when teachers share
their ideas (for example, in professional journals or on social media), the accounts
are mostly anecdotal. One of the authors of this chapter considers herself “an insider”
in relation to what we can infer of teachers’ attention to educational ideas in social
media. Having her own media to spread research-based resources for teachers to
use, she has learned that even if there is a “hype” from the teacher’s side about a
new practice, the real change may remain undone or only partially implemented. As
Buschman (2004) explained, it is hard work for a teacher, who most likely has never
been experienced alternative methods as a learner or observed them being used by
colleagues, to adopt them, no matter how much value they might see in doing so.
In the digital era, online resources are also available for teachers to use for a range
of purposes (e.g., as enriching the activities, outsourced feedback, creating excite-
ment). Handal et al. (2013) reviewed more than one hundred mobile applications
designed for mathematics learning. They categorized applications using three main
clusters: explorative, productivity and instructive tools. It was noted that teachers
Interactive Mathematics Teacher Activities 149

should understand an application’s instructional value when deciding which to use as

some are of little instructional value. They recommended a “watchful but enthusiastic
eye” (p. 126) on new mobile learning developments in mathematics teaching.
Other examples of the ubiquity of digital resources vary from general organisa-
tion of teaching such as hybrid learning environments (Cribbs & Linder, 2013), to
specific techniques, such as teaching with embodied learning technologies (Flood
et al., 2020), or applications of known learning theories, such as cognitive load theory,
in digital settings (Pass & Sweller, 2005). In an overview of the impact of the Internet
on mathematics classrooms Engelbrecht et al. (2020) discussed the new meanings
for old constructs such as ‘tool’, ‘resources’ or ‘learning setting’. These new mean-
ings, introduced in mathematics classrooms in the digital era include using Massive
Open Online Courses and blended approaches (referred to as Principles of design),
technologies in online contexts supporting social interaction and construction of
knowledge, and online tools and resources (traditional resources in a digital form, as
well as new conceptualisations of what is perceived as a mathematical activity).
In sum, the mathematics classroom as a physical environment has begun to be
transformed along with the expansion of the digital world (Engelbrecht et al., 2020).
Teachers teaching mathematics are no longer restricted to being the key source,
let alone the sole source, of mathematical knowledge. What is more, Engelbrecht
et al., (ibid.) discussed the Internet Era transforming the traditional teacher led push
approach to mathematics teaching into a student led pull approach, increasing student
engagement and agency. Again, the ways in which teachers have reacted to these
recent opportunities is less documented (Clark-Wilson et al., 2020) but appears to
vary from not using technology, supporting student’s use of technology, through to
deliberately eliciting student thinking with and through technology.
Finally, COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated the adoption of technologies in
mathematics classrooms, and the impacts are yet to be fully identified. Some insights
about impacts of digital technologies in mathematics education during the COVID-
19 pandemic were discussed by Borba (2021). The sudden move to online classrooms
around the world required teachers to react quickly and with minimal preparation.
There is an urgent need to study how the mathematics learning process looks, and
specifically what teachers do as they interact with students in new online settings on
such a massive scale. The impacts of COVID-19 might have included a decrease in
equity as a result of differing access to technologies according to student’s socio-
economic background (e.g., using a phone to attend the mathematics class instead
of a computer) (Clark-Wilson, 2020). The pandemic necessitated all teachers of
mathematics engaging with technologies to teach. Studies of teachers’ activities with
students will continue to need to include conceptions of mathematics classrooms that
transcend physical boundaries.
150 K. Beswick et al.

5 Implications and Conclusions

The research considered in this chapter is far from exhaustive. Rather we surveyed a
broad range of literature to identify the kinds of research being undertaken relating to
teacher’s interactive classroom behaviors, and the extent to which promoted practices
are used beyond specific studies.
We distinguished between normative mathematics teaching practice and atypical
mathematics teaching practices. Large scale studies such as TIMSS and PISA provide
insight, albeit indirect, into what happens in the majority of mathematics classrooms.
It seems that, in contrast with the student-centered approaches that have dominated
mathematics education literature in recent decades, behaviorist approaches remain
prevalent. Researcher’s beliefs about, or theoretical perspective on, mathematics
teaching inform and constrain their research (its design, conduct and reporting) just
as teacher’s theoretical perspectives in either the pre-active (Type D) or interactive
phase of teaching (Type C) limit the actions that they perform in their classrooms.
The mismatch between the teacher behaviors that researchers advocate and the peda-
gogies that students most commonly report experiencing raise the longstanding issue
of how teacher’s practice can be influenced in ways deemed desirable. Researchers’
interests in particular perspectives on teaching mathematics seem also to have limited
research on the practices that most commonly occur in mathematics classrooms. A
better understanding of these practices, including the reasons for which teachers
adopt and often stick with them, and the variations in context and the practices them-
selves that affect their efficacy would be valuable in its own right as well to inform
efforts to influence teacher’s interactive classroom activity.
In some classrooms technology has had a profound impact on pedagogical possi-
bilities and has led to new ways of structuring teaching such as flipped class-
rooms. There has been recognition that in a digital world interactions between
teacher and students can be both virtual and asynchronous. This development extends
Medley’s conception of Type C variables research on teacher behaviors during online
synchronous or asynchronous teaching. It problematizes what it in fact means to be
in the presence of students.
It is apparent that researchers bring their own theoretical perspectives and beliefs
to their work, just as teachers do. The theoretical perspectives described by Manizade,
Moore, and Beswick apply equally well to interactive teacher behaviors (Type C) and
to pre- and post-active teacher behaviors (Type D). Our review has also highlighted
the relative dearth, beyond large scale studies, of research on normative interactions
in mathematics classrooms.
Interactive Mathematics Teacher Activities 151

References

Ball, D. L., & Bass, H. (2000). Making believe: The collective construction of public mathemat-
ical knowledge in the elementary classroom. In D. Phillips (Ed.), Constructivism in education
(pp. 193–224). Chicago University Press. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED458689
Beswick, K. (2003). Accounting for the contextual nature of teacher’s beliefs in considering their
relationship to practice. In L. Bragg, C. Campbell, G. Herbert, & J. Mousley (Eds.), Mathe-
matics education research: Innovation, networking, opportunity: Proceedings of the 26th annual
conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (Vol. 1, pp. 152–159).
Deakin University. ISBN 1-9208460-1-8
Beswick, K. (2005). The beliefs/practice connection in broadly defined contexts. Mathematics
Education Research Journal, 17(2), 39–68. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03217415
Boaler, J. (2001). Mathematical modelling and new theories of learning. Teaching Mathematics and
Its Applications: International Journal of the IMA, 20(3), 121–128. https://www.youcubed.org/
wp-content/uploads/m-modelling2001.pdf
Borba, M. C. (2021). The future of mathematics education since COVID-19: Humans-with-media or
humans-with-non-living-things. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 108(1), 385–400. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10649-021-10043-2
Burkhardt, H. (2006). Modelling in mathematics classrooms: Reflections on past developments and
the future. ZDM Mathematics Education, 38(2), 178–195. https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02655888.pdf
Buschman, L. (2004). Teaching problem solving in mathematics. Teaching Children Mathematics,
10(6), 302–309. https://doi.org/10.5951/TCM.10.6.0302
Clark-Wilson, A., Robutti, O., & Thomas, M. (2020). Teaching with digital technology. ZDM
Mathematics Education, 52(7), 1223–1242. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-020-01196-0
Clarke, T., Ayres, P., & Sweller, J. (2005). The impact of sequencing and prior knowledge on
learning mathematics through spreadsheet applications. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 53(3), 15–24. https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/https://doi.org/10.1007/BF0
2504794.pdf
Conner, A., Singletary, L. M., Smith, R. C., Wagner, P. A., & Francisco, R. T. (2014). Teacher
support for collective argumentation: A framework for examining how teachers support student’s
engagement in mathematical activities. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 86(3), 401–429.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-014-9532-8
Cribbs, J. D., & Linder, S. M. (2013). Teacher practices and hybrid space in a fifth-grade mathematics
classroom. Mathematics Educator, 22(2), 55–81. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1013929.
pdf
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2012). Self-determination theory. In P. A. M. Van Lange, A. W.
Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (pp. 416–436).
Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446249215.n21
Desimone, L. M., Smith, T., Baker, D., & Ueno, K. (2005). Assessing barriers to the reform of U.S.
mathematics instruction from an international perspective. American Educational Research
Journal, 42(3), 501–535. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3700461
Dong, L., Seah, W. T., & Clarke, D. J. (2015). A case study of teacher questioning strate-
gies in mathematics classrooms in China and Australia. In K. Beswick, T. Muir & J.
Wells (Eds.). Annual Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Math-
ematics Education 2015 (pp. 217–224). International Group for the Psychology of Math-
ematics Education. https://research.monash.edu/en/publications/a-case-study-of-teacher-questi
oning-strategies-in-mathematics-cla
Engelbrecht, J., Llinares, S., & Borba, M. C. (2020). Transformation of the mathematics classroom
with the internet. ZDM Mathematics Education, 52(5), 825–841. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11
858-020-01176-4
152 K. Beswick et al.

Eriksson, K., Helenius, O., & Ryve, A. (2019). Using TIMSS items to evaluate the effectiveness
of different instructional practices. Instructional Science, 47, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11
251-018-9473-1
Flood, V. J., Shvarts, A., & Abrahamson, D. (2020). Teaching with embodied learning technologies
for mathematics: Responsive teaching for embodied learning. ZDM Mathematics Education,
52(7), 1307–1331. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-020-01165-7
Frykholm, J. A. (1999). The impact of reform: Challenges for mathematics teacher preparation.
Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 2, 79–105. https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009904604728.pdf
Gonzales, P., Guzmán, J. C. Partelow, L., Pahlke, E., Jocelyn, L., Kastberg, D., & Williams, T.
(2004). Highlights from the trends in international mathematics and science study (TIMSS) 2003
(NCES 2005–005). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED483080.
pdf
Handal, B., & Bobis, J. (2004). Teaching mathematics thematically: Teacher’s perspectives.
Mathematics Education Research Journal, 16(1), 3–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03217388.
pdf
Handal, B., Campbell, C., Cavanagh, M., Petocz, P., & Kelly, N. (2012). Integrating technology,
pedagogy and content in mathematics education. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and
Science Teaching, 31(4), 387–413. https://eprints.qut.edu.au/94125/7/Handal_JCMSTpdf.pdf
Handal, B., El-Khoury, J., Campbell, C., & Cavanagh, M. (2013, September 19–21). A framework
for categorising mobile applications in mathematics education. In Proceedings of the Australian
conference on science and mathematics education. (pp.142–147). Australian National Univer-
sity. https://openjournals.library.usyd.edu.au/index.php/IISME/article/download/6933/7588
Hiebert, J., Gallimore, R., Garnier, H., Bogard Givvin, K., Hollingsworth, H., Jacobs, J., Miu-Ying
Chui, A., Wearne, D., Smith, M., Kersting, N., Manaster, A., Tseng, E., Etterbeek, W., Manaster,
C., Gonzales, P., & Stigler, J. (2003). Teaching athematics in seven countries: Results from the
TIMSS 1999 video study (NCES, 2003–2013), U.S. Department of Education, National Center
for Education Statistics, Washington, DC. https://www.immagic.com/eLibrary/ARCHIVES/
GENERAL/US_ED/NCES3607.pdf#page=7
Hooper, M., Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Fishbein, B. (2017). TIMSS 2019 context questionnaire
framework. In I. V. S.Mullis & M. O. Martin, (Eds.), TIMSS 2019 Assessment frameworks
(pp. 59–78). http://timssandpirls.bc.edu/timss2019/frameworks/
Kalinec-Craig, C. A. (2017). The rights of the learner: A framework for promoting equity through
formative assessment in mathematics education. Democracy and Education, 25(2), 1–11. https://
democracyeducationjournal.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1298&context=home
Leatham, K. R. (2006). Viewing mathematics teacher’s beliefs as sensible systems. Journal of
Mathematics Teacher Education, 9, 91–102. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-006-9006-8.pdf
Leonard, J., & Evans, B. R. (2008). Math links: Building learning communities in urban settings.
Journal of Urban Mathematics Education, 1(1), 60–83. https://jume-ojs-tamu.tdl.org/jume/
index.php/JUME/article/download/5/5
Lerman, S. (1990). Alternative perspectives of the nature of mathematics and their influence on the
teaching of mathematcs. British Educational Research Journal, 16(1), 53-61.
Liljedahl, P. (2008). Teacher’s insights into the relationship between beliefs and practice. In J.
Maab & W. Schloglmann (Eds.), Beliefs and attitudes in mathematics education: New research
results (pp. 33–44). Sense Publishers. https://peterliljedahl.com/wp-content/uploads/BC-Tea
chers-Insights.pdf
Liljedahl, P. (2019). Conditions for supporting problem solving: Vertical non-permanent surfaces. In
Liljedahl, P., & Santos-Trigo, M. (Eds.), Mathematical problem solving (pp. 289–310). Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-10472-6_13
Interactive Mathematics Teacher Activities 153

Livy, S., Muir, T., Trakulphadetkrai, N. V., & Larkin, K. (2021). Australian primary school teacher’s
perceived barriers to and enablers for the integration of children’s literature in mathematics
teaching and learning. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10
857-021-09517-0
Medley, D. M. (1987). Evolution of research on teaching. In M. Dunkin (Ed.), The international
encyclopedia of teaching and teacher education (pp. 105–113). Pergamon.
Muir, T. (2020). Self-determination theory and the flipped classroom: A case study of a senior
secondary mathematics class. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 38(3), 569–587.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-020-00320-3
Muir, T., & Geiger, V. (2016). The affordances of using a flipped classroom approach in the teaching
of mathematics: A case study of a grade 10 mathematics class. Mathematics Education Research
Journal, 28(1), 149–171. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-015-0165-8
Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., Kelly, D. L., & Fishbein, B. (2020). TIMSS 2019 international
results in mathematics and science. TIMSS 2019 International Results in Mathematics and
Science (bc.edu)
Mullis, I. V., Martin, M. O., Gonzalez, E. J., & Chrostowski, S. J. (2004). Findings from IEA’s
trends in international mathematics and science study at the fourth and eighth grades. TIMSS
2003 international science report. International Association for the Evaluation of Educational
Achievement. Herengracht 487, Amsterdam, 1017 BT, The Netherlands. https://eric.ed.gov/?
id=ED494651
Neubrand, J. (2006). The TIMSS 1995 and 1999 video studies. In F. K. S. Leung, K.-D. Graf, &
F. J. Lopez-Real (Eds.), Mathematics education in different cultural traditions-A comparative
study of East Asia and the West: The 13th ICMI study (pp. 291–318). Springer. https://link.spr
inger.com/content/pdf/https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-29723-5_18.pdf
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2017). How do teachers
teach? Insights from teachers and students, Teaching in Focus, No. 18, OECD Publishing,
Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/9a824d83-en
O’Keefe, C., Xu, L. H., & Clarke, D. (2006). Kikan-shido: Between desks instruction. In D. Clarke, J.
Emanuelsson, E. Jablonka & I. Ah Chee Mok (Eds.), Making connections (pp. 73–105). Brill
Sense. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789087901639_005
Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2004). Cognitive load theory: Instructional implications of the
interaction between information structures and cognitive architecture. Instructional Science,
32(1/2), 1–8. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41953634
Pass, F., & Sweller, J. (2005). Implications of cognitive load theory for multimedia learning. The
Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning, 3(2), 19–30. http://molwave.chem.auth.gr/sig
alas_edu/files/Multimedia_Learning.pdf#page=43
Reis, H. M., Borges, S. S., Durelli, V. H., Moro, L. F. D. S., Brandao, A. A., Barbosa, E. F., ... & Bitten-
court, I. I. (2012). Towards reducing cognitive load and enhancing usability through a reduced
graphical user interface for a dynamic geometry system: an experimental study. In 2012 IEEE
International Symposium on Multimedia (pp. 445–450). IEEE. https://www.academia.edu/dow
nload/43400268/Towards_Reducing_Cognitive_Load_and_Enha20160305-1505-e8oy9.pdf
Rowland, T., & Turner, F. (2007). Developing and using the “knowledge quartet”: A framework for
observation of mathematics teaching. The Mathematics Educator, 10(1), 107–123.
Rožman, M., & Klieme, E. (2017, February). Exploring cross-national changes in instructional
practices: Evidence from four cycles of TIMSS (Policy Brief No. 13). IEA. https://files.eric.ed.
gov/fulltext/ED574322.pdf
Schleicher, A. (2019). Insights and interpretations. Pisa, 10. https://www.oecd.org/pisa/PISA%202
018%20Insights%20and%20Interpretations%20FINAL%20PDF.pdf
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1992). Learning to think mathematically: Problem solving, metacognition, and
sense making in mathematics. In D. A. Grouws (Ed). NCTM handbook of research on mathe-
matics teaching and learning. Macmillan. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/https://doi.org/
10.1177/002205741619600202
154 K. Beswick et al.

Schoenfeld, A. H. (2003). How can we examine the connections between teacher’s world views
and their educational practices? Issues in Education, 8(2), 217–227.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (2018). Video analyses for research and professional development: The teaching
for robust understanding (TRU) framework. ZDM Mathematics Education, 50(3), 491–506.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-017-0908-y
Schoenfeld, A. H., Baldinger, E., Disston, J., Donovan, S., Dosalmas, A., Driskill, M., ... & Zarkh,
A. (2020). Learning with and from TRU: Teacher educators and the teaching for robust under-
standing framework. In K. Beswick & O. Chapman (Eds.) International handbook of mathe-
matics teacher education: Volume 4 (pp. 271–304). Brill Sense. https://doi.org/10.1163/978900
4424210_011
Sfard, A. (2021). Bewitched by language: Questions on language for mathematics educa-
tion research. In N. Planas, C. Morgan & M. Schütte (Eds.), Classroom research on
mathematics and language: Seeing learners and teachers differently (pp. 41–59). Rout-
ledge. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429260889-4/
bewitched-language-anna-sfard
Shahrill, M. (2013). Review of effective teacher questioning in mathematics classrooms. Interna-
tional Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 3(17), 224–231. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/
viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.1075.1919&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Silver, E. A., Mesa, V. M., Morris, K. A., Star, J. R., & Benken, B. M. (2009). Teaching mathematics
for understanding: An analysis of lessons submitted by teachers seeking NBPTS certification.
American Educational Research Journal, 46(2), 501–531. https://doi.org/10.3102/000283120
8326559
Sosniak, L. A., Ethington, C. A., & Varelas, M. (1991). Teaching mathematics without a coherent
point of view: Findings from the IEA second international mathematics study. Journal of
Curriculum Studies, 23(2), 199–131. https://doi.org/10.1080/0022027910230202
Speer, N. M. (2005). Issues of methods and theory in the study of mathematics teacher’s professed
and attributed beliefs. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 58, 361–391. https://link.springer.
com/content/pdf/https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-005-2745-0.pdf
Sullivan, P., Zevenbergen, R., & Mousley, J. (2003). The contexts of mathematics tasks and the
context of the classroom: Are we including all students? Mathematics Education Research
Journal, 15(2), 107–121. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03217373
Sweller, J. (2011). Cognitive load theory. In B. H. Ross (Ed.), Psychology of learning and motivation
(Vol. 55, pp. 37–76). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-387691-1.00002-8
Van Merrienboer, J. J., & Sweller, J. (2005). Cognitive load theory and complex learning: Recent
developments and future directions. Educational Psychology Review, 17(2), 147–177. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10648-005-3951-0
Vincent-Lancrin, S., Urgel, J., Kar, S., & Jacotin G. (2019). Measuring innovation in educa-
tion 2019: What has changed in the classroom? Educational Research and Innovation, OECD
Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264311671-en
Williams, S. R., & Leatham, K. R. (2017). Journal quality in mathematics education. Journal for
Research in Mathematics Education, 48(4), 369–396. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.
48.4.0369
Interactive Mathematics Teacher Activities 155

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate
credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and
indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative
Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by
statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder.
Student Mathematics Learning Activities

Maria A. Timmerman

1 Introduction

In the late 1980s, to understand “good” teachers and improve teaching practices,
Medley (1987) reviewed prior research on teaching and teacher education and iden-
tified 10 different variables that were studied to determine effective teaching (Intro-
duction, this volume). Using a chain of effects of presage-process–product research,
he reviewed studies that focused on measuring teaching and student behaviors that
resulted in desired student learning outcomes. Further, he identified six of the 10 vari-
ables (Types A—F) as “online variables” (p. 105) that were in direct control of the
teacher and these variables could be studied individually or in relationships between
two or more variables. Using Manizade et al.’s (2019) adaptation of Medley’s work
for mathematics education (Introduction, this volume), this chapter describes an anal-
ysis and review of the literature relevant to the Type B variable, student engagement
in mathematics learning activities, over the last three decades. According to Medley,
student learning activities are defined in the following way:
Pupil learning activities occur in the classroom. The principal means by which teaching can
affect learning outcomes is through its influence on pupil behaviors in the classroom. The
function of teaching is to provide pupils with experiences that will result in desired outcomes.
It is axiomatic that all learning depends on the activity of the learner. (p. 105)

As mathematics education researchers, we are interested in examining relation-

ships between how students engage in or approach student learning activities (Type
B) that result in the successful achievement of desired student learning outcomes
(Type A). It is the teacher practices in classrooms (Type C) that are needed to facil-
itate effective and equitable student interactions with learning activities in which

M. A. Timmerman (B)
Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, Longwood University, 201 High Street,
Farmville, VA 23909, USA
e-mail: [email protected]

© The Author(s) 2023 157

A. Manizade et al. (eds.), The Evolution of Research on Teaching Mathematics,
Mathematics Education in the Digital Era 22,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-31193-2_6
158 M. A. Timmerman

students develop mathematical content knowledge and engage in the process of

doing mathematics.
Yet, what are the characteristics of student engagement in learning activities that
promote the development of content knowledge? What behaviors do students actively
engage in while learning mathematics that reflect what it means to know and do math-
ematics? Can these learning activities be generalized across diverse K-12 classrooms,
including settings that use a wide range of technological tools that support a “syn-
ergistic relationship” between technical and conceptual dimensions of mathematical
activity (Zbiek et al., 2007)? How do teachers facilitate and enhance students’ experi-
ences while learning mathematics? One way to address these questions is to consider
a review since Medley’s work of how the global mathematics education community
has described constructs that further explore students’ development of mathematics
content knowledge and engagement in learning activities while doing mathematics.
A historical review of reform-based mathematics curriculum initiatives provides
insight into visions of various student learning activities, including the use of tech-
nology, which impact how students engage in knowing and doing mathematics
(Sect. 2). To address the many names for these activities, I use Kobett and Karp’s
(2020, p. 40) terminology of behaviors and dispositions (i.e., proficiencies, processes,
practices, competencies, and habits of mind) to identify the multiple and intersecting
student experiences that are relevant to how students develop and show evidence of
their mathematical thinking. Section 3 articulates multiple theoretical perspectives
that capture how the process of student learning occurs in different learning environ-
ments. This is followed by studies relevant to student engagement in making sense
of mathematics (problem-solving behaviors) and perseverance (productive dispo-
sitions) that are often linked to instructional practices to support desired learning
outcomes (Sect. 4). For some studies, Medley’s methodology concerns are addressed
related to the quality and effectiveness of research. Lastly, a discussion of findings is
presented and implications for future mathematics education research in the area of
student mathematics learning activities and active student engagement in knowing
and doing mathematics (Sect. 5).

2 Student Mathematics Learning Activities: An Overview

Over the past several decades, early reform initiatives in the United States [U.S.]
(National Council of Teachers of Mathematics [NCTM], 1980, 1989, 1991, 1995,
2000; National Research Council [NRC], 2001) and other countries, such as
Denmark, New Zealand, and Australia (Davidson et al., 2019; Hipkins, 2018;
McDowell & Hipkins, 2018; Niss, 2003) have promoted new curricula frameworks to
develop mathematics content knowledge and learning activities to improve student
mathematics achievement. The organization of curriculum centered on content at
different grade bands with some consideration of behaviors needed to engage students
in learning mathematics. Student mathematics learning activities are a set of behav-
iors and dispositions students engage in to achieve learning goals that reflect an
Student Mathematics Learning Activities 159

in-depth understanding of mathematics. From the last three decades, this overview
documents a shift toward a focus on student thinking needed to build a concep-
tual understanding of mathematics and identifying how students should experience
solving mathematical tasks. A review of reform initiatives shows an evolution of
specificity of learner activities envisioned to meet high-quality curriculum goals that
support students’ learning of mathematics with understanding.
Beginning in the mid-1970s and into the decade of the 1980s, school curriculum
reform focused on accountability and measurable standards that demonstrated
students’ achievement in mathematics (Cuban, 1992; Pink, 1989). Teacher certi-
fication standards and higher student graduation requirements were raised in the
hopes of improving the teaching and learning of mathematics. The 1983 publi-
cation, A Nation at Risk (National Commission, 1983) reported the failure of the
U.S. school system with the decline of student test scores and achievement levels.
Students lacked mathematical competence and they were unable to problem solve.
At the same time, the business community became aware of a shrinking supply of
skilled workers causing them to become involved in public school reform (Cuban,
1992; Martin, 1989; Sola, 1989). According to Martin (1989), businesses supported
education initiatives because of the potential of providing skilled workers, including
those able to work with the emergence of technology. Yet, the need for accountability
prompted a return to teaching basic skills and the measurement of student behavioral
objectives (i.e., achievement of performance goals) where students completed rote
procedures and computations that could be easily measured.
During the decades of the 1970s and 1980s, what appeared to be missing was a
focus on measuring student achievement of learning goals (Smith & Sherin, 2019).
Moving beyond equating knowing mathematics as successfully completing proce-
dures, researchers needed to show evidence of what students “understood” about
specific mathematics content as a result of engaging in learning experiences in the
classroom. In response to the needs of the discipline and society for the 1980s, NCTM
published the Agenda for Action (1980), which recommended future directions for
improving the teaching and learning of mathematics. Based on reports of low math-
ematics performance, the student behavior of problem solving became central for
engaging students in a mathematics learning activity and has remained a primary
focus in curriculum initiatives over the last three decades.
In the 1990s, the NCTM trilogy of U.S. Standards reform initiatives (1989, 1991,
1995) provided a vision for the organization of school mathematics curriculum and
evaluation, teaching, and assessment. The sets of standards described the nature of
mathematics with an emphasis on students developing a conceptual understanding
of mathematics rather than an acquisition of procedural knowledge, skills, and
facts. Based on interpretations of Piaget’s (1970) and Vygotsky’s (1981) work,
constructivist and social constructivist theories of learning supported a new vision of
students constructing knowledge individually or collaboratively, rather than passively
receiving knowledge. Mathematics represented a dynamic, changing discipline rather
than a static body of knowledge. However, it is critical to state that the early sets of
NCTM standards represented “statements of values” and that underlying assump-
tions about the teaching and learning of mathematics “were not well anchored in
160 M. A. Timmerman

either research or theory” (Kilpatrick, 2003, p. 1). Likewise, Lesh et al.’s (2020)
recent review of learning theories in mathematics education found that the early
“NCTM Standards themselves were not based on any research per se, but simply an
envisioning of what mathematics education in classrooms (i.e., in practice) might
look like and what the appropriate content might look like, keeping the learner in
mind” (p. 862). One of the issues relevant to a lack of research may be attributed
to transitioning from past theories and methods of measuring procedural, student
performance goals to a vision of measuring conceptual, student learning goals often
showed little, if any, research related to new ways of teaching and learning. This
is because the sets of standards had not been implemented in many mathematics
classrooms. Moreover, although the curriculum initiatives promoted mathematics
content learning goals and engagement in student mathematical learning activities
(i.e., behaviors and dispositions), teaching practices (Type C) that support student
learning with understanding were missing.
In response to a lack of research and explicitly connected to an updated version of
U.S. standards (NCTM, 2000), Kilpatrick (2003) asserted that a companion publi-
cation (NCTM, 2003) synthesized a review of the literature that informed the vision
of school mathematics in the 1990s and 2000. In this publication, Sfard reviewed
learning theory research and identified ten mathematical learner needs that were
reflected in the curriculum changes of the NCTM standards. For example, she iden-
tified learners as having a “need for meaning and the need to understand ourselves and
the world around us have come to be recognized as the basic driving force behind
all our intellectual activities” (p. 356). Bringing the needs of learners to the fore-
front, researchers raised new questions about how to measure student behaviors and
dispositions that provide detailed explanations of students’ need for “meaning” while
learning mathematics with understanding and what does this look like in mathematics
classrooms.
Recognizing the ever-present dilemma of balancing the needs of mathematics
(discipline theory) and the needs of the learner (psychological theory) in the orga-
nization of curriculum, Sfard asserted: “In our attempts to improve the learning of
mathematics, we will always remain torn between two concerns: Our concern about
the learner and our concern about the quality of the mathematics being learned”
(p. 386). When one of these theories controls too much of the school mathematics
curriculum, then disruption occurs within the entire curriculum. Over the last three
decades and across different countries, the challenge of this dilemma has continued to
be addressed with frameworks of curriculum initiatives that identify content knowl-
edge students should know and processes students need to engage in while doing
mathematics. Reviewing the relevant literature, a number of terms and documents
pertaining to student behaviors and dispositions will appear in this section and be
discussed further throughout the chapter. Brief, capsule definitions of these terms
and documents are included in the Appendix. The goal of the following subsections
is to identify and compare student mathematics learning activities (Type B) that have
evolved with students becoming knowers and doers of mathematics.
Student Mathematics Learning Activities 161

2.1 Mathematical Processes

After much debate related to the dilemma Sfard (2003) articulated about balancing
the needs of both the discipline and learners, the U.S. Principles and Standards of
School Mathematics (NCTM, 2000) expanded the vision of mathematics educa-
tion to include a more deliberate focus on school curriculum organized around
the framework of process standards to promote learning activities students should
engage in while doing mathematics. Rather than describe performance goals of doing
procedures, the processes defined what mathematicians might do and say when
problem solving. The process standards recommended providing all students oppor-
tunities to learn mathematics through engagement in five overlapping processes:
problem solving, communication, representation, making connections, and reasoning
and proof (NCTM, 2000). Problem solving is the primary action of mathematics
activity and it has always been recommended as way to know and do mathematics
(NCTM, 1980). The learning activity of reasoning develops through problem solving.
Compared to an earlier set of process standards (NCTM, 1989), representation was
added to the original four processes as a way to engage students in making their
mathematical thinking explicit. To support students’ development of mathematical
reasoning and proof, Huinker (2015) extended Lesh et al. (1987) modes of represen-
tation: contextual, physical, visual, verbal, and symbolic, with an explicit focus on
students building representational competence from which mathematical connec-
tions are made “between” and “within” representations. In Sect. 2.5, Zbeik et al.
(2007) use an equivalent term of representation fluency as a construct to describe
students’ access and engagement with multiple representations in technological
environments. The process standards inform ways students could participate while
engaged in knowing and doing mathematics.

2.2 Mathematical Competencies

At the same time, in 2000, the Denmark Ministry of Education created a national
committee to examine ways to improve mathematics teaching and learning. Their
work resulted in the Mathematical Competencies and Learning of Mathematics:
The Danish KOM Project (Niss, 2003). In this report, mathematical competence
was defined as having “the ability to understand, judge, do, and use mathematics in
a variety of intra- and extra-mathematical contexts and situations in which math-
ematics plays or could play a role” (p. 7). The project identified eight mathe-
matical competencies that demonstrated evidence of students’ “mental or physical
processes, activities, and behaviors” (p. 9). The competencies extended NCTM’s
process standards and included: thinking mathematically, posing and solving mathe-
matical problems, modeling mathematically, reasoning mathematically, representing
mathematical entities, handling mathematical symbols and formalisms, communi-
cating in, with, and about mathematics, and making use of aids and tools (including
162 M. A. Timmerman

instructional technology) (Niss, 2003). This framework of mathematical competen-

cies is relevant to Manizade et al.’s (2019) adaptation of Medley’s Type B variable
as they identify learning experiences students should engage in to develop a deep
understanding of mathematics articulated in high-quality curriculum goals.
In a similar vein focused on identifying mathematical competencies, the Program
for International Student Assessment [PISA] (PISA, 2021) measures to what extent
15-year-olds use their many years of building mathematical knowledge to solve real-
world problems. In students’ lives outside of school, they need to solve problems
that often demand the use and integration of multiple mathematical topics, rather
than only knowing how to use a single procedure learned in a mathematics lesson.
PISA assesses different mathematical competencies that gauge students’ mathemat-
ical literacy; that is, “an individual’s capacity to reason mathematically and to formu-
late, employ, and interpret mathematics to solve problems in a variety of real-world
contexts” (PISA, 2021). The PISA mathematical literacy framework lists multiple
competencies under each of three clusters: reproduction, connections, and reflection.
As a research fellow at the Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER) at
the beginning of the last decade, Turner (2010) reviewed research analyzing PISA
mathematics test items. To be successful in solving contextual problems, he found
that students needed to activate prior mathematical knowledge. Further, he reported
students’ difficulty in problem solving when they needed to activate more rather than
fewer mathematics competencies. Similar to Denmark’s competencies, the PISA
competencies included the following: communication, mathematising, representa-
tion, reasoning and argument, strategic thinking, and using symbolic, formal, and
technical language and operations. Turner argued for teacher activities (Type C) in
which they increased a focus on these competencies (Type B) to engage students in
developing mathematical literacy.
Over the last two decades, a Ministry of Education-funded project, Competencies
in New Zealand Curriculum (NZC) (McDowall & Hipkins, 2018; Hipkins, 2018),
described an evolution and research base of key competencies for student learning in
general and eight content learning areas for the twenty-first century. Connected to a
PISA framework, a construct of competencies originated from an Organization for
Economic Development (OECD) Definition and Selection Competencies (DeSeCo)
Project which produced a framework to guide the development of PISA assessments
(Hipkins, 2018). For the NZC, each learning area described “what they [students]
will come to know and do” (Ministry of Education, 2015, p. 37) and identified five
key competencies: thinking, relating to others, using language, symbols, and text,
managing self, and participating/contributing. According to the Ministry of Educa-
tion (2020), “Key competencies matter because they support dispositions that will
enable young people to learn well now, and to go on learning throughout their lives…
Dispositions mean learners are ready (i.e., being motivated to use particular knowl-
edge, skills, and values to achieve the task at hand), willing (i.e., recognizing when
it is relevant to draw on these), and able (i.e., knowing how to do so appropriately).”
Similar to the framework of proficiency strands (NRC, 2001) and Kobett and Karp’s
explicit inclusion of “disposition” when describing students’ knowing and doing
mathematics, the NZC recognized the critical role of dispositions needed for current
Student Mathematics Learning Activities 163

and future student learning. In mathematics and statistics, “students explore relation-
ships in quantities, space, and data and learn to express relationships in ways that help
them to make sense of the world around them” (p. 17). When examining mathemat-
ical connections to four of the key competencies: thinking, relating to others, using
language, symbols, and text, and participating and contributing, the NZC stated:
“Students develop the ability to think creatively, critically, strategically and logi-
cally… They learn to create models and predict outcomes, to conjecture, to justify
and verify, and to seek patterns and generalizations… [there is] a broad range of prac-
tical applications in everyday life, in other learning areas, and in workplaces” (p. 26).
Within the NZC, three interrelated strands of eight levels of achievement objectives
are identified: number and algebra, geometry and measurement, and statistics. Each
level begins with this statement: “In a range of meaningful contexts, students will
be engaged in thinking mathematically and statistically. They will solve problems
and model situations that require them to:” (Ministry of Education, 2014). Similar to
other frameworks of competencies described previously, there is a focus on students
engaged in thinking, meaningful contexts, knowing, doing, and dispositions.
McDowall and Hipkins’ (2018) review of large systematic studies that examined
competencies in the NZC resulted in emergent themes that defined “four phases in
the ways that key competencies have been understood and enacted in the overall
school curriculum” (p. 2). Between 2006 and 2018, these phases provided a “trajec-
tory of change” when considering the nature of student learning and how to weave
the competencies into the curriculum. As an example, although there was overlap
between the phases, in phase two (i.e., 2007–2011), “relationships between key
competencies and ideas about learning to learn (an NZC principle) and lifelong
learning (a part of the NZC vision)” (p. 7) came to the forefront. Research examined
how the NZC was implemented across multiple schools and what barriers existed.
A shift occurred in phase three (i.e., 2011–2014) with a recognition of a need for
the “weaving of key competencies and learning area content” (p. 9); that is, relation-
ships were examined between competencies and desired discipline-specific learning
outcomes (Type A).
Moreover, “students’ opportunities to develop their key competencies were
closely tied to the pedagogy used by the teacher” (p. 9) (Type B and C variables). To
engage students in learning activities, they needed tasks where they took “meaningful
action in real-world contexts” (p. 10) and other pedagogical approaches included crit-
ical inquiry and experimental learning. To investigate phase four studies, which are
ongoing, McDowall and Hipkins (2018) reported: (1) “Students should actively use
and build knowledge, as opposed to just being consumers of knowledge produced
by others;” (2) “There should be opportunities for students to collaborate in more
demanding ways than simply group work;” and (3) “The diverse life experiences and
ways of being that students bring to learning are seen as a resource for learning rather
than a problem to be managed” (p. 12). Looking ahead to future research, Hipkins
et al. (2018) examined the OECD 2030 Learning Framework (p. 2) and its alignment
and implications for the NZC. As in the past, the 2030 framework identifies a focus
on knowledge, skills, attitudes, and values leading to competencies for individual and
164 M. A. Timmerman

societal well-being. The OECD framework development is a collaborative, interna-

tional project and a work-in-progress. It is intended to update the DeSeCo framework
for PISA assessments and provide a pathway for future research connecting student
learning activities, teacher activities, and student learning outcomes (Type A, B, and
C variables, Introduction, this volume).

2.3 Mathematical Proficiency

In the same time period as the updated NCTM (2000) process standards, the National
Research Council’s [NRC] Mathematics Learning Study Committee published
Adding It Up: Helping Children Learn Mathematics (2001) to identify how students
attain mathematical proficiency through cognitive and affective engagement within
these five strands: conceptual understanding, procedural fluency, strategic compe-
tence, adaptive reasoning, and productive disposition. By including the last strand,
productive disposition, the NRC committee asserted the value of beliefs, attitudes,
and emotions and their affective impact on students’ engagement in learning math-
ematics. According to NRC, conceptual understanding is defined as the “compre-
hension of mathematical concepts, operations, and relationships” and productive
disposition is the “habitual inclination to see mathematics as sensible, useful, and
worthwhile, coupled with a belief in diligence and one’s own efficacy” (p. 116).
Making connections to the strands, Kobett and Karp (2020) mapped each proficiency
to examples of what students’ strength behaviors look like in a classroom setting.
For conceptual understanding, they included a student question, “Why do we call
some numbers square numbers? Why do we call some numbers cube numbers?” and
explained: “When students make a comment that something doesn’t make sense to
them, that is an indication that they desire mathematics should be a sense-making
activity” (p. 42). Not only was this student engaged in making sense of the meaning
of different types of numbers, the student asked why questions to develop reasoning
about the structure of numbers.
In Australia, the national curriculum standards identified mathematical reasoning
as both a process that demonstrates mathematical thinking and a strategy for learning
mathematics (Davidson et al., 2019). According to the Australian Curriculum and
Assessment Reporting Authority (ACARA, 2017), reasoning is one of the four profi-
ciency strands students engage in when “thinking and doing of mathematics.” In
other words, the process of reasoning provides insight into students’ mathematical
thinking and their engagement in student learning activities. The other three profi-
ciency strands are understanding, fluency, and problem-solving. The four Australian
proficiency strands “describe the actions in which students can engage when learning
and using the content” (ACARA, 2017). Thus, the proficiency strands suggest a call
for research that examines students’ mathematical thinking when developing content
knowledge (learning) and engagement in doing mathematics (using the content).
Student Mathematics Learning Activities 165

2.4 Standards for Mathematical Practice

In 2010, the U.S. created the national Common Core State Standards for Math-
ematics (CCSSM) (National Governors Association [NGA] Center for Best Prac-
tices and Council of Chief State School Officers [CCSSO], 2010), which included
specific mathematical competencies for students called the Standards for Mathemat-
ical Practice (SMP). Many of the same international mathematical behaviors iden-
tified previously were stated: (1) make sense of problems and persevere in solving
them, (2) reason abstractly and quantitatively, (3) construct viable arguments and
critique the reasoning of others, (4) model with mathematics, (5) use appropriate
tools strategically, (6) attend to precision, (7) look for and make use of structure, and
(8) look for and express regularity in repeated reasoning. For the U.S., the CCSSM
continued an evolution of reform visions stated in earlier initiatives and by other
international researchers (Bostic & Sondergeld, 2015; Hipkins, 2018; Keazer & Jung,
2020; Kobett & Karp, 2020; Koestler et al., 2013; McDowall & Hipkins, 2018; NRC,
2001; Sanchez et al., 2015; Sfard, 2003; Turner, 2010). One purpose for creating the
CCSSM was to provide consistency across the U.S. in K-12 grade-level curriculum
standards rather than each state having different standards. The eight SMP described
how students should engage in mathematics learning activities to become “doers of
mathematics” (Kobett & Karp, 2020, p. 40).
In summary, when reviewing the aforementioned frameworks of curriculum initia-
tives, there is a shift toward making explicit how students should experience doing
mathematics while making sense of their developing mathematical content knowl-
edge. To demonstrate the evolution of student learning activities across different
reform initiatives, a few mathematics educators have compared behaviors and dispo-
sitions found in the documents. Kobert and Karp described connections between
the mathematical proficiency strands and SMP. If researchers use Manizade et al.’s
(2019) framework (Introduction, this volume) for examining relationships between
classroom Type C and B variables (i.e., teacher-student activities), studies could
address Kobert and Karp’s challenge: “We want teachers to think about how their
students respond to and interact with mathematics learning via each of these compo-
nents and that, in doing so, they listen for whispers of their students’ previously
undetected strengths” (p. 41). What research exists that documents how students
engage in learning activities portrayed in frameworks of curriculum initiatives to
develop a deep understanding of mathematics and how do teachers listen and respond
to their students? Recently, Lesh et al. (2020) argued: “The mathematics education
community still does not know how to operationally define measurable conceptions
of almost any of the higher-level understandings or abilities that the CCSC Stan-
dards refers to as mathematical practices” (p. 863). In essence, when working with
the complexity of studying the nature of students’ mathematical learning with under-
standing and student engagement in a range of mathematical practices (i.e., behaviors
and dispositions), do studies exist for the knowledge base that provide evidence of
measures to define effective and equitable student experiences with learning activities
in mathematics classrooms, including technology-based environments?
166 M. A. Timmerman

A potential line of research could take advantage of Koestler et al.’s and Kobett and
Karp’s alignment between the NCTM process standards and the Common Core stan-
dards of mathematical practice. These authors presented classroom vignettes for each
SMP to illustrate how students engaged in doing these learning activities. Specifically,
the problem-solving process standard was connected to all eight SMP. This suggests
if researchers focused on students’ engagement with the first SMP, make sense of
problems and persevere in solving them, there is a strong possibility that students
will be engaged in the other “higher-level” practices. Given that similar practices
are articulated across international frameworks of curriculum initiatives, research is
warranted to provide evidence of students’ engagement in problem-solving behaviors
(i.e., making sense of mathematics) and productive dispositions (i.e., perseverance).

2.5 Cognitive Technological Tools and Student Mathematics

Learning Activities

In the Second Handbook of Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning, Zbiek

et al. (2007) articulated a perspective of multiple constructs researchers should use to
examine students’ mathematical understanding while engaged in technology-based
learning activities. Reviewing earlier research, the authors used the term cognitive
technological (CT) tools to represent a wide variety of technologies that reflect a
technical dimension, conceptual dimension, and a “synergistic relationship” among
these two dimensions. Focusing on the technical dimension, CT tools “must allow
the user the means to take actions on mathematical objects or representations of
these objects” (p. 1171). Examining the conceptual dimension, CT tools provide
“reactive visual feedback” as “observable evidence of the consequences of the user’s
actions” (p. 1171). Zbiek et al. cautioned researchers against the study of mathe-
matics teaching and learning in technological settings using only one dimension.
This is attributed to the fact that student learning activities may include technical
actions, such as solving equations and graphing, and simultaneously these actions are
informed by students’ conceptual understanding and reasoning, such as conjecturing,
finding patterns, and generalizing. Similarly, in the recent Compendium for Research
in Mathematics Education, Roschelle et al. (2017) described a change in technology
media over the last two decades from static to dynamic representations whereby
students learn mathematics with understanding over time. Roschelle et al. identi-
fied dynamism as a new construct that incorporates a “time dimension” for students
making sense of mathematics through dynamic representations. Specifically, they
asked: “How is a mathematical representation being connected to a student’s experi-
ence of time to advance understanding of mathematical relationships?” (p. 863). To
support students’ learning of difficult mathematical topics, Roschelle et al. used the
“design of dynamic representations to enable new means of access [for students] to the
topic” (p. 865). In Sect. 3, two of the emerging theoretical perspectives are grounded
in conceptual studies (Hackenburg, 2010; Simon et al., 2016, 2018) whereby students
Student Mathematics Learning Activities 167

use the dynamism of computer microworlds to support research focused on the

interrelationship between technical and conceptual dimensions.
When students engage in doing technology-based mathematics learning activities,
they may set goals and search to find appropriate CT tools that are needed to solve
a mathematical task. Dependent upon the cognitive demand of a task, students can
set different types of goals (i.e., performance or learning) which results in students
exhibiting different types of behaviors. When using these CT tools, Zbiek et al.
(2007) identified two types of activities students engage in when solving tasks:
exploratory and expressive (p. 1180). Building on mathematical modeling research
(Bliss & Ogborn, 1989), students engaged in doing exploratory activities will follow
teacher instructions to use specific CT tools and procedures. On the other hand,
expressive activities allow students to select their own CT tools and make their own
decisions on how they will solve a technology-based task. Mathematics curricula
often include “explorations” for students to engage with different learning activi-
ties and dependent upon how much teacher direction (Type C) is given, elements of
both exploratory and expressive activity can be observed. Examining how students
engage in doing mathematics through these two forms of activity will often result in
different student learning outcomes (Type A). As an example of expressive activity,
Zbiek et al. described the role of “play” in learning where students were allowed the
freedom of unstructured play and time to try a range of different actions with CT
tools to determine what was possible or not possible as they viewed the results of
their actions. Students engaged individually or with partners and eagerly called out
what they observed in a technological setting. However, the conundrum of the “play
paradox” (Hoyles & Noss, 1992) comes to the forefront, where many CT tools offer
students such a wide range of processes for solving problems, that they may never
encounter the mathematical content a teacher intended or what the designers of a
technology-based activity planned. Zbiek et al. offered mixed research results on the
productive use of unstructured, expressive play versus structured, exploratory play
to engage students in learning and doing mathematics.
Moreover, in a technological setting, researchers have examined both types of
activity (i.e., exploratory or expressive) that students engaged in and made observa-
tions of students’ corresponding behaviors which “lead to insights about the appro-
priateness of their use of those tools and about their understanding of mathematics”
(Zbiek et al., 2007, p. 1184). Specifically, inferences about students’ mathematical
thinking were supported by students’ actions with CT tools, which in turn, reflected
students’ mental actions. To categorize student behaviors, Zbiek et al. introduced
the construct of work method which draws upon the research of Guin and Trouche
(1999) and Trouche (2005). In a 1999 study of 17- to 18-year-old students’ engage-
ment with mathematical tasks that included an option to use symbolic calculators,
Guin and Trouche reported five different student work methods: random, mechan-
ical, resourceful, rational, and theoretical. As an example, students using a random
work method would search using trial and error to find a CT tool action that would
give any answer (i.e., correct or incorrect) for a mathematical task. Yet, students’
engagement in a random process of finding any result often provided evidence of
students missing the mathematical analysis of a problem. In other words, students
168 M. A. Timmerman

accepted the results without any reflection related to the underlying mathematics
which hindered their ability to achieve mathematical learning goals.
Revisiting the development of frameworks for mathematics curricula designed for
student engagement with learning activities, some researchers (Sandoval et al., 2000
and Hong & Thomas, 2002 as cited in Zbiek et al., 2007) have identified the construct
of representational fluency as a lens to study students’ learning by noticing how and
why students interact and make sense of multiple representations of the same mathe-
matics entity. How might students think differently about possible models and strate-
gies for problem solving in a technological environment that provides quick access
to multiple representations? Also, how could the selection of mathematics content go
beyond traditional school mathematics due to the potential capabilities of CT tools?
Consistent with other researchers, Zbiek et al. described representational fluency as
“the ability to translate across representations, the ability to draw meaning about
a mathematical entity from different representations of that mathematical entity,
and the ability to generalize across different representations” (p. 1192). Access to
technology can provide learners with opportunities to use different actions to ‘try
out’ multiple representations and make sense of expected or unexpected results. As
students reflect on their actions and begin to understand the meaning of each repre-
sentation, they have an opportunity to develop representational fluency which could
lead to a deep understanding of mathematical concepts.
Taken together, addressing research studies examining student engagement in
learning activities (Type B) portrayed in frameworks of curriculum initiatives,
including technological environments, provides insight relevant to both cognitive
and affective aspects of student learners as they become knowers and doers of
mathematics. To address Lesh et al.’s (2020) concerns, researchers can ask: How
have we transitioned from measuring student learning for lower-level procedural
outcomes toward analyzing student learning associated with desired higher-level
thinking student outcomes (Type A)? One way researchers may respond is to consider
a review since Medley’s work of important constructs that interpret existing research
and target new areas of research with a focus on the complexity of the learning and
teaching process; that is, the interrelationships between teachers, students, math-
ematical activities, curriculum content, and the added effect of technology. In the
next section, three theoretical perspectives provide explanations relevant to how and
why student behaviors and dispositions develop in the way they do within different
learning environments.

3 Theoretical Perspectives

Within a framework for research relevant to study student behaviors and disposi-
tions, questions can be raised that warrant further investigation about how and why
students engage in learning activities. What kinds of interactions provide students
with learning opportunities to develop mathematical knowledge with understanding
and do mathematics? Are there patterns in how students become “knowers and doers
Student Mathematics Learning Activities 169

of mathematics” or is it idiosyncratic for individual students? Middleton et al.’s

(2017) recent review of engagement research articulates the complexity of studying
the phenomenon of student engagement while learning and doing mathematics. They
reported four individual and overlapping components of engagement: behavioral,
cognitive, affective, and social. There are research challenges in providing expla-
nations that attend to the four different components of engagement in learning
activities to move our understanding of students’ mathematical thinking forward.
Jansen (2020) elaborated and defined engagement with mathematics as “an interac-
tive relationship students have with the subject matter, as manifested in the moment
through expressions of behavior and experiences of emotion and cognitive activity,
and is constructed through opportunities to do mathematics” (p. 273). To advance
research relevant to student learning activities, researchers could consider Jansen’s
recent focus on cognitive and social aspects of behaviors “in the moment” to provide
evidence of what engagement might look like for students building mathematical
content knowledge. In Siedal and Shavelon’s (2007) meta-analysis of studies of
teaching effectiveness related to student learning during the period 1995 to 2004,
they articulated the role of student learning activities needed to build understanding:
We assumed that learning is a set of constructive processes in which the individual student
(alone or socially) builds, activates, elaborates, and organizes knowledge structures. These
processes are internal to the student and can be facilitated and fostered by components of
teaching. Moreover, we assumed that higher order learning and a deep understanding of
learning content is based on the quality of knowledge building and, thus, on the execution
of learning activities. Learning activities should evoke both basic information processing
and domain-specific processing. Consequently, we assumed the area of executing learning
activities to be most proximal to knowledge building. (p. 462)

Relevant to Manizade et al.’s (2019) framework of examining relationships

between variables to determine “good” teaching (Introduction, this volume), Siedal
and Shavelson’s meta-analysis reported constructivist and social constructivist
paradigms of knowing in studies that made connections between students’ execu-
tion of student mathematics learning activities (Type B), desirable student learning
outcomes (Type A), and interactive teaching behaviors (Type C). Different theo-
ries of learning hypothesize frameworks centered on student engagement in mathe-
matical learning activities and consequential desired student learning outcomes. As
researchers interpret particular aspects of the learning process, it is framed by their
own construction of theories to explain what they notice in students’ behaviors and
dispositions.
In this section, I describe three theoretical perspectives that provide explanations
of student engagement in learning activities which are needed to develop mathe-
matical content knowledge with understanding and engage in processes envisioned
in frameworks of curriculum initiatives over the last three decades. Departing from
describing student learning activities in mathematics classrooms, two researchers’
conceptualizations of learning are examined through individual dyads and one-on-
one teaching experiments using technology-based problems (Hackenberg, 2010;
Simon et al., 2016, 2018; Tzur, 1999; Tzur & Simon, 2004). According to Tzur
(2004), teaching experiments allow a teacher-researcher to present tasks, use ongoing
170 M. A. Timmerman

analysis of students’ current cognitive constructs, and design more tasks that promote
students’ engagement in constructing higher-level mathematical thinking. On the
other hand, consistent with Medley’s call for research in classroom settings, Liljedahl
(2016) studied connections between teaching practices and student engagement in
learning activities in mathematics classrooms (Type CB research).

3.1 Developing Schemes: Progressive Coordination

of Actions

Hackenberg’s (2010) model of students’ reversible multiplicative schemes is an

important contribution to the evolution of research on students’ engagement in math-
ematics learning activities. Synthesizing prior studies of students’ development of
fraction knowledge (Steffe, 1994; Tzur, 1995, 1999, 2004), Hackenberg identified
three areas of research that informed key theoretical constructs for her study: (a)
building on students’ prior knowledge and everyday experiences with fractions; (b)
student learning activities for fraction knowledge—partitioning and unitizing; and
(c) three of Kieren’s (1980) five subconstructs of fractions—quotients, operators, and
measures of length. Further, she studied the process of reversibility in developing
multiplicative relationships. Solving a problem with a sequence of actions in one
direction is not easily decomposed to reorganize a scheme in the other direction.
Before reporting on the results of Hackenberg’s study, her interpretation of scheme
theory is described to explain one theory about how learners develop mathemat-
ical knowledge. Similar to Medley’s review, she drew upon theories of Piaget and
Vygotsky to explain how students learn mathematics.
Hackenberg defined mathematical learning “as a process in which people make
accommodations in schemes in ongoing interaction with their experiential world”
(p. 385). According to von Glasersfeld’s (1989) interpretation of Piaget’s theories,
a scheme consists of three parts: (a) an individual recognizes a situation or experi-
ence from a previous situation, (b) engagement in an activity associated with this
situation, and (c) expecting the same result or outcome experienced when previ-
ously engaged in the activity. When examining fraction knowledge that is needed to
develop multiplicative schemes, learners engage in activities, such as partitioning,
dis-embedding, iterating, and splitting (see Steffe & Olive, 2010; Tzur, 1995, 1999,
2004 for details of these operations). A perturbation occurs when a learner’s current
schemes no longer appear useful because they do not fit past learning experiences. To
eliminate perturbations, schemes either remain stable, or become modified contin-
gent upon a learner’s actions and reflections. For Hackenberg, a perturbation explains
any reorganization of a learner’s existing schemes. Through repeated experiences, a
process of reflective abstraction internalizes knowledge based upon the entire cycle
of perturbation, action, and reflection. If a learner coordinates a scheme successfully
using accommodation and does not need to physically act on parts of a task while
describing his or her reasoning, an anticipatory scheme is constructed.
Student Mathematics Learning Activities 171

Hackenberg’s research design allowed her to engage four sixth-grade students in

problems to facilitate each learner’s construction of anticipatory fraction schemes
for reversible multiplicative relationships. Data collection consisted of videotaped
episodes with cameras focused on interactions between a pair of students and
researcher, and a recording of students’ computer or written work. Students used
the JavaBars computer program (Biddlecomb & Olive, 2000) to facilitate a mean-
ingful interpretation of the fraction construct of measure as length. Olive (1994)
stated that microworlds are “tools for the teacher/researchers to construct situations
in which they can use their emerging models of the children’s mathematics” (p. 71).
Using retrospective analysis of the video files, Hackenberg examined each
student’s cognitive structures and how schemes changed over time. She reported
that students constructed schemes to solve tasks when a fraction relationship existed
between known and unknown quantities. One pair of students demonstrated use
of fraction anticipatory schemes. Only one of the four students also engaged in
reversible schemes when constructing reciprocal relationships. Hackenberg found
that students’ construction of anticipatory schemes for multiplicative relationships
required a coordination of three levels of units prior to engaging in an activity.
Teaching experiments using technology-based problems offer an environment where
researchers can examine students’ engagement in exploratory or expressive activities
(Zbiek et al., 2007). Further, researchers could study how these two activities in tech-
nological settings are related to scheme theory to provide an explanation of student
actions and reflections when they are building mathematical content knowledge and
doing mathematics.

3.2 Learning Through Activity: Progressive Coordination

of Mathematical Concepts

In a similar vein, building upon Piaget’s (1980) theoretical construct of reflective

abstraction, Learning Through Activity [LTA] (Simon et al., 2016, 2018) is a research
model that examines how learners engage in learning activities to develop mathe-
matical concepts. In an evolution of research on student learning activities, prior
LTA research from the past 10 years provided insight for an emerging integrated
theory relevant to students’ conceptual learning and instructional design. Using
Manizade et al.’s (2019) framework, the LTA research model potentially informs
future research making connections between Type D, C, B, and A variables (Intro-
duction, this volume). Specifically, the LTA model seeks to answer this question:
“How do humans learn mathematical concepts, and how can instruction be designed
to enlist these learning processes in service of learning particular mathematical
concepts?” (Simon et al., 2018, p. 96). Further, what is the process that engages
a learner to move forward from constructing one concept to a higher-level concept
in a learner’s network of knowledge for different mathematical concepts? And how
can this learning process be promoted?
172 M. A. Timmerman

To study these questions, Simon et al. (2018) proposed an elaboration of the

construct of reflective abstraction with two refinements: Focusing on new concepts
developed from prior concepts rather than using schemes, and a shift away from
earlier work of abstractions attributed to a reflection of activity-effect relationships
(Simon et al., 2004). The authors asserted that perturbations do not provide evidence
of how learning occurs and scheme theory does not explain what a learner “attends
to” in order to achieve a learning goal. Moreover, they no longer viewed reflective
abstraction as a chronological sequence of actions for developing a new concept,
but a construction of higher-level concepts based on lower-level actions. Balancing
the needs of mathematics and a learner, Simon et al. (2018) described developing
concepts as a “bi-directional” process; “that is, how one explains conceptual learning
is dependent on the nature of a concept, and the nature of a concept is, in part,
determined by the process through which it is constructed” (p. 98). A concept consists
of a goal (e.g., solve a task) and an action a learner takes to achieve the goal. When
engaged in mathematical activity, learning may not occur if there are no prior actions
(i.e., mental activities) a learner can access. In LTA’s model, actions are considered
components of concepts, which transforms the construct of reflective abstraction
from a coordination of actions to a coordination of existing concepts (Simon et al.,
2016). Student learning activities provide opportunities for learners to construct
mathematical concepts if they are aware of a sequence of available mental actions
they have already constructed.
As an example of progressive coordination of concepts, Simon et al. (2018)
analyzed the 5-year Measurement Approach to Rational Number (MARN) Project
data. Similar to Hackenberg’s (2010) study, the same program, JavaBars, was used to
facilitate students’ construction of fraction and multiplicative concepts. A teacher-
researcher interacted one-on-one with a student to avoid the influence of others’
thinking that is often encouraged in classroom settings. The task sequence research
design included: “(1) Assess the relevant understanding of the learner; (2) Specify
the learning goal (intended abstraction); (3) Identify an activity or activity sequence
that the learner already has available that could be the basis for the new abstrac-
tion; and (4) Design a sequence of tasks that is likely to bring forth the learners’
use of this activity and lead to the intended abstraction” (Simon et al., 2016, p. 67).
When students engaged in carefully designed tasks intended to promote concep-
tual learning, individual learning processes illustrated “in the moment” thinking and
student focus while solving the task.
Building on Tzur and Simon’s (2004) hypothesis that two stages, participatory
and anticipation, are necessary to develop mathematical concepts, LTA researchers
(Simon et al., 2016, 2018) proposed that an initial reflective abstraction is only the
first of two stages for building a mathematical concept. For the first, participatory
stage, a learner engages in an activity and uses existing concepts to begin to develop
new mathematical knowledge. The analyses of MARN data provided evidence that
learners may not be able to use their initial abstraction (concept) created one day
for a similar task the following day. Only when a learner could call upon an earlier
abstraction (concept) in different contexts, LTA researchers identified this second
Student Mathematics Learning Activities 173

stage as anticipatory. Simon et al. (2018) reported that a fourth-grade student coor-
dinated pairs of actions when determining a composite fraction amount of a whole
number quantity. Higher-level conceptual knowledge was built upon prior existing
knowledge. The two-stage distinction represents a new aspect of research when
analyzing qualitative data of student engagement in learning activities. Still, LTA
researchers point out that future research is needed to provide a more detailed expla-
nation of how teachers can promote a transition from students’ participatory stage
to an anticipatory stage for developing conceptual knowledge. What is the role of
teacher activities (Type C) to facilitate this transition of students engaged in knowing
and doing mathematics (Type B)?
To inform data analysis and instructional design, LTA researchers (Simon et al.,
2016, 2018) also continued to study the development of a reversible concept Hack-
enberg (2010) and other researchers (Steffe, 1994; Tzur, 2004) have examined as a
necessary part of conceptual learning. A student may construct a reversible concept
when he or she does not need to engage in lower-level actions where the orig-
inal concept was developed. Using the context of Cognitively Guided Instruction
(CGI) research-based addition and subtraction tasks (Carpenter et al., 2015), LTA
researchers built a typology of reversibility for six potential tasks (see Simon et al.,
2016, 2018 for details of reversible concepts). Consistent with Hackenberg’s (2010)
findings for reversibility, Simon et al. (2018) reported that a learner may have an orig-
inal concept and not easily construct reversible concepts. The typology of reversibility
has informed these researchers’ decisions related to the design of instructional tasks
used during the LTA teaching episodes.
Overall, LTA’s theoretical perspective focuses on explaining the process of
building conceptual knowledge through students’ engagement in learning activi-
ties as a progressive coordination of mathematical concepts. Using ongoing data
analyses, individual tasks and sequences of tasks are modified dependent upon a
learner’s progress. If no new concept is developed, more of the same or different
experiences are needed to facilitate student reflection and a new abstraction. A chal-
lenge for researchers is to reflect upon ways to apply LTA’s theory beyond indi-
vidual students engaged in teaching experiment settings and implemented in whole-
classroom settings. To this end, in the next section, I provide an example of student
construction of mathematical knowledge and engagement in learning activities in
the context of classrooms.

3.3 The AHA! Experience: Proxies of Student Engagement

Medley (1987) recommended five different types of future research needed to inform
effective teaching practices, with two types focused on student learning activities in
classroom settings: Type BA, “research relates learning outcomes to pupil learning
experiences” and Type CB, “research relates interactive teacher behavior to pupil
learning activities” (p. 110). For Type CB relationships, Medley posed the following
two questions for researchers to examine: “The teacher whose pupils have the best
174 M. A. Timmerman

learning experiences in school (Type B)? The teacher whose classroom behavior
conforms most closely to some conception of ‘best’ practice (Type C)?” (p. 106).
Using Manizade et al.’s (2019) framework (Introduction, this volume), studies are
needed that focus on student–teacher interactions between student learning activities
and interactive teacher behaviors that engage students in becoming knowers and
doers of mathematics.
As an example of Type CB research which evolved from 10 years of earlier
research in Canada, Liljedahl (2016) proposed nine elements of critical teaching
practices that are needed for teachers to orchestrate and sustain student thinking in
mathematics classrooms. Moreover, he identified student proxies of engagement to
describe and measure the effectiveness of the nine elements of teaching practices
to facilitate student learning. In many of his classroom observations, he reported
how teachers implicitly assumed “that the students either could not or would not
think” (p. 362). This may be related to established classroom norms that supported
learning in traditional ways which hindered students’ ability to engage in thinking
and problem-solving behaviors recommended by reform curriculum initiatives.
Liledahl argued for a transition moving away from a non-thinking toward a
thinking classroom; that is, “a space that is inhabited by thinking individuals as well
as individuals thinking collectively, learning together and constructing knowledge
and understanding through activity and discussion” (p. 362). Consistent with other
researchers’ (Cobb, 1994; Cobb et al., 1992) calls for the coordination of Piaget’s
(1970) constructivist and Vygotsky’s (1981) sociocultural perspectives, Liljedahl
assumed that knowledge is constructed both individually and collectively, during
social interactions with others while engaged in doing mathematical activities. For
Cobb (1994), these two complementary perspectives address how theories of learning
emerge; that is, “the sociocultural perspective gives rise to theories of the conditions
for the possibility of learning, whereas theories developed from the constructivist
perspective focus on both what students learn and the processes by which they do
so” (p. 18). As described earlier, Hackenberg’s and Simon et al.’s research approach
of teaching experiments provided explanations for the process of student learning
outside mathematics classrooms.
To inform Liljedah’s (2016) study of teaching and learning practices in secondary
mathematics classrooms, it is useful to review his perspective on the process of
mathematical learning “in the moment” during group work and individual problem
solving. In 2005, experiences in his mathematics course for prospective elementary
school teachers (PTs) affected their thinking about teaching and learning mathe-
matics. An AHA! experience occurred when “a problem has just been solved, or
a new piece of mathematics has been found, and it has happened in a flash of
insight, in a moment of illumination” (Liljedahl, 2005, p. 219). If a student was
“stuck” working on a problem, but experienced an AHA! moment, she or he became
“unstuck” and continued to make progress. Liljedahl studied the learning process of
how this sudden insight or AHA! experience happened and how it affected the PTs’
ability to make sense of problems and persevere. Some PTs often identify themselves
as failures in mathematics based on a lack of successful learning experiences and they
exhibit high math anxiety in mathematics courses. Given the vision of mathematics
Student Mathematics Learning Activities 175

curriculum initiatives for learners to develop a deep understanding of mathematics,

a potential increase in the intensity of affective responses may result in promoting
more negative attitudes when compared to learning routine procedures. Liljedahl’s
conceptual framework included attention to the affective domain for learning mathe-
matics; that is, examining the constructs of beliefs, attitudes, and emotions (McLeod,
1992). Beliefs reflect low levels of affective involvement, are relatively stable, and
develop over a long period of time. According to McLeod, attitude “refers to affective
responses that involve positive or negative feelings of moderate intensity and reason-
able stability” (p. 581). By contrast, the emotional aspects of learning are unstable
and connect more to “in the moment” feelings that are “fleeting” (McLeod, 1992).
To study the process of how learning occurs when students experience insight
during an AHA! experience, Liljedahl (2005) examined how “moments of illumina-
tion” were related to positive emotions and how they changed PTs beliefs and atti-
tudes about doing mathematics. For an assignment, PTs wrote about an AHA! expe-
rience while problem solving. Analyzing responses, Liljedahl reported four affective
themes: anxiety, pleasure, change in beliefs, and change in attitudes. He found that
repeated positive emotional AHA! experiences produced positive beliefs and atti-
tudes about mathematics and students’ abilities to do mathematics. As an example,
one PT wrote: “AHA moments are those great moments of deeper understanding and
clarification of problems where incorrect or incomplete understanding is overcome.
These moments inspire us and encourage us to keep going despite the frustration and
anxiety that often tends to overwhelm us in times of difficulty when attempting to
solve a problem” (p. 231). Engaged in making sense of mathematics, this PT became
aware of her need to persevere, as moments of insight can lead to an understanding of
mathematics. Liljedahl hypothesized two explanations for a high degree of change in
the affective domain: “Positive emotion that is achieved during an AHA! experience
is much more powerful than the emotions that are achieved through non-illuminated
problem solving” and “Having solved something challenging, or understood some-
thing difficult, besides being a great accomplishment is also a measure of what
is possible” (p. 231). AHA! experiences promoted changes in PTs’ behaviors and
dispositions; that is, engagement in student learning activities of problem solving
and perseverance.
Liljedahl (2016) extended his work and investigated engagement of secondary
mathematics students who worked together in small groups of two to four to solve
problem-solving tasks. He studied the interaction between Type B and C variables
by examining the effect of different teaching practices and how students engaged in
problem solving. To inform his observations, he used Mason’s (2002) framework of
noticing; that is, “Noticing refers to the act of focusing attention and making sense of
situational features in a visually complex world” (Jacobs & Spangler, 2017, p. 771).
From data analysis, he proposed nine elements of effective mathematics teaching
practices for building and sustaining a thinking classroom (see Liljedahl, 2016;
for list/analysis of practices). Using an iterative design-based research approach,
each element provided opportunities for teaching practices to be refined or dropped,
depending on how students engaged in mathematical thinking while problem solving.
Still, Liljedahl reported that it was challenging for teachers and students to shift from
176 M. A. Timmerman

traditional, familiar classroom norms. To resolve this issue, he used a “contrarian”

approach in which an ineffective practice was changed to the exact opposite and then
implemented in mathematics classrooms.
Liljedahl measured the effectiveness of teaching practices by studying “proxies
of engagement—observable and measurable (either qualitatively or quantitatively)
student behaviors” (p. 366). He referred to these behaviors as “proxies” because he
did not have direct access to student thinking and he could not tell if the mathematical
thinking was an individual construction, or, collective thinking due to interactions
with others. He reported eight student behaviors and dispositions: (1) time to task,
(2) time to first mathematical notation, (3) eagerness to start, (4) discussion, (5)
participation, (6) persistence, (7) non-linearity of work, and (8) knowledge mobility.
As described in Sect. 2, linkages can be made between Liljedahl’s student engagement
in learning activities (Type B) and those listed in various frameworks of curriculum
initiatives. In response to Lesh et al.’s (2020) concerns of the need for “measures”
of higher-level student understanding, Liljedahl provided a framework of student
behaviors and dispositions that could be used in future studies to provide evidence
of the effects of students’ engagement in learning activities while building content
knowledge and doing mathematics.
Moreover, Middleton et al. (2017) reported researchers studying student engage-
ment experiences often approach their studies using a lens of an observational study.
Also, interview data can provide more detailed insights on the observed behaviors.
For his 2016 study, Liljedahl conducted follow-up interviews to confirm teachers’
interpretation of student behaviors. Similar to other research perspectives focused
on how student mathematical learning occurs and described in this section, Liljedahl
asserted that we need “to honor the activities of a thinking classroom through a
focus on the processes of learning more so than the products and it needs to include
both group work and individual work” (p. 382). That is, as Medley (1987) recom-
mended for the future evolution of research for teaching, there is a need to focus
on the interplay between elements of teaching practices and student engagement
in learning activities (Type B and C variables) rather than examining only student
learning outcomes (Type A).
In summary, the last three decades of frameworks of mathematics curriculum
initiatives impacted researchers’ approaches to studying the needs of the learner
and needs of the discipline for effective mathematics teaching and learning. The
complexity of studying student engagement in higher-level thinking with under-
standing has called for an examination of student learning activities through a lens of
various theoretical perspectives that provide explanations relevant to how and why
student behaviors and dispositions develop in the way they do. Given the different
perspectives relevant to students’ development of mathematical thinking with under-
standing and doing mathematics, theories have emerged in particular settings using
teaching experiments in technological settings and mathematics classroom environ-
ments. As students become knowers and doers of mathematics, Chan and Clark
(2017) address the difficulty in conducting valid and reliable research studies of
student learning in classroom settings, as there is a “tension between the need for
control in an experimental environment and the freedom needed for the participants
Student Mathematics Learning Activities 177

to interact and behave as they would in a naturalistic classroom setting remains a

challenge in the design of research studies investigating student learning in social
settings” (p. 954).
Nevertheless, different theoretical perspectives allow researchers to gain insight
into potential refinements in the conceptualization or design of studies that examine
student learning activities and active student engagement within diverse individual
and whole-class settings, including CT tool environments. This could result in unique
insights emerging from studies making explicit connections between Type A, B, and
C variable relationships. The next section characterizes a selection of studies of
student mathematics learning activities identified earlier in Sect. 2 that encompass
most behaviors and dispositions into two main activities: (1) making sense of mathe-
matics (i.e., problem-solving) and (2) perseverance in doing mathematics: productive
disposition, productive struggle, and productive failure. Taken together, the studies
extend the mathematics education knowledge base of the effects of student learning
activities when students engage in developing mathematics knowledge with under-
standing and doing mathematics. Each study includes a brief description of method-
ology to address Medley’s (1987) quality concerns related to conceptualization,
instrumentation, design, and statistical analysis.

4 Making Sense and Perseverance Involved in Learning

Mathematics Knowledge

4.1 Problem Solving

Mathematicians, mathematics educators, and teachers have described the problem-

solving process in multiple ways (Schoenfeld, 1992) which has led to the develop-
ment of research agendas focused on examining student behaviors supporting the
development of mathematical knowledge (Lesh & Zawojewski, 2007; Schoenfeld,
1992; Schoenfeld & the Teaching for Robust Understanding [TRU] project, 2016).
According to Santos-Trigo’s (2020) recent review of mathematics education research
literature, problem solving is defined as “the systematic study of what the process of
formulating and solving problems entails and the ways to structure problem-solving
approaches to learn mathematics” (p. 687). Over the last three decades, studying the
behaviors and dispositions of student engagement in problem solving has continued
to be a research priority with an emphasis on detailed accounts of teacher expecta-
tions for problem solving and student interactions in mathematics classrooms. This
is attributed to the shift of focus on teachers understanding students’ mathematical
thinking “in the moment” and making connections between Type B and C variables
(Manizade et al., 2019). Lesh and Zawojewski (2007) described students’ engage-
ment in problem solving as using “several iterative cycles of expressing, testing
and revising mathematical interpretations—and of sorting out, integrating, modi-
fying, revising, or refining clusters of mathematical concepts from various topics
178 M. A. Timmerman

within and beyond mathematics” (p. 782). As described earlier, teaching experiment
methodology (Hackenberg, 2010; Simon et al., 2016, 2018) has provided an oppor-
tunity for researchers to examine students’ thinking “in the moment” and explain
how students develop mathematical conceptual understanding.
An emerging field of research is investigating student learning activities (see
Sect. 2) identified in the Common Core standards of mathematical practice [SMP]
(Bostic & Sondergeld, 2015; Gilbert, 2014; Sanchez et al., 2015) and similar math-
ematical competencies (Hipkins, 2018; McDowell & Hipkins, 2018; Niss, 2003;
NRC, 2001; Turner, 2010) that focus on students’ sense-making and extends Polya’s
(2004) problem-solving research. A new term of mathematical sense-making defines
the needs of a learner when engaged in problem solving as a critical component of
what it means for students to know and do mathematics. A limited number of qual-
itative studies (Bostic & Sondergeld, 2015; Kapur, 2014; Warshauer, 2015) have
examined research questions focused on students’ problem-solving experiences in
mathematics classrooms. Although the term problem solving is not explicitly stated
in the SMP, the meaning is implicit and places a priority on problem solving as
students “make sense” of mathematical content.
The literature revealed various teacher interpretations (Type C) of student
problem-solving behaviors (Type B) as envisioned in frameworks of mathematics
curriculum initiatives. In an exploratory study, Keazer and Jung (2020) designed a
survey for 71 PTs in which they responded to questions about student mathematics
learning activities. For example, PTs read a paragraph description of the first SMP
and were asked to think about their future teaching when responding: “Which aspect
of SMP1 do you think will be most difficult for you to develop in your students?
Why?” (p. 82). Separate statements of the SMP1 description were matched along-
side PT responses that described anticipated difficulties when engaging students in
these behaviors and dispositions. The PTs selected: They make conjectures about
the form and meaning of the solution and plan a solution pathway rather than
simply jumping into a solution attempt, with the highest frequency as the most diffi-
cult learning activity to develop; the second highest activity was: Mathematically
proficient students check their answers to problems using a different method, and
they continually ask themselves, ‘Does this make sense?’ Encouraging their future
students to plan, use more than one strategy, and reflect on the problem-solving
process as “making sense” did not appear to be a strength. Close to one-third of the
PTs shared that they themselves struggled with some of the expected learning goals
of SMP1. Consequently, it was a major challenge for many PTs to anticipate how
they would engage students in learning activities (Type B) in their future mathematics
classrooms.
Keazer and Jung’s findings led to their design of a conceptual framework matching
student behaviors and dispositions articulated in the SMP1 sentences to Polya’s
(2004) four problem-solving phases. Citing the research of Schoenfeld and the
TRU project (2016) with a focus on the cognitive demand of tasks dimension, they
proposed using the SMP1-Polya framework to facilitate prospective and practicing
teachers’ understanding of different levels of sense making (i.e., problem solving).
According to Keazer and Jung, “SMP1 aligns with level 3 sense making, in which the
Student Mathematics Learning Activities 179

teacher supports students in mathematical exploration and productive struggle that

results in understanding and engagement in mathematical practices” (p. 88). Making
connections explicit between sections of SMP1 sentences and Polya’s problem-
solving phases could provide an entry point for supporting teachers’ understanding
of student engagement in problem-solving experiences. With the high frequency of
two SMP1 statements in the PTs responses, the student behaviors of Polya’s second
phase, devise a plan, and fourth phase, look back, continued to show the need to
engage students in problem solving or making sense of mathematics to develop a
progression of understanding mathematical concepts. For researchers interested in
understanding different levels of students’ sense making that supports participatory
and anticipatory conceptual development, problem-solving activities may provide
an opportunity to examine LTA’s theory of progression of concepts (Simon et al.,
2016, 2018) beyond individual students to small- and whole-group work methods in
mathematics classrooms.

4.2 Productive Disposition

Building upon Liljedahl’s (2016) theoretical perspective that includes affective

factors of learner engagement, recent studies are focusing on student “persever-
ance” in solving problems. As described earlier, the NRC (2001) defined an affective
strand of productive disposition as viewing “mathematics as sensible, useful, and
worthwhile, coupled with a belief in diligence and one’s own efficacy” (p. 116).
Gilbert (2014) broadened the meaning of productive disposition to include learning
activities in which students are “making sense of problems and persevering in solving
them” and linkages to motivational theory. Observing students actively engaged in
doing mathematics, researchers could ask: What do strengths-based learners look
like when they exhibit the characteristics of a productive disposition in mathematics
classrooms? According to Kobett and Karp (2020), “They are just curious and fasci-
nated. They work diligently, even when faced with obstacles. They try again when
stymied. They understand that learning mathematics can be hard work and they will,
therefore, often continue to work well after their peers have given up” (p. 43). For
further investigation, how might researchers study and measure these characteristics
of students displaying productive disposition?
As an example, in October 2005, Gilbert (2014) surveyed a sample of 140
prealgebra students who volunteered to participate from two California middle
schools. She hypothesized a relationship between productive disposition (Type B)
and an achievement-related (Type A) variables. Specifically, she studied a relation-
ship between students’ abilities to attend to precision when they critiqued another
student’s work. To examine student learning activities, Gilbert stated, “The behav-
iors required to demonstrate these SMP thus relate to psychological constructs that
go beyond ability beliefs (e.g., efficacy) and utility value (i.e., usefulness of mathe-
matics)” (p. 340). First, students responded to survey questions that measured moti-
vational constructs associated with productive disposition, such as, “My main goal
180 M. A. Timmerman

in math is to learn as much as I can” (mastery-approach goal) (p. 342). Second,

students completed an assessment item which measured their ability to add fractions
with unlike denominators. Third, using an open-ended question, students were given
a student’s incorrect work, ½ + ¾ = 4/6, and asked to write an explanation to the
student indicating why the answer was right or wrong.
Gilbert reported using reliability and factor analyses with an examination of corre-
lations that documented the subscales measured distinct constructs of productive
disposition. She found that 44% of the students responded with a more precise
critique of a student’s incorrect strategy by engaging longer and suggested at least
two steps to correct the student’s work. Also, a multivariate analysis of variance
supported the hypothesis that students who responded with a more precise critique
of a peer’s work reported a higher productive disposition than students who responded
with a basic critique. Two motivation constructs: (1) productive disposition and (2)
mastery approach goals and negative emotions, showed statistically significant differ-
ences between the two groups. Based on survey responses, more precise critique
students reported higher mastery-approach goals and less frequent negative emotions
compared to basic critique students. The results of this study suggest more research is
needed to focus on NCTM’s (2014) effective teaching practices (Type C), including
“building procedural fluency from conceptual understanding” (Type B, mastery-
approach goals), where the procedure of adding fractions is built upon a foundation
of conceptual understanding. Using multiple representations of fractions, students
could be provided with opportunities to make connections between concepts and
procedures situated in a classroom where meaningful mathematics discourse occurs.

4.3 Productive Struggle

Beginning elementary school teachers often say that students should not “strug-
gle” or be confused in learning mathematics and if they do struggle, a teacher may
restate the same strategy for students to follow. Keazer and Jung (2020) reported
a few PTs stated they needed to “show and tell” (Type C) all possible strategies
to students rather than engage them in productive struggle. However, researchers
have reported the positive effects of productive struggle whereby the act of strug-
gling is crucial for students learning mathematics with understanding (Hiebert &
Grouws, 2007; Keazer & Jung, 2020; NCTM, 2014; Schoenfeld & TRU, 2016;
Warshauer, 2015). Hiebert and Grouws (2007) defined productive struggle as a
student learning behavior that promotes students making sense of mathematics and
is necessary to develop conceptual understanding. In a similar manner, Dingham
et al. (2019) identified productive struggle as “intellectual effort students expend
to make sense of mathematical concepts that are challenging but fall within the
students’ reasoning capabilities” (p. 91). Schoenfeld and the TRU project (2016)
identified five dimensions of mathematics learning activities that were necessary
to ensure that classroom environments supported students as “powerful thinkers.”
In response to the needs of the discipline, one dimension focused on the cognitive
Student Mathematics Learning Activities 181

demand of tasks in “which students have opportunities to grapple with and make
sense of important disciplinary ideas and their use. Students learn best when they are
challenged… The level of challenge should be conducive to what has been called
productive struggle” (p. 1). Similar to behaviors and dispositions described in Sect. 2,
productive struggle engages students in perseverance when solving challenging prob-
lems. Schoenfeld and the TRU project (2016) reported teachers categorized at the
highest level supported “students in productive struggle in building understandings
and engaging in mathematical practices” (p. 24). Likewise, NCTM (2014) explicitly
addressed the need for teachers to engage students in productive struggle: “Effective
teaching of mathematics consistently provides students, individually and collectively,
with opportunities and support to engage in productive struggle as they grapple with
mathematical ideas and relationships” (p. 48).
Warshauer (2015) studied what different types of student struggle looked like
in six U.S. middle school mathematics classrooms and how teachers responded to
their students’ struggles (Type CB research). His conceptual framework centered
on the “process of struggling to make sense” (p. 378) for a deep understanding
of mathematics, the relationship between the students’ struggles and the types of
mathematical tasks explored, and the dynamic, social nature of interaction when
teachers responded as helping or hindering student learning. Given the complexity of
studying student–teacher and student–student interactions, he conducted embedded
case study methodology (Yin, 2009) using instructional episodes. Multiple sources
of data allowed for triangulation of the data to establish dependability, confirmability,
and transferability when he reported findings of the study.
Warshauer developed a productive struggle framework for reporting the frequency
of four different types of student behavior of struggle: get started, carry out a process,
uncertainty in explaining and sense-making, and express misconception and errors
(Type B). As an example, “confusion about what the task was asking” or a “gesture
of uncertainty or resignation” (p. 385) described students struggling at the beginning
of the problem-solving process. It should be noted that there is a parallel alignment in
some of his framework categories to Polya’s (2004) four phases of problem solving;
that is, “get started” with Polya’s first phase and “carry out the process” with the third
phase. Similar to Keazer and Jung’s (2020) study, connecting student struggles to
some of Polya’s problem-solving phases could provide researchers with a new lens
for analyzing students’ sense-making through existing problem-solving literature.
For student–student interactions, Warshauer reported students’ “uncertainty in
explaining and sense-making” when their explanations lacked clarity and did not
make sense to other students, or they struggled with appropriate responses. He found
evidence of proportional reasoning misconceptions such as using additive rather
than multiplicative thinking for the meaning of ratios. For teacher-student interac-
tions, Warshauer reported the frequency of four different types of teacher responses to
student struggles: telling, directed guidance, probing guidance, and affordance (Type
C). The first two types of responses did not engage students in productively under-
standing the concept of proportional reasoning. As might be anticipated, a telling
response often enabled a student to move beyond being stuck, but used a teacher’s
thinking rather than student thinking. Often, a procedure was stated for a student to
182 M. A. Timmerman

follow which resulted in lowering a problem’s level of cognitive demand. Both the
last two types of teacher responses supported students’ thinking without lowering
the level of cognitive demand.
Warshauer identified three outcomes of student struggles: productive, productive
at a lower level, and unproductive. Productive interactions included: “(1) maintained
the intended goals and cognitive demand of the task; (2) supported students’ thinking
by acknowledging effort and mathematical understanding and (3) enabled students
to move forward in the task execution through student actions” (p. 390). He reported
42% of student struggles met all three criteria, 40% of the interactions only used the
second criteria, and 18% of struggles were unproductive. For unproductive struggles,
students were not “making progress toward the goals of the task; reached a solution
but a task that had been transformed to a procedural one that significantly reduced the
task’s intended cognitive demand; or if the students simply stopped trying” (p. 391).
In essence, teachers balanced how much they pressed students to persevere based on
students’ levels of tolerance for frustration at different levels of cognitive demand.
Productive struggle depended on keeping tasks at higher cognitive-demand levels,
supporting students’ perseverance, and teachers who provided guidance and affor-
dance. These results promote the future use of a productive struggle framework
as a tool for researchers examining students’ productive struggles (Type B) and
teacher-student interactions (Type BC research).

4.4 Productive Failure

Research on examining students’ productive struggle when attempting to make sense

of mathematics content and persevere in solving problems, is related to engagement in
another Type B variable: productive failure (Kapur, 2010, 2014; Simpson & Maltese,
2017). Failure can be defined in many ways, such as, giving up or stopping engage-
ment in an activity, not reaching the intended goal, or incorrect problem solutions.
Further, failure can bring to the forefront negative connotations such as “negative
emotional states (e.g., fear, anxiety, depression), low perceptions of self, diminished
sense of belonging, less academic risk taking, and avoidant behaviors” (Simpson &
Maltese, 2017, p. 223). These negative behaviors and dispositions suggest that failure
may decrease students’ desire or ability to continue to problem solve. Still, what might
happen if we view failure as a “necessary and sufficient condition” for students’
engagement in learning activities? In what ways might students’ metacognitive anal-
ysis of their problem-solving process while stuck on a problem make errors explicit,
or, how may critiquing their peers’ use of models and strategies support learning?
According to the Partnership for 21st Century Learning (2019), creativity and inno-
vation are enhanced through failure; that is, persistent attempts are part of innovative
practices marked by “a long-term, cyclical process of small successes and frequent
mistakes” (p. 4). How might this process of success and failure be part of learning
activities?
Student Mathematics Learning Activities 183

Simpson and Maltese (2017) studied the role of failure in the development of
science, technology, engineering, or mathematics (STEM) professionals. They inter-
viewed 99 STEM professionals about their experiences in entering and pursuing a
STEM-related career. Using life history interviews, they focused on how participants’
failure shaped: outlooks connected to failure, career trajectories within STEM fields,
and provision of additional skills. They reported about one-fifth of the professionals
described failure as a positive experience. However, when using a follow-up survey
and asked if “the term failure was an accurate representation or label of their experi-
ences, 67% disagreed and claimed words and phrases such as inadaptability, setback,
unsuccessful, not living up to expected outcomes, defeat, and learning opportunity
as more suitable” (p. 228). Rather than considering failure as an end to becoming
a STEM-related professional, they reported two-thirds of respondents saw failure
as a minor setback that motivated them to move past difficulties in coursework or
professional projects. Also, they described the trait of “persistence” as the most
“important quality to possess when experiencing instances of failure” (p. 233). As
described earlier, perseverance is a productive student mathematics learning activity
envisioned by curriculum initiatives over the last three decades.
In a study of ninth-grade students who lived in the national capital region of
India, Kapur (2014) proposed that engaging students in problem solving which
initially resulted in productive failure would ensure “correct conceptual knowledge
and mathematical procedures over faulty ones” (p. 1009). For Kapur, the term produc-
tive failure meant that students’ initial individual problem-solving attempts were
unsuccessful in finding correct solutions, and became productive when supported
with appropriate mathematics classroom instruction. Similar to productive behav-
iors researched over the last decade, Kapur hypothesized relationships between indi-
vidual student failure (Type B), sequence of teaching phases (Type C), and student
outcomes (Type A). For Kapur’s (2014) study, in one classroom, students first partic-
ipated in a problem-solving (PS) phase for standard deviation (SD) problems that
was followed by a direct instruction (DI) phase. In the comparison classroom, the
same teacher first taught students using DI followed by a PS phase. During the PS
phase, students solved a SD practical problem individually and the teacher encour-
aged them to use multiple strategies and find as many solutions as possible. For
the more traditional DI phase, the teacher showed four examples of SD problems,
gave time for individual student practice, and provided student feedback related to
common SD misconceptions.
Similar to Gilbert’s (2014) study, Kapur examined aspects of both cognitive and
affective behaviors and dispositions using surveys and mathematics content knowl-
edge measures. He designed four instruments to measure students’ learning of SD
concepts and procedures. These included a pre- and post-test of SD knowledge and
survey questions relevant to engagement and mental effort. Kapur reported that the
class of students who began instruction with a PS phase provided an average of six
different solutions to a SD practical problem. The number of solutions served as a
“proxy” measure of students’ prior knowledge activation. By comparison, the other
class of students beginning with DI, only demonstrated an average of three different
solutions.
184 M. A. Timmerman

Examining affective behaviors and dispositions, data collected from survey ques-
tions provided evidence of significantly greater mental effort of productive failure
students (PS phase first) compared to DI students (PS phase second) during both
phases of instruction. Yet, Kapur found no significant difference between the two
sequences of instruction on math ability or prior SD knowledge. Analyzing posttest
data and the two different sequences of instruction, Kapur reported “significant multi-
variate main effects only of math ability and condition” (p. 1013). Although there
was no significant difference between students’ procedural knowledge in either class-
room, students engaged in the PS phase first, significantly outperformed students
receiving the DI phase first on posttest conceptual understanding and transfer items.
No significant correlations appeared in the data for students beginning with DI.
Kapur’s research supports a learner’s perspective that is relevant to NCTM’s
(2014) teaching practices whereby teachers provide students time to think, make
conjectures, and use their own strategies while problem solving: “Effective teaching
of mathematics engages students in solving and discussing tasks that promote math-
ematical reasoning and problem solving and allow multiple entry points and varied
solution strategies” (p. 17). Kapur’s study provides specificity for this teaching prac-
tice (Type C) by supporting engagement in student learner activities (Type B) that
may include productive failure first at the beginning of a lesson. After experiencing
a PS phase followed by more instruction, students engaged in more mental effort
and demonstrated more conceptual understanding than students who experienced DI
(teaching as telling) at the beginning of a lesson. Thus, it appeared that productive
failure provided students with an opportunity to learn from their own failed solutions
and they were ready to engage in classroom-based instruction with a focus on impor-
tant mathematical ideas relevant to SD. For teachers who believe it takes too much
time to allow students to think and engage individually in the PS process, Kapur
found that “time on task, the number of problems solved, and materials for each of
the phases were identical in both [classes]” (p. 1010).

5 Discussion of Findings and Future Implications

What can be learned from this selected analysis and review of student mathematics
learning activities that actively engage students in knowing and doing mathematics?
How has research evolved over the last three decades to support students’ develop-
ment of mathematical content knowledge and engagement in processes (i.e., behav-
iors and dispositions) that have been identified in multiple frameworks of interna-
tional mathematics curriculum initiatives? How has the increased availability of CT
tools for students enhanced researchers’ observations and inferences of students’
thinking, including technologies to advance research methodologies? What theo-
retical perspectives have researchers refined for examining the nature of students’
construction of mathematical content knowledge with understanding to provide
explanations relevant to how and why student behaviors and dispositions develop
in the way they do within different learning environments? Lastly, how has this
Student Mathematics Learning Activities 185

chapter informed future research needed to advance our understanding of student

learning activities?
To address these questions, this chapter’s review and analysis of three decades
of research highlight the contributions of selected studies related to understanding
the nature of student mathematics learning activities and the resulting impact on
students’ knowing and doing mathematics. The findings offer insights for researchers,
curriculum designers, administrators, teachers, parents, students, and other stake-
holders involved in mathematics teaching and learning, situated in both non-
technological and technological environments. First, a major theme in this chapter of
studies of student learning activities was researchers’ increased focus on reviewing
multiple characterizations of mathematical behaviors and dispositions to refine
competency frameworks to study how students actively engage in the processes
of learning mathematics. An evolution of similar and interrelated learning activities
from different countries provided details about what processes to study and how to
analyze the effect of students’ learning experiences, including two main learning
activities of making sense of mathematical knowledge and perseverance in doing
mathematics. At the beginning of the twenty-first century, Sfard (2003) asserted that
learning activities should “engage students in what may count as an authentic activity
of mathematizing rather than in learning ready-made mathematical facts” (p. 354).
There has been growth in researchers’ understanding of what constructs to study
related to student mathematics learning activities (Type B) and various theoretical
perspectives that provide explanations of students’ engagement in knowing and doing
mathematics.
Although Kobert and Karp (2020) created an alignment of student behaviors
and dispositions between the five strands of mathematical proficiency (NRC, 2001)
and the eight standards of mathematical practice (NGA Center for Best Practices
and CCSSO, 2010), few studies have focused on this alignment and what can be
learned to inform our understanding of student engagement in learning activities.
Researchers could further examine the relationships among these multiple frame-
works in curriculum initiatives and the impact of using different (albeit similar)
frameworks (see Sect. 2) to examine students’ active engagement in learning mathe-
matics. What is the same and what is different in using these identified mathematical
behaviors and dispositions to investigate students’ knowing and doing mathematics?
As another example, how might researchers take advantage of Koestler et al.’s
(2013) and Kobett and Karp’s alignment between the process standards (NCTM,
2000) and standards of mathematical practice (NGA Center for Best Practices and
CCSSO, 2010)? What insights might emerge when researchers “synergize” these
two frameworks together to inform research studies about students’ engagement in
mathematics learning activities? To respond to engaging students in an “authentic
activity of mathematizing” that mathematicians display when they know and do
mathematics (see Sect. 2), researchers could build upon a rich tradition of studying
students’ problem-solving behaviors (e.g., Polya’s problem-solving phases) with a
further examination of critical connections between frameworks and conceptual-
izations of higher-level mathematical processes. Further, research could focus on
at least three of Liljedahl’s (2016) proxies of student engagement (i.e., discussion,
186 M. A. Timmerman

participation, and persistence) to examine and explain students’ perseverance while

problem solving, both individually and in groups, to make inferences about students’
mathematical thinking.
Second, research over the past three decades has extended our understanding of
how and why the process of student engagement in learning and doing mathematics
occurs in different learning environments. Using teaching experiment methodology,
a small number of studies have articulated emerging theoretical perspectives that
focused on analyzing students’ development of mathematical concepts in technolog-
ical settings outside the classroom (Hackenberg, 2010; Simon et al., 2016, 2018).
From these studies, observations and analyses documented how students engaged
in a sequence of learning activities using CT tools that were intended to promote
students’ reflective abstraction and reversible thinking for rational number concepts.
How might a similar cycle of students’ engagement in learning activities including
CT tools and coupled with researchers’ noticing and analyses provide a research
pathway to further our understanding and infer students’ mathematical thinking
for reversible thinking in different conceptual areas? Simon et al. (2018) proposed
that researchers could positively contribute to addressing unsuccessful mathematics
instruction for specific conceptual areas (e.g., fractions, ratios, proportions, and other)
through implementing the LTA research model.
One result of the last decade of research, Simon et al. (2018) refined an earlier
theoretical framework of scheme theory and moved research forward with a better
understanding of the constructs of student learning to create the LTA theory which
resulted in analyzing students’ progressive development of concepts. In what ways
could researchers use the LTA research model of task sequence design and analyses to
investigate students’ engagement in mathematical processes that focus on a progres-
sive concept development and lead to intended abstractions in non-technological
environments? Further studies of students’ learning with understanding in different
areas of mathematics could provide more useful explanations as to how and why
students’ knowledge changes or does not change “over time” or “in the moment.”
Moreover, if researchers look beyond using teaching experiment methodology, what
can be gleaned from the LTA approach to investigate small- and whole-group student
engagement in knowing and doing mathematics in classrooms? In particular, findings
from Liljedahl’s (2005, 2016) studies should be explored using his new conceptual
framework to measure and expand our understanding of a relationship between math-
ematics teaching practices and student learning activities (Type CB research) that
seems necessary to build and sustain thinking classrooms. Furthermore, the past two
decades of research studies about student mathematics learning activities has shown
an increased focus of examining the interrelationships between Type B and C vari-
ables (Keazer & Jung, 2020; Schoenfeld & TRU, 2016; Warshauer, 2015) to inform
our understanding of the effects of students’ engagement in learning activities. Yet,
more studies are needed to explore research questions about relationships among
Type B and A variables (Gilbert, 2014) and Type A, B, and C variables (Kapur,
2014) to improve student learning outcomes (Type A).
A third finding of this chapter is the identification of some of the important
constructs (e.g., expressive activity, exploratory activity, representational fluency,
Student Mathematics Learning Activities 187

and others) that are needed to inform research related to technology-based mathe-
matics teaching and learning (Zbiek et al, 2007). These constructs should be further
explored to refine our current understanding of links between student engagement in
the processes (i.e., behaviors and dispositions) of learning mathematics and students’
use of CT tools. As an example of future research for studying “promising variables”
with student-tool relationships, Zbiek et al. proposed: “Students’ dragging behavior
[with CT tools] could be viewed as an intervening variable between the mathemat-
ical activity and student achievement” (p. 1201). In other words, using Manizade
et al.’s (2019) framework for examining relationships between Type B and A vari-
ables (Introduction, this volume), researchers should investigate the potential of a new
“intervening variable” between two adjacent variables in the adaptation of Medley’s
(1987) work that could provide evidence of how students engage in learning and
doing mathematics in technological settings.
Given the documentation of some unproductive student work methods, Zbiek et al.
call for “research that identifies constructs that are associated with the development
of judicious use [italics added] of technology” (p. 1186); that is, examining teacher
activities (Type C) which facilitate students being aware of their need to focus on the
mathematics content of a task and use productive work methods (Type B). Researcher
observations of successful and unsuccessful student behaviors when using CT tools
may provide insight into how the successful use of technology can be sustained and
ways to change unsuccessful student behaviors.
Further questions that warrant researchers’ investigation of students’ mathemat-
ical learning and engagement with technology-based activities include: If students
encounter an unexpected result with one representation (using CT tools), do they
stay with that representation, or switch to another representation that provides more
insight as a way to solve a given task? What is the role of teacher activities (Type C)
in engaging students in their development of representational fluency? As described
in Sect. 2, access to technology introduces the “play paradox” where unstructured,
expressive activity can enable some students to avoid the intended mathematical
content of an activity. How might studies of understanding students’ development
of representational fluency provide evidence of the effect of exploratory activity and
expressive activity in technological settings? Zbiek et al. advocate for studies of “how
the representational fluency of a group relates to the representational fluency of indi-
viduals in the group” (p. 1194). Also, is there a relationship between the construct of
representational fluency and student work methods (Zbiek et al.)? Within technolog-
ical environments, researchers should consider many of these questions and examine
relationships between Type A, B, and C variables to inform the knowledge base of
student mathematics learning activities.
Fourth, reviewing different conceptualizations of student engagement in mathe-
matics learning activities focused on not only identifying behaviors and dispositions
that actively engage students in knowing and doing mathematics in existing studies
but also to suggest new directions in building the knowledge base related to student
mathematics learning activities. A clear trend of this chapter’s selected review of
studies about student learning activities focused on how and why students make
188 M. A. Timmerman

sense of mathematics “in the moment” and perseverance to know and do math-
ematics “over time.” Whether using teaching experiments or classroom settings,
researchers investigated and explained students’ engagement in learning mathe-
matics with understanding and doing mathematics. As an example, Liljedahl’s (2005)
study of PTs’ problem-solving activities and their “AHA! moments of illumina-
tion” promoted positive changes in their mathematical understanding (i.e., cogni-
tive construct) and productive dispositions (i.e., affective construct). Complementary
relationships between cognitive and affective constructs of students’ mathematical
learning experiences could inform future research design for individual studies or
sets of related studies. Moreover, studies with an increased focus of examining inter-
relationships between Type B and C variables provided evidence of how teachers
responded to individual students’ use of or lack of problem-solving strategies and
informed their decision-making on next steps in a lesson or sequence of lessons (see
Sects. 3 and 4).
To advance our current understanding of mathematics teaching and learning, there
is a continued need to review and extend the knowledge base related to the devel-
opment of student behaviors and dispositions that actively engage all students in
knowing and doing mathematics. One way to move the knowledge base forward
is a consideration of the results of the past decade with an increasing availability
of wide-ranging technological methodologies that can provide data about students’
engagement in mathematics learning activities to both teachers and researchers (Type
CB research). To address the gap between research and practice for understanding and
improving students’ mathematical learning experiences, Cai et al. (2018) proposed
the collection, analysis, and use of “continuous data on the learning experiences of
each student” (p. 363) to facilitate researchers’ understanding of explicit connec-
tions between teaching practices (Type C) and student learning activities (Type B).
Yet, questions need to be considered if technological and methodological tools exist
without overwhelming both researchers and teachers with too many data? According
to Cai et al. (2018), the “capacity to capture, process, and store comprehensive cogni-
tive and noncognitive data longitudinally for every student either already exists or
is on the near horizon” (p. 364). Two years later, Cai et al. (2020) described current
digital tools for collecting and managing student data but acknowledged that techno-
logical tools that could be used “during [classroom] lessons to monitor small-group
discussion, analyze student work, and even gauge students’ affect” (p. 392) are still
under development. Still, examining the future potential of technology to access
student mathematical thinking for each student in the next decade, Cai et al. (2018)
have proposed a framework for collecting, analyzing, and using data on students’
mathematical experiences that uses a three-part time frame: (1) in the moment, (2)
short term, and (3) long term (p. 366). In addition, both cognitive and noncogni-
tive learning experiences, such as “students unexpected responses” and “students’
engagement with tasks” are identified and have been reported in prior studies of
student mathematics learning activities (see Cai et al., 2018, for further frame-
work details). Future research is needed to ground this framework in the data across
multiple diverse settings.
Student Mathematics Learning Activities 189

Notwithstanding and looking to the next decade, Bartell et al. (2017) asserted
that the “CCSSM, with its implicit political and economic goals and its lack of
explicit attention to race, gender, class, and so forth, is not framed to support equity”
(p. 9). Consequently, Bartell et al. designed a framework to connect research-based
equitable mathematical teaching practices (Type C) with all the SMP (Type B) to
explicitly address issues of equity. Making connections, they identified nine core
teaching practices described in the chapter on culture, race, and power in the Second
Handbook of Research on Mathematics Teaching (Diversity in Mathematics Educa-
tion , 2007) and more recent research (see Bartell et al., 2017, for details of the
practices). As an emerging field of research, their framework offers existing and new
research connections between student mathematics learning activities and equitable
mathematical teaching practices (Type BC research). Each part of the framework
provides multiple entry points for research supporting what it means for students to
actively engage in effective and equitable mathematical learning activities. Students’
engagement in mathematical behaviors and dispositions needs to be studied in partic-
ular contexts and situations to inform and extend the knowledge base of what works
and does not work for all students to become knowers and doers of mathematics.

Brief, Capsule Definitions of Terms and Documents

for Chapter 6

• Assessment, curriculum and evaluation, and professional standards for school

mathematics: A trilogy of documents that provided a vision for the organization
of curriculum reform in the U.S. in the 1990s (National Council of Teachers of
Mathematics [NCTM], 1989, 1991, 1995).
• Behaviors and dispositions: Identification of student experiences, such as, profi-
ciencies, processes, practices, competencies, and habits of mind (Kobett & Karp,
2020, p. 40) that demonstrate how students develop and show evidence of their
mathematical thinking.
• Cognitive technological (CT) tools: Consists of tools that support a “syner-
gistic relationship” between technical and conceptual dimensions of mathematical
activity in technological environments (Zbiek, Heid, Blume, & Dick, 2007).
• Competencies: Frameworks for knowing and doing mathematics, such as, (1)
Denmark’s (2003) mathematical competencies that provided evidence of students’
“mental or physical processes, activities, and behaviors” (p. 9); (2) Program for
International Student Assessment [PISA] (PISA, 2021) assessed mathematical
competencies as “an individual’s capacity to reason mathematically and to formu-
late, employ, and interpret mathematics to solve problems in a variety of real-
world contexts” (PISA, 2021); and (3) Identified in the New Zealand Curriculum
(NZC), competencies “that describe what they [students] will come to know and
do” (Ministry of Education, 2015, p. 37).
190 M. A. Timmerman

• Conceptual understanding: Student learning is defined as the “comprehension

of mathematical concepts, operations, and relationships” (National Research
Council [NRC], 2001, p. 116).
• Direct instruction (DI): Traditional, instructional methods where students watch,
listen, and take notes about problems that teachers provide procedures and
solutions for students to follow and use (Kapur, 2014).
• Learning goals: Focus on student “understanding” where students build knowl-
edge; “Explicitly state what students will understand about mathematics as a result
of engaging in a particular lesson” (Smith & Sherin, 2019, p. 14).
• Learning through activity[LTA]: A research model that examines how learners
actively engage in learning activities through a progressive coordination of math-
ematical concepts (Simon, Kara, Placa, & Avitzur, 2018; Simon, Placa, & Avitzur,
2016).
• Mathematical sense-making: Student engagement in processes, such as problem
solving, to learn mathematics with understanding; one aspect of what it means to
know and do mathematics.
• National Governors Association [NGA] Center for Best Practices & Council of
Chief State School Officers [CCSSO]: Authors of the U.S. Common Core State
Standards for Mathematics (CCSSM), 2010.
• Organization for Economic Development (OECD) Definition and Selection
Competencies (DeSeCo) Project: Created a framework to guide the development
of PISA assessments.
• Performance goals: Focus on the end result or product of students’ engagement
in learning mathematics: “What students will be able to do as a result in engaging
in a lesson” (Smith & Sherin, 2019, p. 14).
• Principles and standards for school mathematics: Updated U.S. document that
provides a vision for curriculum reform at the beginning of the twenty-first century
(NCTM, 2000).
• Problem-solving: Defined as “the systematic study of what the process of formu-
lating and solving problems entails and the ways to structure problem-solving
approaches to learn mathematics” (Santos-Trigo, 2020, p. 687).
• Process standards: Five processes that define what mathematicians might do
and say when engaged in doing mathematics: Problem solving, communication,
representation, making connections, and reasoning and proof (NCTM, 2000).
• Productive disposition: An affective construct defined as learners having an
“habitual inclination to see mathematics as sensible, useful, and worthwhile,
coupled with a belief in diligence and one’s own efficacy” (NRC, 2001, p. 116).
• Productive failure: Students’ initial problem-solving attempts are unsuccessful
and became productive when supported with appropriate mathematics classroom
instruction (Kapur, 2014).
• Productive struggle: A student learning behavior that promotes learners making
sense of mathematics and is necessary to develop conceptual understanding
(Hiebert & Grouws, 2007); “Intellectual effort students expend to make sense of
mathematical concepts that are challenging but fall within the students’ reasoning
capabilities” (Dingman, Kent, McComas, & Orona, 2019, p. 91)
Student Mathematics Learning Activities 191

• Proficiencies: Frameworks for students’ engagement while learning mathematics,

such as, (a) Cognitive and affective proficiencies for five strands: conceptual
understanding, procedural fluency, strategic competence, adaptive reasoning, and
productive disposition (NRC, 2001); and (b) Reasoning as one of the four profi-
ciency strands students engage inwhen “thinking and doing of mathematics”
(Australia Curriculum and Assessment Reporting Authority [ACARA], 2017).
• Prospective elementary school teachers (PTs) and AHA! Experience: Students
engage in problem solving and experience how “a problem has just been solved,
or a new piece of mathematics has been found, and it has happened in a flash of
insight, in a moment of illumination” (Liljedahl, 2005, p. 219).
• Representational fluency: Within or outside technological environments, “The
ability to translate across representations, the ability to draw meaning about a
mathematical entity from different representations of that mathematical entity,
and the ability to generalize across different representations” (Zbiek et al., 2007,
p. 1192).
• Research for principles and standards for school mathematics: Research litera-
ture that informed the U.S. vision of school mathematics in the 1990s and 2000
(NCTM, 2003).
• Scheme: A cycle of perturbation, action, and reflection in which an individual
anticipates, acts and mentally prepares, and assesses the outcome of his or her
actions (Hackenberg, 2010; Steffe, 1994; von Glasersfeld, 1995)
• Standards for Mathematical practice (SMP): Eight mathematical competencies
identified as a national Common Core State Standards for Mathematics (CCSSM)
in the U.S., 2010.
• Student learning activities: “In the classroom… All learning depends on the
activity of the learner” (Medley, 1987, p. 105).
• Student engagement: Defined as “an interactive relationship students have with
the subject matter, as manifested in the moment through expressions of behavior
and experiences of emotion and cognitive activity, and is constructed through
opportunities to do mathematics” (Jansen, 2020, p. 273).
• Teaching for robust understanding [TRU] project: Framework of five dimen-
sions of classroom activity that supports professional development (PD) to engage
teachers in creating a classroom student learning environment that facilitates the
development of powerful thinkers (Schoenfeld & the TRU project, 2016).

References

Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2017). The Australian curriculum:
Mathematics: Key ideas. https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/f-10curriculum/mathem
atics/key-ideas/.
Bartell, T., Wager, A., Edwards, A., Battey, D., Foote, M., & Spencer, J. (2017). Toward a framework
for research linking equitable teaching with the standards for mathematical practice. Journal
for Research in Mathematics Education, 48(1), 7–28.
192 M. A. Timmerman

Biddlecomb, B. D. (1994). Theory-based development of computer microworlds. Journal of

Research in Childhood and Education, 8(2), 87–98.
Biddlecomb, B., & Olive, J. (2000). JavaBars [computer software]. http://math.coe.uga.edu/olive/
welcome.html.
Bliss, J., & Ogborn, J. (1989). Tools for exploratory learning. Journal of Computer-Assisted
Learning, 5, 37–50.
Bostic, J. D., & Sondergeld, T. A. (2015). Measuring sixth-grade students’ problem solving:
Validating an instrument addressing the mathematics common core. School Science and
Mathematics, 115(6), 281–291.
Cai, J., Morris, A., Hohensee, C., Hwang, S., Robison, V., & Hiebert, J. (2018). Using data to
understand and improving students’ learning: Empowering teachers and researchers through
building and using a knowledge base. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 49(4),
362–372. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.49.4.0362
Cai, J., Morris, A., Hohensee, C., Hwang, S., Robison, V., Cirillo, M., Kramer, S. L., & Hiebert, J.
(2020). Improving the impact of research on practice: Capitalizing on technological advances
for research. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 51(5), 518–529. https://www.
jstor.org/stable/10.5951/jresematheduc-2020-0165.
Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Franke, M. L., Levi, L., & Empson, S. B. (2015). Children’s
mathematics: Cognitively guided instruction (2nd ed.). Heineman.
Chan, M. C. E., & Clarke, D. (2017). Structured affordances in the use of open-ended tasks to
facilitate collaborative problem solving. ZDM Mathematics Education, 49, 951–963. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11858-017-0876-2
Cobb, P. (1994). Where is the mind? Constructivist and sociocultural perspectives on mathematical
development. Educational Researcher, 22, 3–29.
Cobb, P., Yackel, E., & Wood, T. (1992). A constructivist alternative to the representational view
of mind in mathematics education. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 23, 2–33.
Cuban, L. (1992). The corporate myth of reforming public schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 73(1), 37–82.
Davidson, A., Herbert, S., & Bragg, L. A. (2019). Supporting elementary teachers’ planning
and assessing of mathematical reasoning. International Journal of Science and Mathematics
Education, 17(6), 1151–1171. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-018-9904-0
Dingham, S. W., Kent, L. B., McComas, K. K., & Orona, C. C. (2019). The language of math-
ematics education: An expanded glossary of key terms and concepts in mathematics teaching
and learning. Koninklijke Brill NV. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004412651.
Diversity in Mathematics Education. (2007). Culture, race, power, and mathematics education. In
F. K. Lester, Jr. (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning
(pp. 405–434). Information Age Publishing.
Gilbert, M. (2014). Using productive disposition to differentiate between students’ level of precision
when critiquing a peer’s work. School Science and Mathematics, 114(7), 339–348. https://doi.
org/10.1111/ssm.12086
Guin, D., & Trouche, L. (1999). The complex process of coverting tools into mathematical instru-
ments: The case of calculators. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning,
3, 195–227.
Hackenberg, A. J. (2010). Students’ reasoning with reversible multiplicative relationships. Cogni-
tion and Instruction, 28(4), 383–432. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2010.511565
Hiebert, J., & Grouws, D. A. (2007). The effects of classroom mathematics teaching on students’
learning. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and
learning (pp. 371–404). Information Age Publishing.
Hipkins, R. (2018). How the key concepts were developed: The evidence base. New Zealand Council
for Educational Research.
Hipkins, R., McDowall, S., & Wood, B. (2018). How key competencies are treated in the OECD
‘2030’ framework: Implications for the New Zealand curriculum. New Zealand Council for
Educational Research.
Student Mathematics Learning Activities 193

Hong, Y. Y., & Thomas, M. O. J. (2002). Representational versatility and linear algebraic equations.
Proceedings of the international conference on computers in education (vol. 2, pp. 1002–1006).
ICCE.
Hoyles, C., & Noss, R. (1992). A pedagogy for mathematical microworlds. Educational Studies in
Mathematics, 23(1), 31–57.
Huinker, D. (2015). Representational competence: A renewed focus for classroom practice in
mathematics. Wisconsin Teacher of Mathematics, 67(2), 4–8.
Jacobs, V. R., & Spangler, D. A. (2017). Research on core practices in K-12 mathematics teaching.
In J. Cai (Ed.), Compendium for research in mathematics education (pp. 766–792). NCTM.
Jansen, A. (2020). Engagement with mathematics. In S. Lerman (Ed.), Encyclopedia of mathematics
education (pp. 273–276). Springer International Publishing.
Kapur, M. (2010). Productive failure in mathematical problem solving. Instructional Science, 38(6),
523–550.
Kapur, M. (2014). Productive failure in learning math. Cognitive Science, 38, 1008–1022. https://
doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12107
Kaput, J. J. (1992). Technology and mathematics education. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of
research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 515–556). Macmillan.
Keazer, L. M., & Jung, H. (2020). Prospective teachers anticipate challenges fostering the mathe-
matical practice of making sense. School Science and Mathematics, 120, 79–89. https://doi.org/
10.1111/ssm.12390
Kieren, T. E. (1980). The rational number construct-its elements and mechanisms. In T. E. Kieren
(Ed.), Recent research on number learning (pp. 125–150). Columbus.
Kilpatrick, J. (2003). Introduction. In J. Kilpatrick, W. G. Martin, & D. Schifter (Eds.), A research
companion to principles and standards for school mathematics (pp. 1–4 ). NCTM.
Kobett, B. M., & Karp, K. S. (2020). Strength-based teaching and learning in mathematics: Five
teaching turnarounds for grades k-6. NCTM.
Koestler, C., Felton, M., Bieda, K., & Otten, S. (2013). Connecting the NCTM process standards
and the CCSSM practices. NCTM.
Lesh, R., Post, T., & Behr, M. (1987). Representations and translations among representations in
mathematics learning and problem solving. In C. Janvier (Ed.), Problems of representation in
the teaching and learning mathematics (pp. 33–40). Erlbaum.
Lesh, R., & Zawojewski, J. (2007). Problem solving and modeling. In F. Lester (Ed.), Second
handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 763–804). Information Age
Publishing.
Lesh, R. A., Sriraman, B., & English, L. (2020). Theories of learning mathematics. In S. Lerman
(Ed.), Encyclopedia of mathematics education (pp. 861–869). Springer International Publishing.
Liljedahl, P. G. (2005). Mathematical discovery and affect: The effect of AHA! experiences
on undergraduate mathematics students. International Journal of Mathematical Education in
Science and Technology, 36(2–3), 219–236. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207390412331316997
Liljedahl, P. (2016). Building thinking classrooms: Conditions for problem-solving. In P. Felmer,
E. Pehkonen, & J. Kilpatrick (Eds.), Posing and Solving Mathematical Problems (pp. 361–386).
Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28023-3_21.
Manizade, A., & Ribeiro, M., Makonye, J. P., Mellone, M., & Jakobsen, A. (2019). International
perspectives on evolution of research on teaching mathematics. In M. Graven, H. Venkat, A.
Essien & P. Vale (Eds.). Proceedings of the 43rd Conference of the International Group for the
Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, pp. 179–180). PME.
Martin, D. T. (1989). A critique of the concept of work and education in the school reform reports.
In C. M. Shea, E. Kahana, & P. Sola (Eds.), The new servants of power: A critique of the 1980s
school reform movement (pp. 39–56). Greenwood Press.
Mason, J. (2002). Researching your own practice: The discipline of noticing. Routledge.
McDowell, S., & Hipkins, R. (2018). How the key concepts developed over time: Insights from the
research. New Zealand Council for Educational Research. https://www.nzcer.org.nz/research/
publications/key-competencies-insights.
194 M. A. Timmerman

McLeod, D. B. (1992). Research on affect in mathematics education: A reconceptualization. In

D. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research in mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 575–596).
MacMillan.
Medley, D. M. (1987). Evolution of research on teaching. In M. J. Dunkin (Ed.), The international
encyclopedia of teaching and teacher education (pp. 105–113). Pergamon Press.
Middleton, J., Jansen, A., & Goldin, G. A. (2017). The complexities of mathematical engage-
ment: Motivation, affect, and social interactions. In J. Cai (Ed.), Compendium for research in
mathematics education (pp. 667–699). NCTM.
Ministry of Education (2014). The New Zealand curriculum online: Mathematics and statistics.
Author. https://nzcurriculum.tki.org.nz/The-New-Zealand-Curriculum/Mathematics-and-statis
tics/Achievement-objectives#collapsible1.
Ministry of Education. (2015). The New Zealand curriculum. Author. https://www.education.gov
t.nz/.
Ministry of Education. (2020). The New Zealand curriculum online: Key competencies. Author.
https://nzcurriculum.tki.org.nz/Key-competencies#collapsible2.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1980). An agenda for action. Author.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for
school mathematics. Author.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1991). Professional standards for school mathe-
matics. Author.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1995). Assessment standards for school mathe-
matics. Author.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school
mathematics. Author.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2003). A research companion to principles and
standards for school mathematics. Author.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2014). Principles to actions: Ensuring mathematical
success for all. Author.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for
educational reform. Government Printing Office.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and Council of Chief State School Offi-
cers. (2010). Common core state standards for mathematics. Author. http://www.corestandards.
org/Math/Practice.
National Research Council. (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. In J.
Kilpatick, J. Swafford, & B. Findell (Eds.), Mathematics learning study committee, center for
education, division of behavioral and social sciences and education. National Academy Press.
Niss, M. (2003) Mathematical competencies and the learning of mathematics: The Danish
KOM project. In A. Gagatsis and S. Papastavridis (Eds.), 3rd Mediterranean conference on
mathematical education—Athens, Hellas, 3–5 Jan 2003 (pp. 116–124). Hellenic Mathemat-
ical Society. http://www.math.chalmers.se/Math/Grundutb/CTH/mve375/1213/docs/KOMkom
petenser.pdf.
Olive, J. (1994). Children’s construction of fractions using tools for interactive mathematical activity
(TIMA) microworlds. In D. Kirshner (Ed.), Proceedings of the sixteenth annual meeting of the
North American chapter of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education
(p. 71). Louisiana State University.
Partnership for 21st Century Learning (2019). Framework for 21st century definitions (p. 21). http://
static.battelleforkids.org/documents/p21/P21_Framework_DefinitionsBFK.pdf.
Piaget, J. (1970). Genetic epistemology. Norton & Norton.
Piaget, J. (1980). Adaptation and intelligence: Organic selection and phenocopy. University of
Chicago Press.
Pink, W. T. (1989). The new equity: Competing visions. In C. M. Shea, E. Kahana, & P. Sola (Eds.),
The new servants of power: A critique of the 1980s school reform movement (pp. 123–136).
Greenwood Press.
Student Mathematics Learning Activities 195

Polya, G. (2004). How to solve it: A new aspect of mathematical method. Princeton University
Press.
Program for International Student Assessment. (2021). PISA 2021 mathematics framework. https://
pisa2021-maths.oecd.org/#Twenty-First-Century-Skills.
Roschelle, J., Noss, R., Blikstein, P., & Jackiw, N. (2017). Technology for learning mathematics.
In J. Cai (Ed.), Compendium for research in mathematics education (pp. 853–875). NCTM.
Sanchez, W. B., Lischka, A. E., Edenfield, K. W., & Gammill, R. (2015). An emergent framework:
Views of mathematical processes. School Science and Mathematics, 115(2), 88–99.
Sandoval, W. A., Bell, P., Coleman, E., Enyedy, N., & Suthers, D. (2000). Designing knowledge
representations for epistemic practices in science learning. Paper presented at the annual meeting
of the American Educational Research Association.
Santos-Trigo, M. (2020). Problem solving in mathematics education. In S. Lerman (Ed.),
Encyclopedia of mathematics education (pp. 686–693). Springer International Publishing.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1985). Mathematical problem solving. Academic Press.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1992). Learning to think mathematically: Problem solving, metacognition,
and sense making in mathematics. In D. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research in mathematics
teaching and learning (pp. 334–370). MacMillan.
Schoenfeld, A. H., & The Teaching for Robust Understanding Project. (2016). An introduction to
the teaching for robust understanding (TRU) framework. Graduate School of Education. http://
map.mathshell.org/trumath.php.
Sfard, A. (2003). Balancing the unbalanceable: The NCTM Standards in light of theories of learning
mathematics. In J. Kilpatrick, W. G. Martin, & D. Schifter (Eds.), A research companion to
principles and standards for school mathematics (pp. 353–392). NCTM.
Siedel, T., & Shavelson, R. J. (2007). Teaching effectiveness research in the past decade: The role
of theory and research design in disentangling meta-analysis results. Review of Educational
Research, 77(4), 454–499. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654307310317.
Simon, M. A., Placa, N., & Avitzur, A. (2016). Participatory and anticipatory stages of mathemat-
ical concept learning: Further empirical and theoretical development. Journal for Research in
Mathematics Education, 47(1), 63–93.
Simon, M. A., Tzur, R., Heinz, K., & Kinzel, M. (2004). Explicating a mechanism for conceptual
learning: Elaborating the construct of reflective abstraction. Journal for Research in Mathematics
Education, 35(5), 305–329. https://doi.org/10.2307/30034818
Simon, M. A., Kara, M., Placa, N., & Avitzur, A. (2018). Towards an integrated theory of mathe-
matics conceptual learning and instructional design: The Learning through activity theoretical
framework. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 52, 95–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.
2018.04.002
Simpson, A., & Maltese, A. (2017). “Failure is a major component of learning anything”: The
role of failure in the development of STEM professionals. Journal of Science Education and
Technology, 26, 223–237. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-016-9674-9
Smith, M., & Sherin, M. G. (2019). The five practices in practice: Successfully orchestrating
mathematics discussions in your middle school classroom. Corwin.
Sola, P. (1989). The corporate community on the ideal business-school alliance: A historical and
ethical critique. In C. M. Shea, E. Kahana, & P. Sola (Eds.), The new servants of power: A
critique of the 1980s school reform movement (pp. 75–86). Greenwood Press.
Steffe, L. P. (1994). Children’s multiplying schemes. In G. Harel & J. Confrey (Eds.), The devel-
opment of multiplicative reasoning in the learning of mathematics (pp. 3–39). State University
of New York Press.
Steffe, L. P., & Olive, J. (2010). Children’s fractional knowledge. Tools for interactive mathematical
activity (TIMA). [Computer program]. (1994). University of Georgia.
Trouche, L. (2005). An instrumental approach to mathematics learning in symbolic calculator
environments. In D. Guin, K. Ruthven, & L. Trouche (Eds.), The didactical challenge of symbolic
calculators: Turning a computational device into a mathematical instrument (pp. 137–162).
Springer International Publishing.
196 M. A. Timmerman

Turner, R. (2010). Exploring mathematical competencies. Research Developments, 24(24). https://

research.acer.edu.au/resdev/vol24/iss24/5.
Tzur, R. (1995). Interaction and children’s fraction learning (Doctoral dissertation). Available from
ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database (UMI No. 9604082).
Tzur, R. (1999). An integrated study of children’s construction of improper fractions and the
teacher’s role in promoting that learning. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,
30(4), 390–416.
Tzur, R. (2004). Teacher and students’ joint production of a reversible fraction conception. Journal
of Mathematical Behavior, 23, 93–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2003.12.006
Tzur, R., & Simon, M. A. (2004). Distinguishing two stages of mathematics conceptual learning.
International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 2(2), 287–304. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10763-004-7479-4
Vygotsky, L. S. (1981). The genesis of higher mental functions. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.), The concept
of activity in soviet psychology (pp. 144–188). M. E. Sharpe.
Warshauer, H. K. (2015). Productive struggle in middle school mathematics classrooms. Journal of
Mathematics Teacher Education, 17(4), 375–399. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-014-9286-3
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research design and methods (Vol. 5). Sage.
Zbiek, R. M., Heid, M. K., Blume, G. W., & Dick, T. P. (2007). Research on technology in mathe-
matics education. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching
and learning (pp. 1169–1207). Information Age Publishing.

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate
credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and
indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative
Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by
statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder.
Student Mathematics Learning
Outcomes

Jelena Radišić

1 Introduction

Within the context of presage-process–product research and its pursuit of ‘good’

teaching (Type C), learning outcomes (Type A) represent the end goal and final
criterion on which any assessment of teaching must be based (Medley, 1977, 1987a;
also see Figs. 2 and 3 in Manizade et al., 2022). In this respect, ‘good’ teaching
can be considered teaching that produces the maximum learning outcomes and
progress to meet the prescribed education goals. However, the very idea of learning
outcomes and educational goals has changed throughout the years, mainly because
the understanding of what education, and here mathematics education, should entail
has changed (Kilpatrick, 2020a; Manizade et al., 2022).
Since the 1980s, worldwide, the increasing demand for knowledge in many
areas of life and work has placed the burden of productivity on education systems
(Klieme et al., 2008). Consequently, this has led to a stronger focus on ‘outputs’
and ‘outcomes’ at all levels of the educational system and their transferability to
the job market. In such a society, mathematical knowledge, ability, skills and(or)
competence are seen as an essential prerequisite in encountering the challenges of
the world today (Boesen et al., 2018; Ehmke et al., 2020; Freeman et al., 2015;
Gravemeijer et al., 2017; OECD, 2016). Such a need has also led to a broader under-
standing of what being ‘mathematically’ equipped means. It includes both posing
and answering questions in and by means of mathematics (i.e., reasoning, modelling,
problem-solving), as well as handling the language, constructs and tools of the field
(i.e., formalism and language, handling different representations, handling material
aids and tools for mathematical activity, digital tools included; Niss et al., 2017;

J. Radišić (B)
Department of Teacher Education and School Research, University of Oslo, Postboks 1099
Blindern, 0317 Oslo, Norway
e-mail: [email protected]

© The Author(s) 2023 197

A. Manizade et al. (eds.), The Evolution of Research on Teaching Mathematics,
Mathematics Education in the Digital Era 22,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-31193-2_7
198 J. Radišić

Niss & Højgaard, 2019). At the same time, mathematics itself consists of different
subfields, each of which may employ somewhat different mathematical tools. Some
have argued that the development of the underlying frameworks that bring together
these constituents has, in return affected teaching to a certain extent (Type C) (e.g.,
Boesen et al., 2014). Such discussions are coupled with considerable differences
of opinion regarding which teaching methods are effective, which may help sustain
different learning goals and desired outcomes (e.g., Blazar, 2015; Hiebert & Grouws,
2007; Hill et al., 2005).
Indeed, efforts to improve the quality of teaching largely depend on the effec-
tiveness and availability of accurate, detailed and objective evaluations of teaching
(Medley, 1987a, 1987b). Students’ learning outcomes represent one of the most
favoured criteria, especially amid policy, under the assumption that it is reasonable
to judge teaching by its results, just as we do for most other activities in life (Darling-
Hammond & Rustique-Forrester, 2005). Additionally, both affective and self-belief
constructs may be specified as learning outcomes (Ramseier, 2001), here with the
rationale that competent participants within a field also hold certain beliefs about
the field itself (Aditomo & Klieme, 2020; Radišić & Jensen, 2021). Furthermore,
facilitating students’ development of positive self-beliefs and interest in mathematics
increases the probability that even students with lower skills can gain the opportunity
to move forward in developing own skills and can gradually become individuals who
apply reasoning or problem-solving in daily situations (Callan et al., 2021; Freeman
et al., 2015; Radišić & Jensen, 2021; Verschafel et al., 2020).
Against this background, in this chapter, we focus on how learning outcomes
have been defined and some of the conceptualisations that have been used for the
purpose. Afterwards, the process of assessing learning outcomes within the class-
room context, here regarding international large-scale assessments (ILSAs), will be
discussed in more detail. From the perspective of Medley (1987b), successful assess-
ment of student outcomes involves three essential steps (p. 170). These comprise
standard tasks or a set of tasks that must be alike or equivalent for all students. Thus,
the differences in the quality of performance will not arise because of dissimilarities
in the tasks. Next, a detailed, objective and accurate documentary record is required.
Finally, a scoring key with clear procedures for developing the criterion score from
the record is compulsory, ensuring that the same quality can be obtained no matter
who does the scoring. Robust conceptualisation, instrumentation, design and statis-
tical analyses are crucial prerequisites for these three steps to be fulfilled. ILSAs may
be seen as the perfect examples of student outcomes assessments in trying to realise
all these conditions.
Subsequently, this chapter will also address how technology shapes our under-
standing of students’ learning and outcomes. Finally, we revisit the idea of an
‘outcome’, examining it in the context of individual students’ characteristics (Type
G), namely self-beliefs and interest in mathematics.
Student Mathematics Learning Outcomes 199

2 Being Competent in Math: A Desirable Learning

Outcome

Historically, becoming proficient in mathematics has taken on different meanings and

expectations (Abrantes, 2001; Kilpatrick et al., 2001; Niss et al., 2017). Ever since
the 1930s, when it came to defining mathematics learning outcomes, the focus was
primarily on knowledge and understanding of the mathematical content, that is, defi-
nitions and theorems and a clear set of associated procedural skills. However, these
ideas of being proficient in mathematics were soon confronted (Niss et al., 2017).
Examples can be found as early as in the work of Polya (1945), who writes that if
a teacher only focuses on ‘drilling’ their students in routine operations, that same
teacher destroys students’ interests, hampering their intellectual development. Since
the 1980s, the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) in the US has
strongly advocated that problem-solving should be the focus of school mathematics;
at the same time, basic skills should be defined to include more than merely compu-
tational ability (1980, p. 1). Similar conceptions were nurtured elsewhere, leading
to a firm footing in the understanding that the overall enactment of mathematics and
general mathematical thinking is and should be embedded in the different aspects of
daily activities, school curriculum included (Kilpatrick et al., 2001; Niss & Højgaard,
2019; Niss et al., 2017). At the same time, it was acknowledged that none of these
different aspects could stand-alone or contradict one another (Kilpatrick et al., 2001;
Niss et al., 2017; RAND Mathematics Study Panel, 2003). Notably, despite the devel-
opment in what it means to master mathematics, desired mastery, that is, the outcome,
was inevitably used as a criterion to assess student learning progress in math, the
quality of teaching, or even the system (Klieme et al., 2008). Moreover, although the
criterion-oriented outcome evaluation still has a strong foothold in both practice and
research, the concept of ‘mathematical knowledge’ has lost its supremacy, and the
idea of competence has gained momentum both in mathematics education research
and neighbouring fields like educational psychology (Guskey, 2013; Niss et al., 2017;
Kilpatrick, 2020b; Sternberg & Grigorenko, 2003; Sternberg, 2017; Weinert, 2001).
There, the idea of competence was mainly discussed within and in connection to the
notion of ability and intelligence (Sternberg & Grigorenko, 2003; Sternberg, 2017).
The concept of competence is one of the most fleeting in the educational litera-
ture (Kilpatrick, 2020b), and arriving at a collective meaning of competence across
different fields is even more difficult. The concept possesses a myriad of similar
terms like mastery, proficiency or skill (Niss et al., 2017). Furthermore, one distin-
guishes between a ‘competence’ with a broader meaning compared with the term
‘competencies’, which refers to the various facets of competence (Blömeke et al.,
2015).
With the notion that ‘many theoretical approaches and no single conceptual frame-
work’ (Weinert, 2001, p. 46) can be found, Weinert recognises seven different ways
of defining competence. Weinert’s framework includes general cognitive compe-
tencies, specialised cognitive competencies, the competence–performance model,
modifications of the competence-performance model, cognitive competencies and
200 J. Radišić

motivational action tendencies, objective and subjective competence concepts and

action competence. The idea could be observed as a critical shift within the broader
context of the presage-process–product research because it moves away from utilising
a strict cognitive lens. Interestingly, starting in the late 1980s, NCTM Curriculum
and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics (1989), besides a focus on cogni-
tive competencies, already included motivational action tendencies, as recognised
by Weinert, in the form that students should learn to value mathematics and become
confident in their ability to do mathematics. Revisions in 2000 eliminated these
attitudinal and dispositional aspects (NCTM, 2000).
Conversely, specialised cognitive competency frameworks dominate the mathe-
matics field. Also, being context-dependent implies that their advancement can only
be perceived as a result of an individual’s interaction with relevant situations and
experiences, such as one encounter during the mathematics class.
In contrast, Bloom’s taxonomy (1956), with its attempt to outline the cognitive
goals of any school subject, can be seen as a predecessor of context-dependent
frameworks today. Its categories of knowledge, comprehension, application, anal-
ysis, synthesis and evaluation, which were later revised by Anderson and Krathwohl
(2001), do not withstand the criticism that the taxonomy itself does not genuinely fit
the mathematics field’s needs (Kilpatrick, 2020b). Nevertheless, a competency frame-
work for mathematics may still include a division of the processes alone, leaving out
the mathematical content or combining the processes and the subject’s content. Exam-
ples of the former are seen in the frameworks proposed by the National Research
Council in the United States and the well-known KOM1 project (Niss, 2003; Niss &
Højgaard, 2019) linked to the reform of the Danish education system. Reforms in
other countries, under similar influences, followed (e.g., Abrantes, 2001; Boesen
et al., 2014; Nortvedt, 2018).
The KOM framework
The KOM project defines mathematical competence as a ‘means to have knowledge
about, to understand, to exercise, to apply and relate to and judge mathematics and
mathematical activity in a multitude of contexts, which do involve, or potentially
might involve, mathematics (Niss, 2003, p. 43). It distinguishes between the eight
competencies needed for mastering mathematics and is divided into two groups
(Niss, 2003, 2015). The first gathers aspects of involvement with and in math—
thinking mathematically, posing and solving mathematical problems and modelling
and reasoning mathematically. The second group of competencies addresses dealing
with and managing mathematical language and tools—representing mathematical
entities, handling mathematical symbols and formalisms, making use of aids and
tools and communicating in, with and about mathematics (Fig. 1).

1KOM = Kompetencer og matematiklæring; in Danish: Competencies and the Learning of

Mathematics.
Student Mathematics Learning Outcomes 201

Fig. 1 Competencies within the KOM framework (adapted from Niss, 2003)

At the same time, it is proposed that the entire set of dimensions has both analytical
and productive sides (Niss & Højgaard, 2019). In addition, each competency can be
developed and employed only by dealing with specific topics in math, but their choice
is not predetermined and may transcend the subject.
Parallel to the use and development of each of the competencies, the frame-
work also proposes three types of ‘overview and judgements’ that students should
develop through their study of mathematics. These include its application, its histor-
ical development and its unique nature, which combined with the eight competencies,
may be used (a) descriptively—to describe mathematics teaching and learning; (b)
normatively—by proposing outcomes for school mathematics; and (c) metacogni-
tively—aiding teachers and students in monitoring what they are teaching or have
learned so far. Overall, the critical impact of the KOM framework was in its introduc-
tion and description of the concepts of mathematical competence and mathematical
competencies (Kilpatrick, 2020b), as well as the possible roles these may play in the
process of teaching and learning mathematics (Niss & Højgaard, 2019). Ultimately,
it should be noted that although KOM authors recognise the importance of affective
and dispositional factors as part of mathematical mastery, these factors are not consid-
ered within the KOM framework. Mathematical competence and competencies are,
in essence, cognitive constructs.
Strands of mathematical proficiency
In contrast to the competency approach, which focuses on what it takes to do math-
ematics, Kilpatrick, Swafford and Findell (2001) focus on mathematics learning.
202 J. Radišić

Mathematical proficiency is the key concept used for this purpose. The basic premise
is that mathematical proficiency should not be seen as a unidimensional trait.
Instead, it should combine five strands that are mutually intertwined and codepen-
dent (Kilpatrick, 2001). Central to this understanding is a concept from the findings
in neighbouring fields (i.e., ‘cognitive’ sciences, as referred to by Kilpatrick) that
having a deep understanding involves learners being able to connect pieces of existing
knowledge. In turn, such a ‘connection’ is an essential factor in facilitating whether
learners can use what they know effectively while solving (mathematical) problems.
The following strands are pertinent to the framework (a) conceptual under-
standing—comprehension of mathematical concepts, operations, and relations; (b)
procedural fluency—a skill needed to carry out procedures accurately, fittingly and
flexibly; (c) strategic competence—an ability to articulate, formulate, represent, and
solve mathematical problems; (d) adaptive reasoning—a capacity for logical thought,
justification, explanation and reflection; and (e) productive disposition—a habit of
inclining to see mathematics as functional, useful, and meaningful, coupled with a
belief in one’s own efficacy (Kilpatrick et al., 2001). To reach mathematical profi-
ciency cannot be achieved by attending to merely one or two of these strands, but
rather, this calls for instructional programmes that address them all (Kilpatrick, 2001),
an argument resonating well with the earlier ideas of Polya (1945) (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2 Five proficiency

strands. (adapted from
Kilpatrick et al., 2001)
Student Mathematics Learning Outcomes 203

Kilpatrick et al. (2001) argue that, although there is no perfect fit between
the proposed strands and different kinds of knowledge and processes identified
by researchers within mathematics education or the adjacent fields on the factors
contributing to learning, the strands do resonate with a substantial body of litera-
ture on the topic. Examples can be found in the investigation of motivation, which is
considered a component of productive disposition and metacognition, contributing to
strategic competence. Finally, proficiency strands include motivational action tenden-
cies (Weinert, 2001), compared to the KOM framework, which remains solely in the
cognitive sphere.
How is mathematical competence conceptualised in the ILSA?
Among the frameworks that combine the processes and mathematics content, we
choose to discuss two coming from the ILSA domain here, given their prevalent
influence on understanding student competence in mathematics worldwide. The first
is linked to Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), which
was initiated in 1995 and as a follow-up to the IEA’s2 previous studies during the
1960s through the 1980s. TIMSS uses the curriculum as the principal organising
concept to see how educational opportunities are provided to students and the factors
that affect how such opportunities are used by the students (Mullis, 2017). The
TIMSS curriculum model has three aspects. It comprises the intended curriculum, the
implemented curriculum and the attained curriculum. These three aspects combined
represent the mathematics students are expected to master. Since 1995, the TIMSS
framework has been provided for grades four and eight, with recurrent improvements
given each four-year cycle (Mullis, 2017). For example, the TIMSS assessment
frameworks for 2019 were updated from those employed in 2015. In this way, the
participating countries are provided with a chance for an update regarding their
national curricula, standards and mathematics instruction for every cycle, keeping
the frameworks relevant and coherent with the previous assessment. At the same time,
in each cycle, a particular emphasis is given to a specific aspect of the assessment.
In the TIMSS 2019 cycle, the focus was on the transition to eTIMSS. This transition
implied conducting the assessments in the eTIMSS digital format, hence providing
an enriched measurement of the TIMSS mathematics (and science) frameworks.
Here, the mathematics frameworks were updated to utilise both digital and paper
assessment formats. About half the countries participating in TIMSS 2019 transited
to eTIMSS, and the process has continued into the 2023 cycle.
In 2019, the frameworks for both grades four and eight were organised around
two dimensions: (1) content dimension (i.e., subject matter to be assessed) and (2)
cognitive dimension (i.e., thinking processes to be assessed; Lindquist et al., 2017).
See Table 1 for details.3
The content domains differ between grades four and eight, thus reflecting the
topics taught at each level. For example, the ‘number’ is emphasised more in grade

2International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement.

3For examples on TIMSS tasks from the 2019 cycle see https://timss2019.org/reports/achievement/
and accompanying exhibits for grades four and eight.
204 J. Radišić

Table 1 Domains of mathematical competence within the TIMSS framework (adapted from
Lindquist et al., 2017)
Grade 4 Grade 8
Content domain
Number Whole numbers, 50% Integers, fractions and 30%
expressions, simple decimals, ratio,
equations, relationships, proportion, and per cent
fractions and decimals
Algebra Expressions, operations, 30%
equations, relationships
and functions
(Measurement and) Measurement, geometry 30% Geometric shapes and 20%
Geometry data (and measurements
Probability) Reading, interpreting, and 20% Data, probability 20%
representing data, using
data to solve problems
Cognitive domain
Knowing Recall, recognise, 40% 35%
classify/order, compute,
retrieve, measure
Applying Determine, 40% 40%
represent/model,
implement
Reasoning Analyse, 20% 25%
integrate/synthesise,
evaluate, draw
conclusions, generalise,
justify

four than in grade eight, at which point algebra is also introduced. Although in grade
four, the section on ‘data’ focuses on collecting, reading and representing data, the
interpretation of data, basic statistics and the fundamentals of probability are the
focus in the eighth grade. Also, about two-thirds of the items demand that students
use applying and reasoning skills. The cognitive domains are alike for both grades,
with less of an emphasis on the ‘knowing’ domain for grade eight. Altogether, they
largely resemble earlier Bloom’s taxonomy categories (1956).
Similar to the notion of Bandura on the distinction between knowing and being
able to use one’s own skills well when under diverse settings (1990), the question
on which skills young adults at the end of (compulsory) education would need to
be able to play a constructive role as citizens in society was the guiding principle of
OECD policymakers in setting up an international programme to assess the outcome
of schooling (OECD, 1999, 2003, 2013a, 2018; Trier & Peschar, 1995). Unlike
TIMSS, the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) crosses the
boundaries of school curricula by taking a functional view (Klieme et al., 2008) with
the idea of being prepared to cope with the demands and challenges in the future. This
Student Mathematics Learning Outcomes 205

cross-curricular competence or life skill becomes central within the PISA framework
(OECD, 1997, 2013a, 2018).
In the context of mathematics, the PISA framework initially defined mathemat-
ical literacy4 as ‘an individual’s ability, in dealing with the world, to identify, to
understand, to engage in and to make well-founded judgements about the role that
mathematics plays, as needed for that individual’s current and future life as a construc-
tive, concerned and reflective citizen’ (OECD, 1999, p. 41). Also, the mathematics
framework drew a clear parallel to the eight competencies of the KOM framework,
but here with the label of skills (e.g., modelling skill, Niss, 2015). Succeeding frame-
works alternate ability with the ‘capacity to reason mathematically and to formu-
late, employ and interpret mathematics to solve problems in a variety of real-world
contexts’ (OECD, 2018).
PISA 2003 was the first to focus on students’ mathematical literacy. Its frame-
work entailed situations/contexts (i.e., personal, educational/occupational, public,
and scientific) in which the problems were situated. The mathematical content cate-
gories (i.e., quantity, space and shape, change and relationships, uncertainty) and the
processes (i.e., thinking and reasoning; argumentation; communication; modelling;
problem posing and solving; representation; using symbolic, formal and technical
language and operations; and the use of aids and tools) were employed to solve
them (OECD, 2003). The latter serves the purpose of supporting matematisation,
representing constitutive parts of a comprehensive mathematical competence (Niss,
2015). In the 2003 framework, relying on the work of Niss and colleagues is even
more prominent.
With the 2012 PISA round, the mathematics framework grew significantly, eventu-
ally including a more progressive organisation of the contexts (i.e., societal was intro-
duced), content (i.e., data were combined with uncertainty) and processes that have
undergone a more significant change. This change has led to the following division
of the processes students engage in as they solve problems: formulating situations
mathematically; employing mathematical concepts, facts, procedures and reasoning;
and interpreting, applying and evaluating mathematical outcomes. The associated
underlying fundamental mathematical capabilities, which replaced earlier mathe-
matical competency (Niss, 2015), include communication, representation, devising
strategies, mathematisation, reasoning and argument, symbolic, formal and technical
language and operations and mathematical tools (OECD, 2013a).5 Redefining funda-
mental capabilities served the purpose, among other things, to clearly set the stage
for a scheme to analyse the requirements of PISA items.
Finally, PISA 2022 has aimed to consider mathematics in a ‘rapidly changing
world driven by new technologies and trends in which citizens are creative and

4 For a more thorough discussion on the notion of mathematical literacy see Jablonka (2003). Overal,
the argument drawn is that literacy focusses on the individual’s ability to use the mathematics they
are supposed to learn at school.
5 Example items may be found at https://www.oecd.org/pisa/test/PISA%202012%20items%20for%

20release_ENGLISH.pdf.
206 J. Radišić

engaged, making nonroutine judgements for themselves and the society in which
they live’ (OECD, 2018, p. 7) (see Fig. 3).
These shifts focus on the capacity to reason mathematically. At the same time,
the effect technology has created, fosters the need for students to understand compu-
tational thinking concepts that are part of mathematical literacy. The theoretical
foundations of the PISA mathematics assessment are still based on its fundamental
concept of mathematical literacy, here relating mathematical reasoning and the three
processes of the problem solving (mathematical modelling) cycle. The framework
defines how mathematical content knowledge is organised into four content cate-
gories that are coupled with four context categories that situate the mathematical
challenges students face. Novel to the framework is a more detailed description of

Fig. 3 PISA 2022 mathematics framework—the relationship between mathematical reasoning,

the problem-solving (modelling) cycle, mathematical contents, context and selected twenty-first-
century skills (adapted from OECD, https://pisa2022-maths.oecd.org/); Note: This is an adaptation
of an original work by the OECD. The opinions expressed and arguments employed in this adaptation
are the sole responsibility of the author of the adaptation and should not be reported as representing
the official views of the OECD or of its member countries
Student Mathematics Learning Outcomes 207

mathematical reasoning that includes six basic understandings that deliver structure
and support. The basic understandings include (1) understanding quantity, number
systems and their algebraic properties; (2) valuing the power of abstraction and
symbolic representation; (3) seeing mathematical structures and their regularities;
(4) distinguishing functional relationships between quantities; (5) using mathemat-
ical modelling as a lens onto the real world; and (6) understanding variation as the
fundamentals of statistics.
To sum up, irrespective of whether a competency framework is hierarchical (e.g.,
Bloom), whether it addresses topic areas in mathematics (e.g., TIMSS) or not (e.g.,
KOM framework), or what its primary use is (normative vs, descriptive), the frame-
works serve the purpose of demonstrating that the learning of mathematics and
outcomes at the end is more than acquiring a myriad of facts. Instead, mastering math-
ematics as an outcome of learning (Type A) involves grappling with its content and is
more than carrying out well-rehearsed procedures. Although school mathematics is
often seen as a simple match between knowledge and skill, competency frameworks
challenge this view, affecting curricular contents more and more (Abrantes, 2001;
Boesen et al., 2014; Nortvedt, 2018). Even if it may appear that the frameworks
do not communicate well, fundamentally, some form of mathematical modelling is
described in each (i.e., in PISA ‘formulate’, ‘employ’ and ‘interpret’ or in TIMSS
by ‘applying’ and ‘reasoning’). Still, how explicitly this is stated (e.g., in KOM
modelling competency), of course, varies. What separates KOM from the PISA and
TIMSS frameworks is that the latter consider the reality of ILSA; that is, clear opera-
tionalisations are needed for measurement to take place (Medley, 1987b)—‘elements
have to be separable to be measurable’ (Niss et al., 2017, p. 241). A clear example of
this principle can be found in the introduction of the fundamental capabilities within
the 2012 PISA mathematics framework. In the following section, we focus on how
learning of mathematics and its outcomes are captured.

3 Assessment of Student Outcomes

It has been argued that as long as there were students learning mathematics in one
form or another, they experienced some form of assessment, either to observe the
impact of the teaching they have been exposed to or how much of the content they
have mastered themselves (Niss, 1993; Suurtamm et al., 2016). Thus although it may
seem that discussing student learning outcomes has picked up in intensity recently,
especially when the results of ILSAs are concerned, measuring student outcomes
has a long tradition. Furthermore, Kilpatrick (1993) maintains that the notion of
assessing the mathematics students have learned was unavoidably entwined with the
questions of who should receive additional mathematics instruction and how that
instruction should be brought about. Thus, assessment and measuring outcomes are
an integral part of teaching and learning from the beginning (Suurtamm et al., 2016).
According to Niss et al. (1998), in mathematics, the term assessment refers to the
identification and appraisal of students’ knowledge, insights, understanding, skills,
208 J. Radišić

achievement performance and capability in math. Pegg (2002) later contests this,
stating that the dominant view of assessment in mathematics has been focused on
content, specific skills and the production of these in a given situation. In addition,
when assessments are being made, they are never free of context, serve different
stakeholders and are bound by the available resources. So within the classroom
context, although assessing students’ problem-solving skills may be inviting, many
teacher-made tests will still focus on computational skills because these are often
less time-consuming (Palm et al., 2011).
Conversely, one of the principal reasons assessment of student outcomes has
attracted increased attention from the international mathematics education commu-
nity is that during the past couple of decades, the field of mathematics education has
developed considerably (Suurtamm et al., 2016). Nevertheless, assessment practice
seems to be somewhat lagging (e.g., paper and pencil is still the dominant format), and
the ideas of mathematics as a hierarchically organised school subject and a vehicle for
regulating education still seem to be alive (Kilpatrick, 1993, 2020a). Thus, the chal-
lenge of assessing students’ learning gains in mathematics still focuses on producing
measures that allow for an understanding of how students come to use mathematics
(Type A) in different social settings and how one can create mathematics instruction
that helps them use mathematics even better (Type C) (Blazar, 2015; Blömeke et al.,
2016; Hiebert & Grouws, 2007; Kilpatrick, 2020a; Manizade et al., 2022; Medley,
1977, 1987a).
However, one needs to acknowledge that the variety of assessment practices
has been increased. Still, Nortvedt and Buchholtz (2018) recognise that discus-
sions within the field of mathematics education are often influenced by discussions
in neighbouring disciplines (e.g., educational psychology), ultimately affecting the
purpose, conceptualisation and chosen outlets of assessment. To date, the purpose
of assessing student outcomes in mathematics has varied. Although debates are still
very much alive on what the purpose of mathematics education is (Niss, 2007; Niss
et al., 2017) or the optimal teaching practices (e.g., Blazar, 2015; Hiebert & Grouws,
2007; Hill et al., 2005), the same goes for what should be the primary purpose
of assessments in and of mathematics. Although some strongly argue that assess-
ments should be used mainly to improve learning (e.g., Black & Wiliam, 2012; Niss,
1993), the formative-summative debate—coupled with the existence of ILSAs and
national tests—ignites the ongoing discussions, despite attempts to merge some of
the contrasting perspectives (e.g., Buchholtz et al., 2018; Nortvedt & Buchholtz,
2018). Each type of assessment may target different audiences and needs. While
some have the purpose of informing policy-making, others are intended to inform
the teacher teaching a particular group of students (Nortvedt, 2018). These goals can
also be combined within a particular assessment session.
‘One size of assessment does not fit all’
Student learning outcomes are assessed in different contexts and for different
purposes (Klieme et al., 2008; Niss, 1993; Kilpatrick, 1993, 2020a; Suurtamm et al.,
2016). These equally include ILSAs (e.g., TIMSS and PISA), evaluations of imple-
mented programmes or classroom assessments. Thus, an assessment is of central
Student Mathematics Learning Outcomes 209

importance in education (Taras, 2005). Furthermore, given that the realisation of

many educational decisions, choices and interventions depend on assessments, their
accuracy in monitoring learning outcomes is pivotal (Klieme et al., 2008). At the indi-
vidual level, assessments provide teachers with an opportunity to promote individual
learning. However, they may also be detrimental in granting students an opportu-
nity to continue education in the desired field (e.g., entry test to the STEM field in
higher education). Conversely, assessments that report results at an aggregated level
(i.e., country score in PISA) assess institutions or systems and advise and inform
decision-makers and policy. Thus, ‘one size of assessment does not fit all’ purposes
(Pellegrino et al., 2001, p. 222).
However, in improving learning outcomes, the discussion is often set on the forma-
tive–summative divide. If we assume that the central aim of educational research
is to improve teaching and learning processes, formative assessment can be seen
as one such tool (Black & Wiliam, 2012; Niss, 1993; Pinger et al., 2018; Taras,
2005; Thompson et al., 2018). Formative assessment is founded on the notion of
evaluating students’ understanding and progress regularly throughout the process of
teaching and making use of this information to improve both teaching and learning.
Consequently, teachers can use this information to adapt their (mathematics) instruc-
tion, aligning it with students’ needs and providing them with feedback to improve
learning. For assessment to be regarded as formative, it is fundamental that the
assessment information is used successively to alter students’ learning processes
(Black & Wiliam, 2009, 2012). Providing students with feedback is a powerful tool
for changing learning processes and, as a result, is regarded as a key strategy in
realising formative assessments (Hattie & Timperley, 2007; Klieme et al., 2008).
At the same time, the assessment of individual achievements may also entail the
summative evaluation of competencies, either at the individual or aggregated level
(Klieme et al., 2008; Taras, 2005). Such evaluations help determine whether a student
has reached a certain level of competence, for example, upon completion of upper
secondary education. As such, these evaluations have significant consequences—
representing a high-stake test for the student (de Lange, 2007; Klieme et al., 2008).
However, if a student takes part in an ILSA survey such as TIMSS and PISA, the
practical consequences of taking a test are nonexistent (e.g., getting a low mark) at
the student level (low stakes). In contrast, the consequences of the same assessment
at the system level may be detrimental and lead to practical decisions at the system
level (e.g., PISA shock in Germany, de Lange, 2007).
International large-scale assessment and the field of mathematics
Robust conceptualisation, instrumentation and design have long been recognised to
be essential to successful assessment (Medley, 1987b). Large-scale studies utilise
complex and often representative samples, offer multi-layered, rich data and results,
allow for the latter’s generalisability and are created to describe and inform about a
particular system rather than an individual student (Middleton et al., 2015). Of course,
such studies are also rather costly. Nevertheless, in past decades, many countries have
opted for some version of large-scale assessment studies. Examples may be found in
national mathematics tests in Norway (Nortvedt, 2018) and Sweden (Boesen et al.,
210 J. Radišić

2018) or in the National Educational Panel Study (NEPS) in Germany (Ehmke et al.,
2020) and National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) in the United States
(NCES, 2021). Common across these is that they attempt to capture what it means to
be mathematically competent in one way or another. However, despite this ‘common’
goal, it can be questioned to what extent they all measure the same thing or the ‘what’
of the assessment (Nortvedt & Buchholtz, 2018). A joint criterion or framework
is missing, similar to measuring and comparing temperatures in different capitals
across the world without referencing either Celsius or Fahrenheit scales while doing
so (Cartwright et al., 2003). ILSAs produce such a frame of reference, thus attracting
much attention in educational research and outside the field, that is, policy and media,
when discussing the quality of education in different countries and how that quality
can be improved (de Lange, 2007; Nortvedt, 2018).
The origins of ILSAs date back to the 1960s, with the International Association
for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA) being established in 1959.
Its purpose was to conduct international comparative research studies focused on
educational achievement and its factors. In this initial stage, the aim was to under-
stand the vast complexity of the aspects influencing student achievement in different
subject fields, with mathematics being one of them. The famous metaphor used by the
founding researchers was that they ‘wanted to use the world as an educational labora-
tory to investigate effects of school, home, student and societal factors’ (Gustafsson,
2008, p. 1). The argument was that an international comparative methodology was
essential for investigating the effects of many of these factors. The first study inves-
tigating mathematics achievement in 12 countries started in 1964. The Six Subject
Survey, conducted in 1970–71, followed the first study, gathering information on the
subjects of reading comprehension, literature, civic education, English and French
as foreign languages, and science. Throughout the 1980s, mathematics and science
studies were repeated.
During the 1990s, the IEA was transformed. The TIMSS was born, creating a
slight shift in the focus6 —describe the educational systems that partake in the study.
The published international reports primarily describe the outcomes alongside back-
ground and process factors. There is no attempt to explain the variations in outcomes
between school systems—inferences about causes and effects are also omitted. The
latter, causes and effects, are left to participating countries, with caution being urged
when claiming causality because of the cross-sectional design of ILSAs (Rutkowski
et al., 2010).
In many cases, the results were used to evaluate educational quality as a basis for
national discussions about educational policy (Cai et al., 2015; Gustafsson, 2008;
Middleton et al., 2015). This goal was even more prominent with the establishment
of PISA in 2000 (OECD, 2001). The volume and frequency of ILSAs have increased
(i.e., every three and four years), along with the number of participating countries
(e.g., 58 in grade four and 39 in grade eight in the 2019 TIMSS cycle). Both these
aspects have contributed to comparing and contrasting the systems and particular

6‘Third’ in the title Third International Mathematics and Science Study shifted later into ‘Trends’
and the same acronyms continue to be used.
Student Mathematics Learning Outcomes 211

groups within a system, for example, boys and girls in grade four in Norway or across
the Scandinavian countries (Cai et al., 2015), helping in identifying the affordances
and strengths within and across each (Mullis et al., 2016; Mullis, 2017; OECD,
2013b, 2016).
Here, in terms of methodological challenges, ILSAs have been questioned on
whether a single assessment format or particular test can grasp the full image of
being skilful in mathematics, the ‘how(s)’ of assessment (Nortvedt & Buchholtz,
2018) and provide comparable measures of curriculum effects across countries (de
Lange, 2007). Jablonka (2003) addresses this situated nature of mathematics compe-
tence in the context of PISA, stating that the contexts used in the assessment will be
familiar to some students more than others (e.g., students across Europe, compared
to students in many of the African countries). Cultural differences are an essential
aspect in understanding students’ mastery of mathematics as a field (Manizade et al.,
2022). This variation is visible in the ILSA results. For example, PISA 2012 reports
a significant variance across countries (OECD, 2013b), with as many as, on average,
43% of the students reporting perceiving themselves as not being competent in math-
ematics. Just within Europe, in the same cycle, the number of students who scored low
in mathematics (below level 2) was between 10.5% (Estonia) and 60.7% (Albania).
However, according to de Lange (2007), follow-up discussions about the outcomes
of ILSAs are often about politics rather than performance, and the consequences of
having similar or dissimilar results as a neighbouring country may not be taken upon
in the fashion it was established or envisioned earlier. Taking the example of PISA,
Baird et al. (2016) claim that the connection between PISA results and policy is not
consistent. PISA’s ‘supranational spell’ (p. 133) in policy connects to how its results
are used as a magical stick in political discourse, as though results invoke particular
policy choices. Instead, they divert from the ideological basis for reforms, indicating
that the same PISA results could motivate different policy solutions.
Most often, when a new set of results in PISA or TIMSS for mathematics come
out, policymakers, media and a part of academia focus on the country rankings using
the number and position in the league tables as an indication of system quality. Auld
and Morris (2016) dispute such a view, claiming it reduces the complexity of the
information ILSAs may provide while decreasing opportunities to identify insights
that could be used to learn valuable lessons about school effectiveness and inform
national educational policies.
In observing the benefits of partaking in ILSA programmes and their relevance to
mathematics as a field, Sälzer and Prenzel (2014) argue that ILSAs provide a standard
or benchmark against which countries can measure themselves. In addition, the abun-
dance of data collected about schools, processes and outcomes allows for profound
insights into policy and decision making and observing particular patterns relevant to
the teaching and learning process. Cai et al. (2016) are even more explicit regarding
the affordance of mathematics education gains from ILSAs; these include under-
standing students’ mathematical thinking, classroom instruction, students’ experi-
ences with teaching and students’ disposition for mathematics. All of these are highly
valid to mathematics education researchers, as well as school leaders and teachers.
212 J. Radišić

Moreover, with the recent uptake in the use of technology in mathematics class-
rooms, ILSAs can also be a vehicle for understanding what it means to be competent
in mathematics in a digital environment (Stacey & Wiliam, 2013).
How does technology affect our understanding of student outcomes in mathematics?
The use of technology, especially within the past decade, has influenced how mathe-
matics is viewed (Manizade et al., 2022). Technology has enabled a ‘transformation
of [the field] from static to dynamic symbolic systems through which teachers and
learners can access knowledge and think’ (Hegedus & Moreno-Armella, 2018, p. 1).
It has also set a new understanding of students’ competence—including handling
digital tools (Niss et al., 2017)—affected curricular goals (Gravemeijer et al., 2017)
and initiated the need for different kinds of assessments to probe students’ skills
in a new way (Li & Ma, 2010; Stacey & Wiliam, 2013). Several studies have
analysed technology-enhanced learning environments in mathematics classrooms
(e.g., Higgins et al., 2019; Hillmayr et al., 2020; Pape et al., 2013). In their meta-
study, Li and Ma (2010) show that the effect of technology may vary. For example,
technology can promote elementary over secondary students’ achievement or special
needs education students over the general population. In addition, the positive effect
of technology has been found to be more significant when combined with construc-
tivist instructional approaches compared with the traditional ones. Drijvers (2015)
provides caution, stating that the integration of technology in mathematics educa-
tion is a subtle question, whose success and failure occur at the levels of learning,
teaching and research (p. 147).
Over the past decade, digital assessments have emerged primarily in the context of
large-scale assessments of students’ outcomes, both within the national (e.g., Norway,
Japan, USA) and international contexts. TIMSS and PISA are clear examples of the
latter. It has been argued that computer-based assessments (CBAs) possess several
advantages. They allow complex stimuli, response formats, and interactive testing
procedures and may incorporate computerised adaptive testing (Klieme et al., 2008).
Regarding the latter, the task (stimuli) presented is designed to fit the individual
ability level of the test taker (student) in real-time. Feedback procedures may also be
incorporated (Chung et al., 2008), thus allowing the assessment of learning progress
(i.e., ‘dynamic testing’). Moreover, CBAs allow for the production of complex and
interactive stimuli that would be very expensive or difficult to realise on paper. Conse-
quently, the practice may afford the assessment of new competencies previously not
accessible through more traditional procedures.
Software suitable for use in the mathematics classroom is also increasingly avail-
able. Its use within the classroom context is advocated for by the argument of
improving the quality of mathematics teaching and assessment to be more real-
istic and attuned to the needs of the new generation learners (Gravemeijer et al.,
2017; Hoogland & Tout, 2018). The possibility of simulating real-life situations in
the assessment situation makes CBA an example of what Weinert (2001) describes
as context-specific cognitive dispositions.
Although digital tools may enable new and enhanced possibilities for the learning,
teaching and assessment of mathematics (Drasgow, 2002; Drijvers, 2015; Higgins
Student Mathematics Learning Outcomes 213

et al., 2019; Hillmayr et al., 2020; Pape et al., 2013), only their appropriate use
and equal availability to all participants will produce a positive impact (Gravemeijer
et al., 2017; Higgins et al., 2019; Li & Ma, 2010). With this in mind, a request
for any assessment is to afford all students the optimal opportunities to demon-
strate what they have learned and can do (Niss, 2007). Such demand holds the same
for technology-assisted assessments. Although the recent shift towards assessments
focusing on problem-solving and modelling may benefit from the technology, others
argue that assessments of student outcomes combining affordances of technology and
nonstatic item formats allows students to demonstrate mastery of a broader range of
mathematical skills (Hoogland & Tout, 2018; Stacey & Wiliam, 2013). Conversely,
although a shift from traditional paper-based to computer-assisted assessments may
be favourable to a task requiring students to model a solution, Jerrim (2016) warns
of the possible adverse effects on student outcomes. These risks are primarily in
danger of appearing if mathematics teaching does not include the use of such tools.
An interesting finding here may be found in PISA 2012. Together with the regular
paper-and-pencil test, a computer-based assessment in mathematics was offered as
an option. Among the European countries that took advantage of this, only a handful
of countries remained at the same competency level when paper- and computer-based
assessment results were compared (OECD, 2013b).
Furthermore, studies show that the impact of computer-assisted assessment also
relies on students’ prior experience. In some cases, this may include general computer
skills (Falck et al., 2018; Stacey & Wiliam, 2013), whereas in others, this tackles the
understanding and use of specific tools (Hoogland & Tout, 2018) or item formats
(e.g., real-life problems). Hillmayr et al. (2020) show that overall, digital tools posi-
tively affect student learning outcomes. However, the provision of teacher training
on digital tool use significantly moderates the effect. The effect size is more promi-
nent when digital tools are used in addition to other instruction methods and not as
a substitute, with intelligent tutoring systems or dynamic mathematical tools being
more beneficial than hypermedia systems.
New opportunities with CBAs have opened doors for their use in a different context
that is still relevant to mathematics teaching and learning. Nevertheless, many of
these applications are driven by the rapid development of computer technology rather
than well-founded models and theories. Thus, much empirical and theoretical work
is needed to link complex measurement potentials to particular learning outcomes
and (or) instructional practices hence maintaining rigour in the conceptualisation,
instrumentation and design (Medley, 1987b) of future assessments.
214 J. Radišić

4 Optimal Self-beliefs and Motivation for Math:

A New-Old Learning Outcome

So far, we have discussed students’ learning outcomes as achievement outcomes.

However, both an array of motivational and ability–belief constructs may be spec-
ified as learning outcomes (Ramseier, 2001). Although Weinert (2001) recognises
‘cognitive competencies and motivational action tendencies’ as one of the seven
ways to define competence, in Medley’s reflections (1987a), individual student char-
acteristics (Type G) are seen as mediating the relationship between A (outcomes)
and B (students’ learning activities). Medley (1987a) states, ‘Even if two pupils
have identical learning experiences, they do not show identical outcomes because of
differences in these characteristics’ (p. 105). To date, such a lens has dominated the
field. ILSAs are a clear example, with domain achievements measured separately
from attitudinal constructs and the latter often being reported concerning achieve-
ment. An exception may be found in the framework of Kilpatrick et al. (2001), which
include motivational action tendencies.
The tradition of observing ‘attitude’ towards mathematics in mathematics educa-
tion research was apparent as early as the 1950s (Zan & Di Martino, 2020). However,
one fundamental characteristic of the research in that period was the absence of a
proper definition or theoretical background. Schukajlow et al. (2017) recognise an
increased interest in attitudinal constructs (i.e., motivation, affect, ability beliefs) in
mathematics education over the last decade, and similarly, Zan and Di Martino (2020)
attribute the beginnings of modern research on these topics to McLeod (1992), who
include attitude among the three factors that define the affective domain.
At the same time, neighbouring fields—namely educational psychology—have
flourished in different conceptualisations and frameworks that explain what drives
human action (e.g., Ryan & Deci, 2016; Eccles & Wigfield, 2020; Hidi & Renninger,
2006). Several of these frameworks are used in mathematics education research, each
presenting its terms (Schukajlow et al., 2017). Among them, attitudes, self-beliefs,
intrinsic motivation and interest are probably the most commonly used. Amid the
diverse frameworks aiming to explain students’ motivation, expectancy-value (EV)
theory covers a variety of aspects that affect the decisions students make by relating
students’ expectancies for success and subjective task values to their achievement and
achievement-related choices (Eccles & Wigfield, 2020; Wigfield & Eccles, 2000).
Within the EV framework, expectancies for success originate from a person’s
domain-specific beliefs that are based on experience or beliefs about their ability
to succeed in future tasks like solving a mathematical problem. Though the tags
these beliefs may have had are somewhat different, confidence, self-efficacy and
self-concept are all found under the category of ability beliefs (Lee & Stankov,
2018). Furthermore, the EV model recognises four subjective task values. These
include intrinsic value, attainment value, utility value and cost (Eccles & Wigfield,
2020; Wigfield & Eccles, 2000). Intrinsic value relates to the anticipated enjoyment
that one expects to gain from doing a task. The dimension itself is similar in certain
respects to the concepts of interest (Hidi & Renninger, 2006) and intrinsic motivation
Student Mathematics Learning Outcomes 215

(Ryan & Deci, 2016). Attainment value relates to identity and how important the task
is for the individual. Utility value indicates how useful the task is for other goals.
Again, in certain respects, the utility value is related to the idea of extrinsic motivation
(Ryan & Deci, 2016). Finally, cost indicates the time, effort, stress and other valued
tasks put away to fulfil the current task in which an individual participates.
Today, although mastering math is seen as a requirement in meeting the demands
of modern life (Boesen et al., 2018; Ehmke et al., 2020; Freeman et al., 2015; Grave-
meijer et al., 2017; OECD, 2016), research demonstrates that students’ task values
and ability beliefs are fundamental to their optimal outcomes in mathematics (Dowker
et al., 2016; Marsh et al., 2012; Schöber et al., 2018; Skaalvik et al., 2015; Stankov &
Lee, 2017; Wang, 2012, Watt et al., 2012). For example, in PISA 2012, a rise in the
degree of one standard deviation in self-efficacy was linked to an increase of 49
score points in achievement—the equivalent of more than one school year (OECD,
2013b). Similarly, students experiencing low-ability beliefs are potentially at risk of
underperforming (OECD, 2013b).
Nevertheless, the relationship between achievement in mathematics and different
motivational and belief constructs is not always straightforward; neither one portrays
a unique image (Zan & Di Martino, 2020). For example, Wang (2012) argues that task
values are stronger predictors of engagement and choices to stay in the field of math-
ematics, while expectations of success predict more immediate student achievement
outcomes. Watt et al. (2012) similarly conclude on intrinsic value, linking ability
beliefs to staying within the field (i.e., career choice in math). Prast et al. (2018)
argue for a unique contribution of perceived competence in predicting subsequent
achievement in mathematics.
Gender differences in students’ ability beliefs in mathematics are relatively
common (Nagy et al., 2010), mostly favouring boys (e.g., Geary et al., 2019). Like-
wise, although it has been shown that among ability beliefs, positive self-concept
is conducive to student learning and achievement in mathematics (Marsh et al.,
2017), the relationship itself can be direct, indirect (Habók et al., 2020) or reciprocal
(Schöber et al., 2018).
Despite this somewhat diverse image on how students’ ability beliefs and task
values, namely intrinsic value, contribute to achievement in math, that is, what the
genuine relationship between what Medley (1987a) labels as the A and G type vari-
ables, there is growing support regarding the development of positive self-beliefs
and interest in math. The latter has gained a foothold given that both self-beliefs and
interest are regarded as facilitators in students becoming individuals that engage in
mathematical reasoning, apply problem-solving in daily situations and even choose
careers in mathematics (Freeman et al., 2015). From the perspective of lifelong
learning, this is crucial given its end goal of building highly competent, engaged
individuals. The reasoning backs the notion that competent participants within a field
are also those who possess certain beliefs about the field itself (Aditomo & Klieme,
2020), like the use of mathematical reasoning in everyday lives. Also, supporting
students’ development of positive self-beliefs and interest in math increases the like-
lihood that even students with lower competence will acquire the opportunity to move
forward in developing their skills and gradually become individuals who engage in,
216 J. Radišić

for example, applying problem-solving or some form of mathematical modelling in

daily situations (Callan et al., 2021; Radišić & Jensen, 2021).
Echoing what Maehr (1976) noted many years ago, that motivation is one of the
more essential and seldom studied educational outcomes, Anderman and Grey (2017)
conclude that motivation matters. However, coupled with ability beliefs, motivation
is still not considered a prized outcome in (mathematics) education. Undeniably,
‘achievement’ repeatedly triumphs motivation. Although, across many countries,
decision-makers proudly acclaim the extent high achievement students have reached
in a particular domain, like mathematics, little focus is given to whether those students
subsequently wish to continue pursuing a career in mathematics (Anderman & Grey,
2017).

5 Concluding Remarks

Starting from the presage-process–product paradigm and reasoning formed primarily

in the period after Medley’s reflections (1977, 1987a, 1987b) on relevant research
variables in understanding mathematics teaching and student outcomes as its ultimate
goal (Manizade et al., 2022), in the present chapter, an attempt had been made to
provide an overview of the main lines of rationale in mathematics education research
on student learning outcomes and their assessment. A point of departure in this
process has been capturing the basic ideas on what it means to be proficient in
mathematics and how students’ outcomes could be understood in light of such ideas.
The focus was on different conceptual frameworks instead of particular theoretical
background. In doing so, different frameworks were presented, with no ambition
to capture all of them but instead to sketch the flow of ideas pre- and post-Medley
times. This was achieved by showing dominant orientations (e.g., the dominance of
cognitive and context-specific frameworks), their possible similarities (e.g., KOM
and PISA framework) and dissimilarities in the understandings each of them provides
(e.g., TIMSS and PISA).
A discussion on some core aspects of assessing student outcomes followed,
capturing its historical perspective within mathematics education, including the foun-
dations of the formative versus summative assessment and through the lenses of
ILSAs, which have strongly affected the assessment process. Although there was
no particular aim to investigate all methodological challenges related to assessments
as such, major ideas were discussed by keeping in mind the principle conditions
Medley (1987b) mentions (e.g., robust conceptualisation, instrumentation, design)
when discussing the successful assessment of student outcomes. The section ended
with deliberation on the technology intake and need to link complex measurement
potentials to particular learning outcomes and (or) instructional practices (Manizade
et al., 2022).
Finally, an argument was raised on how student outcomes could be envisioned
today and the extent this widens or blurs the relationship between the A–G variables
proposed by Medley (1987a). To date, it remains crucial to grasp at what it means and
Student Mathematics Learning Outcomes 217

requires to master mathematics. Understanding the role of dispositional factors (e.g.,

ability beliefs and task values) in the conceptualisations of mathematical competence
is still required (Niss et al., 2017), especially given their fleeting position across
existing frameworks (e.g., included as one of the proficiency strands but absent from
the vast majority of other frameworks). Possible recognition could lead to a broader
and fuller understanding of what it means to be proficient in mathematics without
solely relying on the cognitive aspect of being competent. Ultimately, this may lead
to different methodological choices on measuring mastery and shifting the balance
from cognitive to noncognitive learning outcomes, which, in return, affect choices
such as applying problem-solving or some form of mathematical modelling in daily
situations or even pursuing a career in mathematics. Only then could the enactment
of mathematics, coupled with teaching and assessment, be genuinely in agreement.

References

Abrantes, P. (2001). Mathematical competence for all: Options, implications and obstacles.
Educational Studies in Mathematics, 47, 125–143.
Aditomo, A., & Klieme, E. (2020). Forms of inquiry-based science instruction and their rela-
tions with learning outcomes: Evidence from high and low-performing education systems.
International Journal of Science Education, 42(4), 504–525.
Anderman, E. M., & Gray, D. L. (2017). The roles of schools and teachers in fostering competence
motivation. In A. J. Elliot, C. S. Dweck, & D. S. Yeager (Eds.), Handbook of competence and
motivation: Theory and application (pp. 604–619). The Guilford Press.
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and
assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman
Auld, E., & Morris, P. (2016). PISA, policy and persuasion: Translating complex conditions into
education ‘best practice.’ Comparative Education, 52(2), 202–229. https://doi.org/10.1080/030
50068.2016.1143278
Baird, J.-A., Johnson, S., Hopfenbeck, T. H., Isaacs, T., Sprague, T., Stobart, G., & Yu, G. (2016).
On the supranational spell of PISA in policy. Educational Research, 58(2), 121–138.
Bandura, A. (1990). Conclusion: Reflections on non-ability determinants of competence. In R. J.
Sternberg & J. Kolligian (Eds.), Competence Considered, Yale University Press, 315–362.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assess-
ment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21(1), 5–31. https://doi-org.ezproxy.uio.no/10.1007/s11
092-008-9068-5.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2012). Assessment for learning in the classroom. In J. Gardner (Ed.),
Assessment and learning (pp. 11–32). Sage.
Blazar, D. (2015). Effective teaching in elementary mathematics: Identifying classroom practices
that support student achievement. Economics of Education Review, 16–29. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.econedurev.2015.05.005.
Blömeke, S., Gustafsson, J.-E., & Shavelson, R. (2015). Beyond dichotomies: Competence viewed
as a continuum. Zeitschrift Für Psychologie, 223, 3–13.
Blömeke, S., Busse, A., Kaiser, G., König, J., & Suhl, U. (2016). The relation between content-
specific and general teacher knowledge and skills. Teaching and Teacher Education, 56, 35–46.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.02.003
Bloom, B. S. (Ed.). (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives. Handbook I: Cognitive domain.
McKay.
218 J. Radišić

Boesen, J., Helenius, O., Bergqvist, E., Bergqvist, T., Lithner, J., Palm, T., & Palmberg, B. (2014).
Developing mathematical competence: From the intended to the enacted curriculum. The Journal
of Mathematical Behavior, 33, 72–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2013.10.001
Boesen, J., Lithner, J., & Palm, T. (2018). Assessing mathematical competencies: An analysis of
Swedish national mathematics tests. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 62(1),
109–124. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2016.1212256
Buchholtz, N., Krosanke, N., Orschulik, A. B., & Vorhölter, K. (2018). Combining and integrating
formative and summative assessment in mathematics teacher education. ZDM, 50(4), 1–14.
Cai, J., Hwang, S., & Middleton, J. A. (2015). The role of large-scale studies in mathematics
education. In J. A. Middleton, S. Hwang, & J. Cai (Eds.), Large-scale studies in mathematics
education (pp. 405–414). Springer.
Cai, J., Mok, I. A. C., Reddy, V., & Stacey, K. (2016). International comparative studies in math-
ematics: Lessons for improving students’ learning. In ICME-13 topical surveys (pp. 1–36).
ZDM.
Callan, G. l., DaVia Rubenstein, L., Ridgley, L. M., Speirs Neumeister, K. & Hernández Finch,
M. E., (2021). Self-regulated learning as a cyclical process and predictor of creative problem-
solving, Educational Psychology, 41(9), 1139–1159. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2021.
1913575.
Cartwright, F., Lalacette, D., Mussio, J., & Xing, D. (2003). Linking provincial students assess-
ments with national and international assessments. Ministry of Industry: Education, Skills, and
Learning Research Papers. http://www.publications.gc.ca/Collection/Statcan/81-595-MIE/81-
595-MIE2003005.pdf.
Chung, G. K. W. K., O’Neil, H. F., Bewley, W. L., & Baker, E. L. (2008). Computer-based assess-
ments to support distance learning. In J. Hartig, E. Klieme, & D. Leutner (Eds.), Assessment
of competencies in educational contexts: State of the art and future prospects (pp. 253–276).
Hogrefe & Huber.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Rustique-Forrester, E. (2005). The consequences of student testing for
teaching and teacher quality. Teachers College Record, 107(14), 289–319. https://doi.org/10.
1177/016146810510701411
de Lange, J. (2007). Large-scale assessment and mathematics education. In F. K. J. Lester (Ed.),
Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching (Vol. 2, pp. 1111–1142).
Dowker, A., Sarkar, A., & Looi, C. Y. (2016). Mathematics anxiety: What have we learned in 60
years? Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1–16.
Drasgow, F. (2002). The work ahead: A psychometric infrastructure for computerised adaptive
testing. In C. N. Mills, M. T. Potenza, J. J. Fremer, & W. C. Wards (Eds.), Computer-based
testing. Building the foundation for future assessments (pp. 1–35). Erlbaum.
Drijvers, P. (2015). Digital technology in mathematics education: Why it works (or doesn’t). In S.
J. Cho (Ed.), Selected regular lectures from the 12th international congress on mathematical
education (pp. 135–51). Springer International Publishing.
Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2020). From expectancy-value theory to situated expectancy-
value theory: A developmental, social cognitive, and sociocultural perspective on motivation.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61, 101859. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.
101859
Ehmke, T., van den Ham, A. -K., Sälzer, C., Heine, J., & Prenzel, M. (2020). Measuring mathematics
competence in international and national large scale assessments: Linking PISA and the national
educational panel study in Germany. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 65. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.stueduc.2020.100847.
Falck, O., Mang, C., & Woessmann, L. (2018). Virtually no effect? Different uses of classroom
computers and their effect on student achievement. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics,
80(1), 1–38.
Freeman, B., Marginson, S., & Tytler, R. (Eds.). (2015). The age of STEM: Educational policy and
practice across the world in science, technology, engineering and mathematics. Routledge.
Student Mathematics Learning Outcomes 219

Geary, D. C., Hoard, M. K., Nugent, L., Chu, F., Scofield, J. E., & Hibbard, D. F. (2019). Sex
differences in mathematics anxiety and attitudes: Concurrent and longitudinal relations to
mathematical competence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 111(8), 1447–1461.
Gravemeijer, K., Stephan, M., Julie, C., Lin, F.-L., & Ohtani, M. (2017). What mathematics educa-
tion may prepare students for the society of the future? International Journal of Science and
Mathematics Education, 15(1), 105–123.
Guskey, T. R. (2013). Defining student achievement. In J. Hattie & E. M. Anderman (Eds.),
International guide to student achievement (pp. 3–6). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
Gustafsson, J.-E. (2008). Effects of international comparative studies on educational quality on the
quality of educational research. European Educational Research Journal, 7(1), 1–17. https://
doi.org/10.2304/eerj.2008.7.1.1
Habók, A., Magyar, A., Németh, M. B., & Csapó, B. (2020). Motivation and self-related beliefs as
predictors of academic achievement in reading and mathematics: Structural equation models of
longitudinal data. International Journal of Educational Research, 103. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijer.2020.101634
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1),
81–112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487
Hegedus S., & Moreno-Armella, L. (2018). Information and communication technology (ICT) affor-
dances in mathematics education. In S. Lerman (Ed.), Encyclopedia of mathematics education.
Springer (pp. 380–384). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-77487-9_78-5.
Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. A. (2006). The four phase model of interest development. Educational
Psychologist, 41, 111–127.
Hiebert, J., & Grouws, D. A. (2007). The effects of classroom mathematics teaching on students’
learning. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and
learning (pp. 371–404). Information Age Publishing, Inc.
Higgins, K., Huscroft-D’Angelo, J., & Crawford, L. (2019). Effects of technology in mathematics
achievement, motivation and attitude. A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Computing,
57(2), 283–319. https://doi-org.ezproxy.uio.no/10.1177/0735633117748416
Hill, H. C., Rowan, B., & Ball, D. L. (2005). Effects of teachers’ mathematical knowledge for
teaching on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 42(2), 371–406.
Hillmayr, D., Ziernwald, L., Reinhold, F., Hofer, S. I., & Reiss, K. M. (2020). The potential of
digital tools to enhance mathematics and science learning in secondary schools: A context-
specific meta-analysis. Computers & Education, 153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.
103897.
Hoogland, K., & Tout, D. (2018). Computer-based assessment of mathematics into the twenty-first
century: Pressures and tensions. ZDM, 50(4), 675–686.
Jablonka, E. (2003). Mathematical literacy. In A. J. Bishop, M. A. Clements, C. Keitel, J.
Kilpatrick, & F. K. S. Leung (Eds.), Second international handbook of mathematics education
(pp. 75−102). Kluwer.
Jerrim, J. (2016). PISA 2012: How do results for the paper and computer tests compare? Assessment
in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 23(4), 495–518.
Klieme, E., Hartig, J., & Rauch, D. (2008). The concept of competence in educational contexts. In
J. Hartig, E. Klieme, & D. Leutner (Eds.), Assessment of competencies in educational contexts
(pp. 3–22). Hogrefe & Huber Publishers.
Kilpatrick, J. (2001). Understanding mathematical literacy: The contribution of research. Educa-
tional Studies in Mathematics, 47, 101–116. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1017973827514
Kilpatrick, J., Swafford, J. & Findell, B. (Eds.). (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn
mathematics. National Academy Press.
Kilpatrick, J. (1993). The chain and the arrow: From the history of mathematics assessment. In M.
Niss (Ed.), Investigations into assessment in mathematics education. New ICMI study series
(Vol 2, pp. 31–46). Springer. https://doi-org.ezproxy.uio.no/10.1007/978-94-017-1974-2_2.
220 J. Radišić

Kilpatrick, J. (2020a). History of research in mathematics education. In S. Lerman (Ed.), Ency-

clopedia of mathematics education. Springer (pp. 349–354). https://doi-org.ezproxy.uio.no/10.
1007/978-3-030-15789-0_71.
Kilpatrick, J. (2020b). Competency frameworks in mathematics education. In S. Lerman (Ed.),
Encyclopedia of mathematics education. Springer (pp. 110–113). https://doi-org.ezproxy.uio.
no/10.1007/978-3-030-15789-0_27.
Lee, J., & Stankov, L. (2018). Non-cognitive predictors of academic achievement: Evidence from
TIMSS and PISA. Learning and Individual Differences, 65, 50–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lin
dif.2018.05.009.
Li, Q., & Ma, X. (2010). A meta-analysis of the effects of computer technology on school students’
mathematics learning. Educational Psychology Review, 22, 215–243 (2010). https://doi-org.ezp
roxy.uio.no/10.1007/s10648-010-9125-8.
Lindquist, M., Philpot, R., Mullis, I. V. S. & Cotter, K.E. (2017). TIMSS 2019 mathematics frame-
work. In I. V. S. Mullis & M. O. Martin (Eds.), TIMSS 2019 assessment frameworks (pp. 13–25).
Boston College, TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center.
Maehr, M. L. (1976). Continuing motivation: An analysis of a seldom considered educational
outcome. Review of Educational Research, 46(3), 443–462.
Manizade, A. G., Buchholtz, N., & Beswick, K (2022). The evolution of research on teaching math-
ematics: International perspectives in the digital era: Introduction in manizade. In A. G., Buch-
holtz, N., & Beswick, K (Eds.). The evolution of research on teaching mathematics: International
perspectives in the digital era (pp. 1–18), Springer.
Marsh, H. W., Xu, M., & Martin, A. J. (2012). Self-concept: A synergy of theory, method, and
application. In K. R. Harris, S. Graham, T. Urdan, C. B. McCormick, G. M. Sinatra, & J.
Sweller (Eds.), APA educational psychology handbook, Vol. 1. Theories, constructs, and critical
issues (pp. 427–58). American Psychological Association.
Marsh, H. W., Martin, A. J., Yeung, A. S., & Craven, R. G. (2017). Competence self-perceptions.
In A. J. Elliot, C. S. Dweck, & D. S. Yeager (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation:
Theory and application (2nd ed., pp. 85–115). Guilford Press.
McLeod, D. (1992). Research on affect in mathematics education: a reconceptualisation. In D.
Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning: A project of the
NCTM (pp. 575–596). Macmillan.
Medley, D. M. (1977). Teacher competence and teacher effectiveness: A review of process-product
research. American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.
Medley, D. M. (1987a). Evolution of research on teaching. In M. Dunkin (Ed.), The international
encyclopedia of teaching and teacher education (pp. 105–113). Pergamon.
Medley, D. M. (1987b). Criteria for evaluating teaching. In M.J. Dunkin (Ed.), The international
encyclopedia of teaching and teacher education (pp. 169–180). Pergamon.
Middleton, J. A., Cai, J., & Hwang, S. (2015). Why mathematics education needs large-scale
research. In J. A. Middleton, J. Cai, & S. Hwang (Eds.), Large-scale studies in mathematics
education (pp. 1–3). Springer.
Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., & Hooper, M. (2016). TIMSS 2015 international results in
mathematics. TIMSS and PIRLS International Study Center.
Mullis, I. V. S., (2017). Introduction In Mullis, I. V. S., & Martin, M. O. (Eds.), TIMSS 2019 assess-
ment frameworks (pp. 3–10). Boston College, TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center.
http://timssandpirls.bc.edu/timss2019/frameworks/.
Nagy, G., Watt, H. M. G., Eccles, J. S., Trautwein, U., Lüdtke, O., & Baumert, J. (2010). The
development of students’ mathematics self-concept in relation to gender: Different countries,
different trajectories? Journal of Research on Adolescence, 20(2), 482–506.
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) (2021). Mapping state proficiency standards onto
the NAEP scales: Results from the 2019 NAEP reading and mathematics assessments. National
Center for Education Statistics.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1980). An agenda for action: Recommendations for
school mathematics of the 1980s. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Student Mathematics Learning Outcomes 221

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for
school mathematics. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school
mathematics. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Niss, M., & Højgaard, T. (2019). Mathematical competencies revisited. Educational Studies in
Mathematics, 102, 9–28.
Niss, M., Pegg, J., Gutiérrez, A., & Huerta, P. (1998). Assessment in geometry. In C. Mammana &
V. Villani (Eds.), Perspectives on the teaching of geometry for the 21st century. New ICMI study
series (Vol 5, pp. 263–295). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-5226-6_9.
Niss, M., Bruder, R., Planas, N., Turner, R., & Villa-Ochoa, J. A. (2017). Conceptualisation of the
role of competencies, knowing and knowledge in mathematics education research. In G. Kaiser
(Ed.), Proceedings of the 13th international congress on mathematical education (pp. 235–248).
Springer.
Niss. M. (1993). Assessment in mathematics education and its effects: An introduction. In M. Niss
(Ed.), Investigations into assessment in mathematics education. New ICMI study series (Vol 2,
pp. 1–30). Springer. https://doi-org.ezproxy.uio.no/10.1007/978-94-017-1974-2_1.
Niss, M. (2003). The Danish KOM project and possible consequences for teacher education. In R.
Strässer, G. Brandell, B. Grevholm, & O. Helenius (Eds.), Educating for the future. Proceedings
of an international symposium on mathematics teacher education (pp. 178–192). Royal Swedish
Academy of Science.
Niss, M. (2007). Reflections on the state of and trends in research on mathematics teaching and
learning. In F. K. J. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and
learning (pp. 1293–1312). Information Age Publishing.
Niss M. (2015). Mathematical competencies and PISA. In: K. Stacey, R. Turner (Eds.), Assessing
mathematical literacy. Springer. https://doi-org.ezproxy.uio.no/10.1007/978-3-319-10121-7_2.
Nortvedt, G. A. (2018). Policy impact of PISA on mathematics education: The case of Norway.
European Journal for Psychology in Education, 33(3), 427–444.
Nortvedt, G. A., & Buchholtz, N. (2018). Assessment in mathematics education: Responding to
issues regarding methodology, policy, and equity. ZDM, 50, 555–570.
OECD. (1997). Prepared for life? How to measure cross-curricular competencies. OECD
Publishing.
OECD. (1999). Measuring student knowledge and skills. A new framework for assessment. OECD
Publishing.
OECD. (2001). Knowledge and Skills for Life: first results from PISA 2000. PISA, OECD Publishing.
OECD. (2003). The PISA 2003 assessment framework: Mathematics, reading, science and problem
solving knowledge and skills. PISA, OECD Publishing.
OECD. (2013a). PISA 2012 assessment and analytical framework: Mathematics, reading, science,
problem solving and financial literacy. PISA, OECD Publishing.
OECD. (2013b). PISA 2012 results: What students know and can do: Student performance in
mathematics, reading and science (volume I). PISA, OECD Publishing.
OECD. (2016). Skills matter: Further results from the survey of adult skills. OECD Skills Studies,
OECD Publishing.
OECD. (2018). PISA 2021 mathematics framework (second draft). PISA, OECD Publishing.
Palm, T., Boesen, J & Lithner, J. (2011). Mathematical reasoning requirements in swedish upper
secondary level assessments. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 13(3), 221–246. https://doi.
org/10.1080/10986065.2011.564994
Pape, S., Irving, K., Owens, D., Boscardin, C., Sanalan, V., Abrahamson, L., et al. (2013). Classroom
connectivity in Algebra I classrooms: Results of a randomized control trial. Effective Education,
4(2), 169–189.
Pegg, J. (2002). Assessment in mathematics: A developmental approach. In J. M. Royer (Ed.),
Mathematical cognition (pp. 227–259). Information Age Publishing, Inc.
Pellegrino, J. W., Chudowsky, N., & Glaser, R. (2001). Knowing what students know. The science
and design of educational assessment. National Academic Press.
222 J. Radišić

Pinger, P., Rakoczy, K., Besser, M., & Klieme, E. (2018). Interplay of formative assessment
and instructional quality—Interactive effects on students’ mathematics achievement. Learning
Environments Research, 21, 61–79. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-017-9240-2
Pólya, G. (1945). How to solve it?. Princeton University Press.
Prast, E. J., Van de Weijer-Bergsma, E., Miočević, M., Kroesbergen, E. H., & Van Luit, J. E.
H. (2018). Relations between mathematics achievement and motivation in students of diverse
achievement levels. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 55, 84–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.cedpsych.2018.08.002
Radišić , J. & Jensen, F. (2021). Norske 9.-trinnselevers motivasjon for naturfag og matematikk—en
latent profilanalyse av TIMSS 2019. In T. Nilsen & H. Kaarstein (Eds.), Med blikket mot naturfag.
Nye analyser av TIMSS-data og trender 2015–2019 (pp. 103–139). Universitetsforlaget.
Ramseier, E. (2001). Motivation to learn as an outcome and determining factor of learning at school.
European Journal of Psychology of Education, 16(3), 421–439. http://www.jstor.org/stable/234
20342.
RAND Mathematics Study Panel. (2003). Mathematical proficiency for all students. Toward a
strategic research and development program in mathematics education. RAND.
Rutkowski, L., Gonzalez, E., Joncas, M., & von Davier, M. (2010). International large-scale assess-
ment data: Issues in secondary analysis and reporting. Educational Researcher, 39(2), 142–151.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X10363170
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2016). Facilitating and hindering motivation, learning, and well-being
in schools: Research and observations from self-determination theory. In K. R. Wentzel & D.
B. Miele (Eds.), Handbook of motivation at school (2nd ed., pp. 96–119). Mahwah.
Sälzer, C., & Prenzel, M. (2014). Looking back at five rounds of PISA: Impacts on teaching and
learning in Germany. Šolsko Polje [school Field], 25(5/6), 53–72.
Schöber, C., Schütte, K., Köller, O., McElvany, N., & Gebauer, M. M. (2018). Reciprocal effects
between self-efficacy and achievement in mathematics and reading. Learning and Individual
Differences, 63, 1–11.
Schukajlow, S., Rakoczy, K., & Pekrun, R. (2017). Emotions and motivation in mathematics
education: theoretical considerations and empirical contributions. ZDM Mathematics Educa-
tion, 49, 307–322. https://doi-org.ezproxy.uio.no/10.1007/s11858-017-0864-6.
Skaalvik, E. M., Federici, R. A., & Klassen, R. M. (2015). Mathematics achievement and self-
efficacy: Relations with motivation for mathematics. International Journal of Educational
Research, 72, 129–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2015.06.008
Stacey, K., & Wiliam, D. (2013). Technology and assessment in mathematics. In I. M. A. Clements,
A. J. Bishop, C. Keitel, J. Kilpatrick, & F. K. S. Leung (Eds.), Third international handbook of
mathematics education (pp. 721–51). Springer.
Stankov, L., & Lee, J. (2017). Self-beliefs: Strong correlates of mathematics achievement and
intelligence. Intelligence, 61, 11–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2016.12.001.
Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. (Eds.). (2003). The psychology of abilities, competencies, and
expertise. Cambridge University Press.
Sternberg, R. J. (2017). Intelligence and competence in theory and practice. In A. J. Elliot, C.
S. Dweck, & D. S. Yeager (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation: Theory and
application (pp. 9–24). The Guilford Press.
Suurtamm, C., Thompson, D. R., Kim, R. Y., Moreno, L. D., Sayac, N., Schukajlow, S., Silver, E.,
Ufer, S. & Vos, P. (2016). Assessment in mathematics education: Large-scale assessment and
classroom assessment. Springer.
Taras, M. (2005). Assessment—Summative and formative—Some theoretical reflections. British
Journal of Educational Studies, 53(4), 466–478. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8527.2005.003
07.x
Thompson, D. R., Burton, M., Cusi, A., & Wright, D. (2018). Formative assessment: A critical
component in the teaching-learning process. In D. Thompson, M. Burton, A. Cusi, & D. Wright
(Eds.), Classroom assessment in mathematics. ICME-13 monographs (pp. 3–8). Springer. https://
doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73748-5_1.
Student Mathematics Learning Outcomes 223

Trier, U. P., & Peschar, J. (1995). Cross-curricular competencies: Rationale and strategy for devel-
oping a new indicator. In OECD (Ed.), Measuring what students learn (pp. 99–109). OECD
Publishing.
Verschaffel, L., Schukajlow, S., Star, J. & Van Dooren, W. (2020). Word problems in mathematics
education: A survey. ZDM Mathematics Education, 52, 1–16. https://doi-org.ezproxy.uio.no/10.
1007/s11858-020-01130-4.
Wang, M. -T. (2012). Educational and career interests in math: A longitudinal examination of
the links between classroom environment, motivational beliefs, and interests. Developmental
Psychology, 48(6), 1643–1657. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027247.
Watt, H. M. G., Shapka, J. D., Morris, Z. A., Durik, A. M., Keating, D. P., & Eccles, J. S. (2012).
Gendered motivational processes affecting high school mathematics participation, educational
aspirations, and career plans: A comparison of samples from Australia, Canada, and the United
States. Developmental Psychology, 48(6), 1594–1611. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027838.
Weinert, F. E. (2001). Concept of competence: A conceptual clarification. In D. S. Rychen & L. H.
Salganik (Eds.), Defining and selecting key competencies (pp. 45–65). Hogrefe & Huber.
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy–value theory of achievement motivation.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 68–81. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1015.
Zan, R., & Di Martino, P. (2020). Students’ attitude in mathematics education. In S. Lerman (Ed.),
Encyclopedia of mathematics education (pp. 813–817). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-
3-319-77487-9_146-4.

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate
credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and
indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative
Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by
statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder.
Units of Analysis of Research on Teaching
Mathematics that are not Under Teachers’
Control: Offline Variables
Individual Student Characteristics,
Abilities and Personal Qualities
and the Teacher’s Role in Improving
Mathematics Learning Outcomes

Rhonda M. Faragher

1 Introduction

Teachers of students in general mathematics classrooms accept and welcome the

learners they are assigned to teach. Students’ characteristics influence the planning
teachers undertake, the learning activities they provide, and the learning outcomes
achieved by their students as a result. This chapter explores the impact of student
characteristics that are beyond the control of teachers, and yet are within their powers
through their actions to make a considerable difference to the mathematics learning
outcomes of their students (Manizade et al., 2019).
In recent times, two significant developments—the recognition of streaming (the
practice of grouping students “within-grade-level on the basis of perceived ability”
(Forgasz, 2010, p. 57)) as harmful and the recognition of inclusive education as bene-
ficial—have changed the nature of general mathematics classrooms. The research on
assigning students to mathematics classes based on their achievement has long shown
that this is a harmful practice (Hunter et al., 2020; Wilkinson & Penney, 2014; Zeven-
bergen, 2005). Streaming is detrimental to not just low and average groups but also has
limited benefits along with possible risks for high achieving students (Linchevski &
Kutscher, 1998; Parsons & Hallam, 2014).
In a separate development, the inclusive education movement, where all learners
are welcomed and supported in general learning environments, has also become
prominent. General Comment Number 4 of the United Nations’ Committee on the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2016) distinguishes inclusive education from
integration, segregation and exclusion. Inclusive education requires the learning
support needs of all learners to be met within the general classroom where all learners
are working towards the learning outcomes of their class program. Again the research

R. M. Faragher (B)
The University of Queensland, School of Education, St Lucia Queensland, QLD 4072, Australia
e-mail: [email protected]

© The Author(s) 2023 227

A. Manizade et al. (eds.), The Evolution of Research on Teaching Mathematics,
Mathematics Education in the Digital Era 22,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-31193-2_8
228 R. M. Faragher

evidence is unequivocal (Hehir et al., 2016)—all learners do better in inclusive educa-

tion environments. Through international charters and conventions, the provision of
inclusive education has become a requirement of States Parties to these agreements.
In the case of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabil-
ities (United Nations, 2006), all but seven countries in the world have signed the
convention, thereby signalling their intention to provide inclusive education for all
learners with disabilities.
For mathematics education, these two evidence-based movements—heteroge-
neous rather than streamed groupings and inclusive education—combine to provide
strong impetus for the need to teach all learners in general classrooms. In practice,
this means that teachers can expect to teach students across the breadth of human
variation. This might seem overwhelming and indeed it would be if the approach
were to attempt to teach individual lessons to each student in the class. Research
in this field has led to alternative approaches that indicate approaches that teachers
might use to plan effective mathematics lessons for all learners, including those with
intellectual disabilities in the one classroom. These will be canvassed in this chapter.
In this way, it is argued that teachers use to advantage the characteristics learners
bring to the classroom, leading to improved mathematics learning outcomes for all.

2 Literature Review

Individual student characteristics are beyond the teacher’s control. If we assume

inclusive classrooms, the students they teach are also beyond the teacher’s control.
Teachers do not exclude students who have particular attributes, such as intellectual
disability. The example of intellectual disability is taken here because it is possibly
the area of student diversity that presents as most instructive for understanding the
impact of learners’ characteristics on mathematics learning outcomes. The impact
of learner attributes on the presage, process, and products (PPP) of mathematics
teaching must be understood for the best learning outcomes to be achieved.
One challenge encompassing both theoretical and methodological aspects of this
area relates to the historical approach to the education of low attaining students
in mathematics. The emergence of two education systems—special education and
mainstream—has meant the mathematics education of students with intellectual
disabilities and learning difficulties mostly had been undertaken by special educa-
tion teachers. In recent times, inclusive education has been adopted around the world
with the aim of educating all students in mainstream classrooms (Florian, 2012)
and therefore the mathematics education of learners with intellectual disabilities has
become the task of general mathematics teachers.
Mathematics education research typically takes a different approach to research
from that of special education research in the field of mathematics (Xin & Tzur, 2016).
It is not a happy marriage and reconciliation is not easy. Behaviourist approaches to
mathematics learning, with a focus on remediating deficits and explicit teaching of
procedures (often with mnemonics to aid recall of the procedures, see, for example,
Individual Student Characteristics, Abilities and Personal Qualities … 229

Flores, 2010), have been favoured by many special education researchers in math-
ematics (for a review, see Tan et al., 2019), though not all (see, for example,
Browder et al., 2012). Special education research focuses on interventions and
understanding learner deficiencies. Mathematics education research focuses more
on pedagogy appropriate for learning mathematics. The systematic review by Tan
and colleagues, sampled literature published between 2006 and 2017 related to math-
ematics education of students with intellectual disabilities. From their review, they
distilled three categories: Deficit-oriented, Discursively-aligned and Socio-political.
48% of reviewed articles fell within the sub-category “Behaviorism” of the “Deficit-
oriented” category, where they note, “In these studies, mathematics education is
characterized as reproducing or memorization of prescribed facts or procedures. …
Students in these studies are shown a particular sequence of solving mathematics
problems, followed by assessing their ability to exactly follow each step in the pre-
defined procedure.” (Tan et al., p. 6). The goal of the mathematics taught was found
to be functional, “research focused on the importance of mathematics fact recall as
they connected their work to functional life skills and the importance of mathematics
for everyday tasks such as shopping” (p. 6).
By contrast, general mathematics education research emphasizes the value of
mathematics as a discipline and favours less utilitarian views of the purpose of
learning mathematics, for all students including those with disabilities (Scherer et al.,
2016). In the Tan et al. (2019) review, a category of research was identified that aligned
with this view of mathematics education research.
In contrast to the dominant forms of research in mathematics education involving students
with intellectual disabilities that focuses on direct forms of instruction and basic mathe-
matics skills development …, undermining conceptual construction and understanding of
mathematics, the studies in this category presume, to a greater extent, that students with an
intellectual disability are mathematics thinkers and doers, capable of a range of mathematics
engagement. (p. 8)

For the purposes of this chapter, providing an overview of current understandings

in this field, three areas of diverse student characteristics are reviewed: mathematics
learning disabilities, which are inherent to the student; learned difficulties, which are
not; and other learner characteristics, not related to intellectual development, that
have an impact on mathematics learning leading to learning difficulties.

2.1 Current Understandings of Mathematics Learning

Difficulties, Disabilities and Dyscalculia

Some students struggle to learn mathematics. This is hardly a revelation. No matter

whether the assessment is norm-referenced (with a proportion of the population
automatically performing worse than expected for their age) or criterion-referenced
(with a possibly similar subset of the population not meeting learning targets for
their grade level), teachers, parents, and the students themselves have known that
230 R. M. Faragher

learning mathematics does not come easily for all. The source of these difficulties is
of particular interest because that affects approaches teachers might take to improve
learning outcomes.
It would seem that the source of some mathematics learning disabilities is neuro-
biological in origin leading to differences in cognition. Developmental Dyscalculia
(DD), possibly with sub-types (Skagerlund & Träff, 2016), is a condition caused by
atypical development of the parts of the brain that support the understanding of quan-
tity such as numerical magnitude processing, the development of a mental number
line, and the ability to calculate using known facts (Kaufmann & von Aster, 2012;
Peters & De Smedt, 2018; Skagerlund & Träff, 2016). Diagnosis is not undertaken
based on brain imaging studies, however. Instead, diagnosis is usually made based
on the determination of “a serious impairment of the learning of basic numerical-
arithmetical skills in a child whose intellectual capacity and schooling are otherwise
adequate” (Kaufmann & von Aster, 2012, p. 769). This comparison with progress
in other areas of schooling or in comparison with other intelligence measures leads
to the challenge of diagnosing DD in learners with intellectual disabilities who have
relatively more difficulty in acquiring a sense of number than other areas of learning
(Cuskelly & Faragher, 2019). The significant challenges of defining mathematics
learning disabilities by discrepancy from “normal” achievement are well articulated
by Scherer and colleagues (Scherer et al., 2016). Lewis (2014) draws attention to the
challenges of diagnosis based on an arbitrary cut-off score and instead advocates for
analysis of ‘persistent understandings’ that are divergent from correct mathematical
understanding as an indication of mathematics learning disability.
Some aspects of difficulties learning mathematics overlap with language diffi-
culties. Dyslexia, a learning disorder characterized by difficulties with language
and reading, has a documented overlap with difficulties retrieving arithmetic facts
(Peters & De Smedt, 2018) and is also neurobiological in origin. The area of the brain
affected is not the same as that proposed for DD. Aspects of mathematics affected
by dyscalculia also differ from that of dyslexia. Some aspects of arithmetic, such
as retrieval of number facts, appear to be more language based (Dehaene, 2011).
The impact of limitations of remembering arithmetical facts could arguably have
been overstated, being a carry over from a time when the inability to calculate by
written methods severely hampered further work in parts of mathematics reliant on
these processes. With the ready availability of alternative methods of calculation, it
might be the case that number and quantity need no longer be seen as core aspects
of mathematics upon which the rest of the discipline relies. More research is needed
in this area (Verschaffel et al., 2016).
Beyond those learners with mathematics learning disabilities such as DD, there are
those with learning difficulties. The proportion of individuals who meet diagnostic
criteria for DD is thought to be in the range of 5–7% (Butterworth et al., 2011).
However, “a much larger number of children and adults experience less severe or
less specific difficulties with mathematics which are nevertheless sufficient to cause
significant educational and occupational difficulties” (Dowker & Kaufmann, 2009,
p. 339). These learning difficulties with mathematics are the result of factors separate
from the neurobiological functioning of the learner and reflect low achievement due
Individual Student Characteristics, Abilities and Personal Qualities … 231

to other factors. These factors include poor teaching, environmental factors, affective
factors (Lewis, 2014), minority status (Hunter et al., 2020), previous academic attain-
ment, gender, age, health, family socio-economic characteristics (such as parental
education, income and health), and school characteristics (Parsons & Hallan, 2014).
Understanding the impact of factors that lead to mathematics learning difficul-
ties has been the focus of mathematics research endeavors (Faragher et al., 2016;
Scherer et al., 2016; Vale et al., 2016) and the concern of teachers. Lindenskov and
Lindhardt noted in their study (2020, p. 65) the concern of teachers with the paucity
of mathematics learning experiences they felt compelled to offer students who had
difficulties learning mathematics.
The distinction between the two groups—disabilities and difficulties—is critical
for intervention. Underpinning both, though, is the need for, and value of, good
teaching with the right support.

2.2 Current Understandings of Learned Difficulties

Low attainment in mathematics, as the argument is building, can be the result of

learning disability leading to different development, or learning difficulty due to
factors in the ecosystem of the learner. Low attainment can be the result of a mismatch
of mathematics education approaches with the needs of the learner (Lewis, 2014;
Lindenskov & Lindhardt, 2020).
The third group of low attaining learners is comprised of a group who have
acquired their difficulties with mathematics while they have been learners at school.
These are those students who did not commence school with a disability or difficulty
but through engagement with the school mathematics environment, they acquired
difficulties with mathematics. This third group can be designated as those with
learned difficulties. A group of learners in this category that has received research
attention in recent times are learners with mathematics anxiety (Dowker et al., 2016).
This group of students can become so fearful of mathematics that they will actively
avoid even those mathematics tasks that are easily within their capability (Wilson,
2018).
Learned difficulties with mathematics can be pervasive, leading to limitations on
the mathematics individuals are willing to undertake in the contexts of their lives.
This important research finding, documented in many government reports including
the influential Cockroft Report from the UK (1982), has led to impacts on concep-
tualization of numeracy—the use of mathematics in life contexts. These models
acknowledge that it is insufficient to know mathematics and make sense of contexts;
affective attributes such as willingness to undertake mathematics are also essential
to consider (Goos et al., 2015).
While the three groups proposed (learning disabilities, learning difficulties and
learned difficulties) have been presented as disjoint, intersection between groups
may well exist. Students with learning disabilities could quite conceivably gain more
pronounced difficulties via the same mechanisms as other students e.g. development
of mathematics anxiety.
232 R. M. Faragher

2.3 Interventions

Having outlined three main groups of low attaining students in mathematics—those

with learning disabilities, learning difficulties, and learned difficulties—attention is
now turned towards what research indicates might be done to improve the attainment
of those students.
Overcoming a neurological developmental difference requires specific attention
to the cause, with brain-based interventions implicated. Some studies have tested the
impact of computer interventions based on repeated task training aimed at developing
new neural pathways (Räsänena et al., 2009) with some localized benefits. Unfor-
tunately, transfer to areas of mathematics learning beyond the immediate training
tasks was not found. It would seem that treatment approaches that correct neuro-
logical impairments to mathematics learning are yet to be uncovered. Instead, or
in the meantime, teachers must take other approaches. It is not acceptable to do
nothing—ways around the barriers to learning must be found if students are to be
successful at learning mathematics in inclusive classrooms. Lewis’ work (2014) indi-
cates the need for teachers to deeply comprehend the way a student is understanding
or making sense of a mathematical concept and basing teaching to build from that
conceptualization towards a correct mathematical understanding.
For students with learning difficulties, Lindenskov and Lindhardt (2020) indicated
teachers in their study held a commonly accepted view that low attaining students
required training and task repetition. These teachers also noted, however, “the low
motivation of students who are vulnerable partly due to the monotonous and tedious
tasks they were offered” (p. 65). After engagement with the research project, these
teachers subsequently noted: “that the early use of calculators may prevent students’
low calculating skills to slow down processes towards conceptual understanding”
(p. 66). This is an important example because it moves beyond a focus on number
facts and arithmetic, characteristics used by much of the research literature to identify
mathematics learning disabilities and difficulties. The calculator is used to move
beyond those early aspects of arithmetic to a much more productive mathematical
focus on understanding.
With respect to learned difficulties, overcoming detrimental thinking patterns
acquired in the school years can be exceedingly difficult to change (Dowker et al.,
2016). Some approaches have been trialed based on techniques used in psychology
to treat other forms of anxiety. From a mathematics education perspective, this is an
area of low attainment where the intervention should surely be to prevent anxiety
from developing in the first place.
In this section of the chapter, a brief review of research understandings of types of
student difficulties with learning mathematics has been given. It is now time to turn
attention to the research investigating work that teachers might undertake to account
for these student attributes in lesson planning and teaching.
Individual Student Characteristics, Abilities and Personal Qualities … 233

3 Impact of Students’ Attributes on Their Learning

Outcomes

Where do teachers need to take account of these diverse attributes? In the Medley
(1987)/Manizade et al. (2023) framework, we are looking at the impact of Type G
(student attributes) on the relationship between Types B (learning activities) and A
(learning outcomes). It is not possible to teach separate lessons to each student in
the class, nor desirable, and yet the current focus on learning trajectories and more
traditional approaches of teaching from where the student is at might suggest that is
required. The implicit assumption is that mathematics is inherently hierarchical and
rarely questioned (Forgasz & Cheeseman, 2015) and therefore, learners follow the
same path, though perhaps at different rates. There is an alternative view, that there
are many paths to mathematical achievement.
If we were to make the assumption, or perhaps working hypothesis, that alter-
native pathways to mathematics attainment are possible, we could then consider
some alternative approaches to curriculum design and the planning of mathematics
learning activities by teachers. In this section, three will be considered: Universal
Design for Learning, the use of digital solutions, and year level adjusted curriculum.

3.1 Universal Design for Learning

Universal Design (UD) was first used in architecture where it was suggested that new
buildings and spaces could be made accessible by their design from the beginning.
The underpinning idea required consideration of access for individuals with disabil-
ities, and all others, as a key principle in the design phase of architectural planning.
In brief, UD involves the design of products and environments to be useable by all
people to the greatest extent possible without the need for adaptation or specialized
design. The impact of UD in public building design is obvious, once noticed. The
frustration of lack of access or the expense of adding facilities to provide access
for an individual after a building is completed is avoided. In countries where UD is
written into building design codes, we come to expect that there will be ramps or
lifts, easily accessible light switches and power points, good lighting and accessible
toilet facilities. If we need them, they are there, if we do not, they do not impede our
use.
The idea of UD was expanded into other areas and by the late 1990s, it was
applied to education. Meyers and Rose, researchers at the Center for Applied Special
Technology (CAST) developed an application of UD to learning situations and coined
the phrase Universal Design for Learning (UDL) (CAST, 2020). In an analogy to
universal building design, UDL emphasizes meeting as many learning support needs
as possible in the one lesson plan. The key feature of the designed curricula is
the promotion of access, participation, and progress in general education for all
learners. UDL becomes a way of thinking: planning (presage) always to provide
234 R. M. Faragher

multiple ways of presenting information, engaging with content, and demonstrating

accomplishment. Diversity is expected, planned for, and valued for adding richness
and alternative ways of thinking about the topic.
The use of rich problem solving tasks, an established practice in mathematics
pedagogy (Chan & Clarke, 2017), is an example of how teachers might engage
and challenge all learners in the one classroom with the one task (Lindenskov &
Lindhardt, 2020; Sullivan, 2017). There are many sources of tasks of this nature
and in the collection of Downton et al., (2006) they also provide work samples
from students demonstrating different ranges of performance and accomplishment
on each task. For example, Mason et al., (2010, p. 184) offers the following task:
“What numbers have an odd number of divisors?” In order to plan to use this in an
inclusive classroom, a teacher would consider what students would need to know to
be able to make a start. What “enabling prompts” (Sullivan et al., 2006) would be
needed? Understanding the question is likely to be needed, including definitions of
keywords, such as “divisor”. Ways to find divisors (factors) of numbers would be
needed. Demonstrating an example with blocks would be one way. For example, a
teacher might show how to find the factors of 12 by taking 12 blocks and arranging
them in rectangles. The side lengths are the factors. A teacher would also need to
prepare ways to extend the problem for learners who have solved the original task.
Mason et al. suggest “Is there a number with exactly 13 divisors?” as one option.
Just as universal building design will not meet the needs of some users with
very specific needs, some learners require very specific adjustments. These adjust-
ments can be added into the planning stage when those requirements are known. For
example, one learner with Down syndrome in a senior secondary mathematics class,
who was involved in the research project discussed in the later section (see Faragher,
et al., 2019, for details), required step-by-step instructions for using his graphics
calculator. His teacher prepared these adjustments as part of her lesson planning
for specific topics. Any additional adjustment she made, she also provided for other
students. In the case of the graphics calculator instructions, she made and laminated
two copies—one for the student with the individual plan, and the other was placed
on the table at the front of the class for use by any other student (and many did).

3.2 Digital Solutions

It is undeniable that technological advances have made astonishing possibilities for

adjustments in mathematics classrooms. They have also fundamentally changed the
nature of numeracy. Numeracy is the use of mathematics in life contexts and therefore,
how we engage with these contexts and the technology available for our use, changes
our numeracy needs. Implications for learners with intellectual disabilities have been
discussed previously (Faragher, 2019). When we consider the impact of Type B
activities (Student Mathematics Learning Activities) on learning outcomes, it can be
argued that there is a fundamental change needed here: in what students are required
to do, and what they need to be taught for numeracy development.
Individual Student Characteristics, Abilities and Personal Qualities … 235

Digital solutions also affect how we know what students are able to do and
understand as a result of learning. It is possible to go far beyond the time-honored
techniques of tests and examinations to gather evidence of students’ mathematics
learning. For students who find writing difficult, we can record them demonstrating
techniques or presenting their work to peers. For students who have limited expres-
sive language, we can observe them making choices or undertaking adjusted tasks.
Video records can capture the ‘aha’ moments. In a recent research study discussed
in Sect. 5.2 below (see Faragher et al., 2019, for background), such a moment was
captured on video. The researcher and teacher were working in a secondary math-
ematics classroom with a student with Down syndrome. The student had limited
expressive language. He was working on trigonometry with other students in the
class, including his friend without a disability who was helping him learn to distin-
guish right-angled triangles from other triangles. The moment when the student
reached for a right-angled triangle from a collection of possibilities, rather than
testing at random, was observed by the researcher and the teacher, and captured on
the video recording. In this way, the video recording is an example of a digital solu-
tion where a record of learning is made that can be analyzed and used to confirm
learning. Of course, a camera has to be on at the time and except in the context of
research studies, it is unlikely to be the case in routine classroom activities. However,
the use of video can be used strategically. For example, in the concluding phase of
a lesson, where a teacher wishes to gather evidence of learning, particularly from a
student with communication limitations, a video clip could be taken of the student
demonstrating the performance of a task.
Individual learner characteristics (Type G) affect the types of activities they are
given (Type B) that allow them to demonstrate their learning (Type A). Digital options
allow many more valid approaches to the assessment of learning with the likelihood
of uncovering Type A outcomes that may never have been imagined. A study of the
use of technology for formative assessment of mathematics was undertaken by Dalby
and Swan (2019). They considered “the potential for iPad technology to facilitate
and enhance formative assessment processes by contributing to the construction of
richer and more efficient processes, that bring benefits to student learning” (p. 835).
In the research, six lessons were co-designed with teachers and researchers, and
these were then trialled in two secondary schools in the UK. The research used “a
cyclical process of design, testing, feedback, reflection and redesign” (p. 836). Data
analysis of the process of formative assessment used coding and categorization from
which five categories emerged. The analysis indicated the potential for the use of
technology for assessing mathematics using existing pedagogies while cautioning
that “the greatest challenge for teachers in using technology in the classroom is not
the technology but an understanding of the process by which it can enhance student
learning.” (p. 843). More research into the use of digital solutions for assessing
learning, particularly of students with intellectual disabilities, is needed to understand
its full potential.
Sometimes, the promise of digital solutions is promoted as the panacea for
improving the learning of low attaining students, and particularly those with disabil-
ities. It is clear that while these tools do hold great promise, they are not sufficient in
236 R. M. Faragher

themselves and the other variables around teacher classroom practice need greater
exploration. In this chapter, the possibilities the digital context affords to teachers
are recognized in conjunction with other aspects of their work.

3.3 Adding Adjustments to Year Level Curriculum

The learning theorist Bruner argued that it is possible to teach any topic to a school
aged child in an intellectually honest manner (Bruner, 1960, 1977). Over the years
since then, examples from mathematics have emerged where students have indeed
been taught seemingly more sophisticated mathematics than their years or curriculum
attainment would suggest would be possible. Intriguing examples have emerged from
Italy, a country that has not had a special education system for more than 50 years
and so has had opportunity to explore possibilities of curriculum innovations. In a
paper by Monari Martinez and Bennetti (2011), we see examples of students with
significant intellectual disabilities being taught and achieving learning outcomes in
areas of mathematics such as algebra and coordinate geometry. Perhaps the most
astonishing is a student who learned to use the distance formula to find the distance
between two points and then graphed these on centimetre graph paper. Subsequently,
the student came to understand measuring with a ruler as she learned the ruler could
be used to obtain the same answer as she had already calculated.
Learning how to measure with a ruler through co-ordinate geometry is beyond
intriguing to be completely counter-intuitive. Replication studies are needed to deter-
mine if the specifics of that particular study can be repeated. Further research with
similar results from other areas of mathematics is already emerging, however. Studies
from the United States also indicate what is possible (Browder et al., 2012; Creech-
Galloway & Collins, 2013). In the United States, the “No Child Left Behind” legisla-
tion encouraged the development of teaching approaches to support the requirement
that all students would be assessed on the curriculum aligned with their grade level
(Browder & Spooner, 2014).
Known variously as “age-appropriate”, “grade-aligned” or “year-level”
curriculum, teachers have devised innovative approaches to learning design
(Browder & Spooner, 2014). I choose to use the terminology of year-level adjusted
curriculum (YLAC) because some students are older or younger than their class
peers due to a number of possible factors including transfer across school districts,
ill-health, and delayed entry. The purpose of adjusting the year-level curriculum is to
begin with the curriculum being planned for the class and then meet specific learning
needs by planning adjustments.
In the YLAC approach, teachers begin with the curriculum for the year level
they are teaching; that is, they start with the lesson as they intend to plan for their
assigned class. This approach is discussed in more depth elsewhere (Faragher, 2017;
Faragher et al., 2019), and outlined here. Using principles of UDL or other planning
methods, teachers plan multiple approaches for each aspect of their lesson, ensuring
the learning support needs of as many students as possible are provided for in the
Individual Student Characteristics, Abilities and Personal Qualities … 237

standard plan. This means that enabling prompts to assist learners to enter a learning
task are provided as well as extending prompts to ensure all learners, and particularly
gifted and talented students, are challenged in the lesson (Sullivan et al., 2006).
Similarly, provisions for students with language, social-emotional, physical, and
sensory needs are planned.
Once the lesson has been planned, teachers then consider specific additional
adjustments that may be required by some learners. In research studies exploring the
practices of teachers who were including students with Down syndrome in regular
primary and secondary mathematics classes (Faragher & Clarke, 2020; Faragher
et al., 2019), teachers considered each stage of the lesson and thought about where
the student might face barriers. At this point, teachers would look for ways to work
around the barriers. These situations arose where students’ impairments were having
an impact on their work, such as difficulties hand-writing or using the layout of a
calculator. On occasion, the barriers were to do with intellectual disability, though
these were mostly attended to in the general plan.
In these three approaches to lesson planning (UDL, digital solutions, and YLAC),
the impact of the characteristics of learners (Type G), is clear. Diverse classrooms
bring a diversity of Type G variables that directly affect the work of teachers. In the
decades since inclusive education has become policy around the world, the nature
of teachers’ work has fundamentally changed as well. This work, and the impact
of Type G variables on learner outcomes, needs much greater exploration. In the
following section, a more detailed analysis of examples from two recent studies into
YLAC provide an illustration of the interaction between Type G factors and Type B
(student learning activities) and Type A (learning outcomes). Through this analysis,
an overt investigation of the interaction of these variables can be considered.

4 Learning Year Level Curriculum

At the turn of this century, a significant research project in Australia was under-
taken to track the early numeracy development of children (Clarke et al., 2002). The
project developed task-based interviews for teachers to use with their students to track
their mathematical development. In a subsequent study, the interview was adapted
to explore the mathematical development of young children with Down syndrome.
While the interview had been used with children enrolled in special schools (Clarke &
Faragher, 2004), to our knowledge, it had not been used with children with Down
syndrome. Down syndrome is a genetic condition leading to varying degrees of
intellectual disability. Difficulties with number have been documented in research
literature for decades (and often incorrectly generalised to difficulties with mathe-
matics in general). Other areas of mathematics attainment have rarely been studied
until recent times (Faragher & Clarke, 2014).
238 R. M. Faragher

In our research project (Clarke & Faragher, 2014; Faragher & Clarke, 2014),
we became aware that some children seemed to be making greater progress than
others and that there appeared to be a teaching effect. We wished to know more
about the classroom environments where these children were developing their early
mathematics knowledge.

4.1 Learning Year Level Mathematics Curriculum

in Primary Schools

So began a study of learning year-level mathematics curriculum in primary class-

rooms by children with Down syndrome. We were focused on the work of teachers,
rather than the students themselves as we observed their teaching practice over one
school year. In our project, professional learning workshops were interspersed with
classroom lesson observations and interviews with teachers about their work. As
reported in a recent paper (Faragher & Clarke, 2020), there were indeed practices that
teachers adopted, in response to the learning characteristics of their students (Type
G), that had an impact on the learning outcomes of students with Down syndrome
(Type A) within inclusive classrooms. In that study, it was clear that effective teachers
expected all students to think mathematically and were focused on ways to engage
their students with Down syndrome in cognitively challenging mathematics. They
made judgments in lessons about when to withhold from telling a student the answer,
and instead, encouraged them to persist. Teachers also had a clear focus on the math-
ematics of the year-level and they communicated that focus to teaching assistants
(adult helpers without teaching qualifications) assigned for the lesson. The math-
ematical focus of the lesson for the student with Down syndrome was the same
as for the rest of the class and teachers made adjustments to enable that to occur.
Consideration of the learning needs of the student occurred at the planning and
lesson implementation stages. A key finding was that “the provision of reasonable
adjustments in mathematics is highly skilled work exemplifying high-quality math-
ematics teaching. This involves knowledge of the learner, the mathematics and how
to teach it” (Faragher & Clarke, 2020, p. 141). In the context of education research
variables, here is the interplay between Type G variables (individual student char-
acteristics, abilities, and personal qualities) and resulting learning outcomes (Type
A). The provision of reasonable adjustments to allow students with disabilities to
access the curriculum is a requirement in law in many countries, and specified in the
UNCRPD. Determining and planning reasonable adjustments requires a teacher to
carefully consider the learning characteristics of students at all stages of the presage,
process, product model of classroom learning.
In our work with primary school teachers, it was evident that good teaching and
the right support had an important impact on the mathematics learning outcomes of
their students with Down syndrome. In the Medley/Manizade et al. model (2023),
we can see the interaction of research types at play here and these will be discussed
in the implications section below.
Individual Student Characteristics, Abilities and Personal Qualities … 239

4.2 Learning Year Level Secondary Mathematics

The primary mathematics research led naturally to consider possibilities in secondary

mathematics. In particular, a parent had learned of early findings of the primary
project and was keen to have her school consider implications for her son (called
“Brian” in the project) in year nine. At the time, he was struggling with single digit
addition and was being given worksheets with simple examples, such as 5 + 3,
written vertically. Brian was acutely aware that this work was childish and what
is worse, he found it difficult. His teacher asked for advice and following a short
conversation, planned an adapted worksheet on the topic being taught to his class—
linear functions. A clever aspect of the planned adjustment was that Brian ended up
doing lots of single digit addition, but now in the context of algebra where he was
substituting for variables. He now enjoyed doing this work. As a result of this initial
success, the school became instigators of a broader research project that involved the
teaching teams of five students with Down syndrome in three Australian states over
two years.
Background to the research study, including the methodology and methods
involved have been discussed previously (Faragher et al., 2019). In this chapter, the
mathematics learning of three of the students is studied through the analytical lens of
the Medley/Manizade et al. (2023) framework. In analyzing the case studies, the focus
will be on how individual student characteristics (Type G) mediate the connection
between student mathematics learning activities (Type B) and the resulting learning
outcomes (Type A).
In the sections below, three of the students will be introduced—Brian, Jay, and
Mary. I have used pseudonyms for each. First, I present a brief description of their
learning context before moving to give a short overview of key aspects of the different
variable types.

4.2.1 Brian

Brian has Down syndrome and attended a mainstream Catholic boys’ school. At
the time of the study, Brian was in his final two years of secondary school, studying
Prevocational Mathematics. This is a subject designed for students who require math-
ematics beyond school in areas such as employment and trades. It is not designed
for students intending to study at university.
Brian’s teacher had a genuine expectation that Brian could be successful at
learning the mathematics content of his course. She focused her planning on consid-
ering barriers Brian might face and then working out what adjustments might be
needed to assist him. In an interview, when asked about additional planning load,
she agreed there was extra work involved but she discounted this as a problem. Her
point was that while she was spending time making resources and undertaking task
analysis for various procedures, this was an investment in future work because “there
will always be students of mine who need this support”. She made a particular point
240 R. M. Faragher

of making two copies of any resource—one for Brian, and one for the rest of the
class. Students in one observation lesson were seen to access the instruction guide
for calculating means, medians, and modes.
Learner characteristics affected the teacher’s planning of assessment activities
that would be supported by the teacher aide. She felt that a page of exercises would
be daunting and so she took the required exercises and reprinted them in a more
engaging format. The advantage of electronic texts was clear here, as the reformatting
was relatively straightforward. She often used color coding so that Brian would be
able to have a visual cue to the type of task involved. She had developed this strategy
through her experience of working with Brian over time.
Most of the assessment for this Prevocational course was undertaken by assign-
ments involving rich tasks that students completed during class time. One example
was a task where students were to design a car park. Another was to investigate
various data representation approaches in the quantity control of matches. Each
required mathematics techniques from different branches of mathematics, in these
cases, geometry and statistics. Planning the work for Brian involved breaking the
assessment activities into smaller sections, considering the mathematics required
and then undertaking a task analysis to break the learning into small steps. A further
consideration was the work to be undertaken by the teaching assistant. At the start of
each lesson, the teacher would spend a short time with the teacher aide (not neces-
sarily the same person each lesson) explaining the mathematics and indicating what
she required Brian to do. It was not her expectation that the teacher aide would be
solely responsible for teaching Brian.
During class, Brian worked on the assigned tasks, supported by his teacher aide
who assisted with understanding the task instructions. The teacher would move
around the room assisting students as they needed. She would also routinely move
to check on Brian’s progress. In the observation lessons, the interaction between
the teacher, the teacher aide and Brian was noted. On one occasion, Brian needed
assistance with a particular part of the carpark assignment. He was incorrectly using
his calculator to find the perimeter. When his teacher approached, she sat down in
the chair beside Brian to assist. The teacher aide listened briefly then moved away to
assist other students. This seamless interaction was a way the two adults supported
each other and the learning in the classroom.
Type G Individual Student Characteristics, Abilities, and Personal Qualities
Brian was eager to learn. This was apparent throughout the observations. More
specifically, he was eager to learn mathematics that was being taught to the other
students in the class. His enthusiasm was described in his exclamation “I just love
it” which exemplified the finding on affect reported in a previous paper (Faragher
et al., 2019). At the final observation visit, the class was in the last few weeks of
secondary school and their assessments were largely complete. The other students
were keen to leave the secondary mathematics lessons behind and talk about post-
school parties. Not Brian! His teacher explained that a visit would be productive
because she was still preparing mathematics lessons for Brian (and any other student
who wanted—though there were no other takers!).
Individual Student Characteristics, Abilities and Personal Qualities … 241

Mathematically, Brian continued to have difficulty with arithmetic and used a

calculator to do any calculations required. Most lessons he was supported by a teacher
assistant.
Type B Student Mathematics Learning Activities
The mathematics learning activities that Brian was engaged in during observed
lessons were significant to inclusive practice and the resulting learning outcomes.
Brian in his early years in secondary school indicated the desire to study mathematics
that was like his peers’ program. Success with adjusted activities in the junior school
led to the expectation of participation in and the possibility of success with learning
year-level adjusted mathematics in the senior school. In the senior school, exit assess-
ment is required. The assessment tasks developed by the mathematics department
were designed to meet the requirements of the state syllabus. In preparing adjustments
for these tasks, his teacher had to present work with the right level of challenge. This
was not always easy to judge and the teacher talked in her interviews about the need
to make further adjustments sometimes during a lesson. She relied on the teacher
assistant and her interactions with Brian to discern when the level of challenge of
the tasks was too little or too much.
Type A Student Mathematics Learning Outcomes
Brian’s learning outcomes fell into two types—mathematical and non-mathematical.
As Brian was studying a senior subject, his work was assessed to state standards.
He received a passing grade for Prevocational Mathematics with the culmination
being the award of the Queensland Certificate of Education. Brian became adept at
the use of mathematical equipment, including graphics calculators and spreadsheets,
and indeed, he required these to remove the calculation load enabling him to engage
in the mathematical thinking and processes of the subject.
Beyond the achievement of mathematics learning outcomes, other learning
outcomes were evident. Brian enjoyed his engagement in the senior mathematics
classes and spoke with pride of his work. His teacher reported that his learning
behaviour had improved in other subject areas in the school that were not part of the
research study. This transfer is reminiscent of findings in the area of quality of life,
a framework for understanding disability. Researchers in that field have found that
interventions aimed at improving quality of life in one domain have led to unintended
benefits to other domains of life (Brown et al., 1989).
Impact of Type G on B and A
Brian’s learning characteristics could not be ignored by his teacher and had a signif-
icant impact on her work. The success Brian experienced in lessons (as evidenced
through his obvious enjoyment in lessons, engagement with tasks, and through
wanting to keep learning at the end of the school year) and in his exit assessment on
completion of the course, are success measures for the activities planned by Brian’s
teacher. These activities were carefully constructed based on his teacher’s deep
knowledge of him as a learner. She explicitly considered his learning characteristics
to develop activities that would build his mathematical understanding.
242 R. M. Faragher

An intriguing, and rarely considered side benefit in the PPP analysis of mathe-
matics education research, is the impact on the learning activities offered to the other
students in the class. Because the teacher had to take account of Brian’s significant
learning support needs, she provided activities that were supportive of the learning
needs of other struggling students in the class.

4.2.2 Jay

Like all students in the study, Jay has Down syndrome and an intellectual disability. In
the first year of the study, Jay was in his second year of secondary school, attending a
mainstream, co-educational Catholic school. The school has a tradition of educating
students from diverse backgrounds, with a variety of learning needs and accomplish-
ments. Jay’s class included students from a range of nationalities, many recently
arrived in the country.
His teacher had many years’ experience and Jay’s class was the bottom stream of
mathematics for the year level (students were assigned to classes based on achieve-
ment, with four classes—one for high, two for moderate and one for low achieve-
ment). The bottom stream class still had the expectations of meeting the year level
curriculum learning outcomes. In preparing for Jay’s class, his teacher, made few
adjustments. This was a bottom stream class and Jay was able to undertake activities
along with other students. The teacher used whole-class teaching of mathematics
techniques with worksheets to allow students to practise.
Assessment of the junior secondary mathematics involved tests and assignments.
Jay undertook the same tests as the other students in his class, which were designed
for the bottom stream class. In the second year of the project, Jay was observed
working on an assignment where he had the same task as others in the year level and
was required to undertake exploratory data analysis of various data sets, including
constructing back to back Stem and Leaf plots. He was observed using his laptop to
complete the questions that were not modified.
Each observed lesson there was at least one teacher aide assisting the teacher and
on occasions an additional cultural liaison assistant. Jay required little support from
the teacher aides. For example, in one observed lesson, his teacher aide, who used
a wheel chair, positioned his chair beside but a little behind Jay. From time to time
he drew Jay’s attention away from his worksheet, to the teacher giving instructions
at the whiteboard at the front of the class. The teacher aide assisted students nearby
when they required support.
Following the practice on the worksheet tasks, the teacher returned the focus to
the whiteboard, calling for responses from students. During this time, he asked direct
questions of Jay, based on what he had noticed Jay was able to do on his sheet.
One observed lesson was taught by a casual teacher, replacing the teacher on
sick leave. This relief teacher assumed Jay would need easier work than the other
students and had prepared a simpler level worksheet on the topic ratio, the same topic
as the rest of the class. When the worksheet phase of the lesson was commenced,
the teacher immediately gave Jay the easier worksheet. I asked the teacher if Jay
Individual Student Characteristics, Abilities and Personal Qualities … 243

might also have the worksheet being given to the rest of the class. She immediately
agreed and gave the second sheet to Jay who was initially concerned. He was unsure
what sheet he should do and his desire to complete work required reassurance from
his teacher that he only needed to complete one of the sheets. Jay completed the
unmodified worksheet without error.
Type G Individual Student Characteristics, Abilities, and Personal Qualities
Although in year 8, Jay had been assessed by the school as being at a year 3 level in
mathematics. Jay is a serious student, dedicated to his work. He is strongly motivated
to complete assigned tasks. In observed lessons, he was never seen to be off-task.
Amid exuberant adolescents, he sat quietly working away on his mathematics. For
each of the observed lessons, Jay was prepared for his class, fastidious in his attention
to having the right equipment, including his laptop, textbook, and notebooks. It was
perhaps remarkable to note that Jay was arguably the most dedicated student in his
class. Some of the adolescent behaviours expected in bottom stream classes, including
disengagement, off-task distractions, and lack of motivation were exhibited by other
students, but not Jay. In every observed lesson, Jay diligently completed the tasks
assigned to the class, mostly without adjustments. An observable aspect of Jay’s
work was his attention to the steps in a process. His dedication and emphasis on task
completion were attributes that supported his work in this class, where his enjoyment
was evident in following the steps in mathematical procedures and exercises that were
required to be successful in that class.
These Type G variables are quite different from those usually reported for students
with intellectual disabilities. Those reports, such as in research and professional
literature more commonly focus on learning deficits. School documentation that
indicated year 3 level in mathematics further emphasize deficit and when considering
Type B variables, have a direct impact on tasks offered to students.
Type B Student Mathematics Learning Activities
By being included in the general mathematics class, Jay experienced the same
learning activities as his classmates in the whole class instruction phase. In the phases
that focused on consolidation and practice, usually through worksheets or computer
based exercises, differentiation of learning activities occurred. Being the bottom
stream class of the year level, the level of mathematical challenge had already been
reduced for the class and Jay did not indicate he needed further adjustment during
the observed lessons. However, as was noted earlier, on at least one occasion, the
learning activity he was initially provided was made simpler than it needed to be.
Type A Student Mathematics Learning Outcomes
For Jay, the learning outcomes were measured through the use of worksheets and
assignment tasks. As part of the data collection for the project, photographs of these
completed sheets were taken. One lesson culminated in the completion of exercises
on index notation where he completed each exercise without error. The lesson obser-
vation and the learning artefacts can only provide evidence of the completion of
244 R. M. Faragher

procedures—following the steps of the process. We can know little of Jay’s under-
standing of the structures of mathematics underpinning these steps. However, it must
also be noted that such evidence was not obtained from other members of the class,
either. All were asked to demonstrate that they could complete the assigned exercises
and the requirement was met if the steps were completed without error.
Impact of Type G on B and A
The Type G variables—the learner characteristics—that Jay brought to his mathe-
matics lessons might reasonably be presumed to offer expectations of mathematical
success. Those Type A outcomes were initially at risk, though, through presump-
tions of more pervasive mathematics learning difficulties than actually existed. The
relief teacher did not know the student and made the assumption, perhaps based on
school documentation, that he would need a simpler sheet. She automatically gave
the easier worksheet to Jay, without checking, and without offering the sheet to any
other learner. This indicates the danger of offering learning adjustments before a
student demonstrates the adjustments are required.
High expectations and presumed competence are needed to counteract the
pervasive deficit discourse about learners with intellectual disabilities.

4.2.3 Mary

Mary lives in a small town in a farming district. She attends her local school and at the
time of the project was in her first year of secondary school. Mary seemed to enjoy her
time at school and liked interacting playfully with her teacher and teacher assistants.
In the first observation, she was being taught alongside two other students with
significant, but very different learning support needs arising from other disabilities
than Down syndrome. The class had 30 students and was taught by the teacher with
two assistants working with the students with disabilities to the side of the class.
In the first year of the project, Mary’s teacher prepared different activities for Mary
from the main lesson she planned for the class. This approach changed as the research
progressed. At the first observation, Mary was being taught in a segregated approach
and over the two years, she gradually became more included in the general class
activities. This mirrored Mary’s developing social inclusion (Koller et al., 2018). For
example, her teacher told of her walking to school each day, with a mobile phone
should she need assistance when originally she had been driven to school. Similarly,
on the first observation day, Mary had been having lunch on her own in the school
library. On later visits, she spent lunchtime in the school playground.
In this section, the teacher’s changing inclusive practice will be presented and
then, using the Medley/Manizade et al. (2023) model, these data will be analyzed to
suggest how teacher reflection on the impact of Type G variables (individual student
characteristics, abilities, and personal qualities) can lead to profound changes in their
inclusive mathematics teaching practice.
The first lesson observed was from a year 7 statistics unit where students were
learning about Stem and Leaf plots. The lesson was adjusted for Mary. She collected
Individual Student Characteristics, Abilities and Personal Qualities … 245

data about screen time usage, as the other students did, however, instead of using
the data to construct a Stem and Leaf plot, she was given another task of putting
numbers in order. In the post-lesson conversation, the researchers and the teacher
discussed the possibility of teaching Mary to construct a Stem and Leaf plot. After
the next lesson, the teacher sent the team a photo of the student’s work sample
where she had completed a Stem and Leaf plot. This led the teacher to reflect on the
structure of her teaching and in the following lessons, she adopted inclusive teaching
practice, planning the one lesson with adjustments for Mary based on her learning
characteristics.
In the next year, the now year 8 class was learning about adding and subtracting
positive and negative integers. The teacher found a lesson from a website that focused
on rich tasks for gifted and talented learners. In a pre-lesson conversation, she
discussed how she had thought about how she would engage Mary in the context of
the lesson. The task was a game that was to be played in pairs where each player had
a hot air balloon with hot air and sandbags affecting the height. She found a video
clip of hot air balloons to introduce the lesson to ensure that Mary would understand
the context of the game. Because the lesson involved a game, she chose the student
who she would assign to play with Mary. The activity game cards were prepared for
each group in the class and were made by the teacher before the lesson.
At the start of the lesson, the video was played and Mary moved her chair so she
could be directly in front of the screen. When the class broke into groups to play
the game, the teacher assistant sat with Mary and her classmate and helped them to
learn the rules of the game. Once the students were settled to the task, the teacher
aide gradually withdrew. The teacher then asked the assistant to complete some
administrative work on the computer at the teacher’s desk. The students continued
to play the game without further teacher assistance.
Type G Individual Student Characteristics, Abilities, and Personal Qualities
Mary’s learner characteristics had a significant impact on the planning that her teacher
undertook. In addition, she also considered the learner characteristics of the other
students in the class, specifically when she selected a student to partner with Mary in
the mathematics game. She chose a student who liked working with Mary and who
would not over support her.
Type B Student Mathematics Learning Activities
Mary had the opportunity to learn year-level mathematics through engaging in
learning activities with her class peers. Her teacher had embraced the idea of an
inclusive year-level curriculum and developed her planning whereby she no longer
prepared separate lessons for learners with intellectual disabilities. Instead, she made
adjustments to ensure Mary could engage with lessons. Mary, in turn, responded by
expressing her enjoyment of working in the mathematics lessons. She also enjoyed
working with her classmates.
246 R. M. Faragher

Type A Student Mathematics Learning Outcomes

Achievement of learning outcomes was indicated by completed tasks. Lesson arte-
facts were collected, such as photographs of completed activities. Other indications
of Mary’s learning were also obtained by observing her responses in the lessons. In
the lesson on operations with integers, Mary quickly learned the rules of the game.
The winner was the balloon that reached the top of the vertical axis first. Each turn
of the cards involved turning over a positive or negative sign and then a positive or
negative number. Mary loved to win and when she turned her cards and saw that she
had to move the balloon down, she refused to move the balloon. It was obvious that
not only did she understand how to operate with integers, but also, she could do so in
her head. Furthermore, she insisted on playing until she won, gaining much practice
in the process.
Impact of Student Characteristics on Learning Activities and Outcomes (Type G on
B and A)
As for Jay, Type G variables initially led to restrictions in the mathematics offered to
Mary. There was an assumption that her intellectual disability would require different
activities for the lesson (Type B), leading to detrimental impacts on the learning
outcomes (Type A). What also was evident was how quickly the teacher was able to
make profound changes to her practice through reflection on the lesson and engage-
ment in a conversation with researchers about the lesson. Here is an indication of
the role of researchers in a teacher’s professional ecosystem. Teachers do not work
in isolation and having a colleague to support reflection and stimulate professional
growth has clear benefits for students’ learning outcomes.
The teacher already had the required pedagogical skills and practices in her reper-
toire. Her initial approach appeared to be governed by what she believed was a
necessary response to the Type G learning support needs of her student. As her
knowledge of the student grew, and encouragement to try adjusting the year level
curriculum had an impact on the learning outcomes (she could see what the student
could achieve) she fundamentally changed her teaching approach to a genuinely
inclusive mathematics classroom.
A striking development was the use the teacher made of rich tasks from a collection
of resources to challenge gifted and talented learners. She saw value in the use of
these tasks in meeting the diverse learning needs of her students.

4.3 Learner Characteristics, the Mathematics They Engage

in and the Learning Outcomes They Achieve

In times past (and not that long ago), students with learning disabilities were rarely
given the opportunity to learn mathematics at their year-level. Exploration of exam-
ples where teachers have adjusted the year-level curriculum for their students at
Individual Student Characteristics, Abilities and Personal Qualities … 247

primary and secondary level are instructive for considering how learning character-
istics attenuate relationships between mathematics learning activities (Type B) and
the resultant learning outcomes (Type A). A focus on students who struggle with
learning mathematics allows us to examine what might be possible for all learners.
What is clear is that these learner attributes in no way predetermine the learning
outcomes. Learners need the opportunity to engage with year level mathematics,
adjusted to be at the level of productive challenge (Gilmore & Cuskelly, 2014).
Before and during lessons, teachers make adjustments in dynamic ways where they
bring their understanding of mathematics, the learning outcomes intended, and their
knowledge of the learner to the decisions they make. Dynamic judgments about the
level of challenge and required support allowed teachers to respond where initial
over-support was being made to students’ learning activities. Over-support has the
potential harm of reducing the mathematics learning outcomes, and it was important
that teachers responded and corrected this at the point when it occurred.
In all the lessons observed in both the primary and secondary projects reported
earlier in this section of the chapter, the students were engaged in learning math-
ematics for their year level. In contradiction to what is commonly portrayed or
anticipated by guides to teaching students with mathematics learning difficulties, the
students in our project were rarely off task, when the work was the same topic as
their peers. Indeed, as we saw with both Jay and Brian, these boys were at times more
focussed than their peers without disabilities. The impact on learners, particularly
those in the secondary years, was pronounced with benefits not only to their math-
ematics learning outcomes but also to their self-concept as learners of mathematics
and learners in general.

4.4 Implications from These Studies

In the examples from YLAC mathematics research projects, we see students with
significant individual characteristics and abilities likely to have an impact on their
mathematics learning. These attributes are outside the control of the teacher and
yet as has been seen, teacher actions can ameliorate student attributes and lead to
productive learning outcomes. Rather than these attributes determining the learning
outcomes, a case can be made that while student attributes might affect the work
of teachers and the learners themselves, mathematics learning outcomes at the year
level are indeed possible.
Teachers in our studies underpinned their work with the expectation that their
students could be successful at year-level mathematics. If there were barriers, they
worked to find ways around through adjustments to learning materials or approaches
to the topics. A common feature was that small suggestions regarding possibili-
ties for changing approaches to be more inclusive were taken up by the teachers
in creative and reflective ways, leading to new approaches in their classrooms or
different responses from students.
248 R. M. Faragher

These studies of the practices of effective inclusive mathematics teachers indicate

the dynamic nature of teaching and responding to the learning of students due to the
characteristics they bring with them to the learning process. Teachers’ planning is
affected before, and during, the lesson as teachers think and problem solve and make
decisions in the moment. It is clear that individual student characteristics affect
learning outcomes but in surprising ways. Creative, reflexive teachers respond to
these characteristics by changing, adjusting, and developing the mathematics learning
activities offered not just to the students with learning disabilities and difficulties,
but to all learners in the class. Learning outcomes are likely to be improved for all.
As a way out of low attainment, this is a critical aspect of mathematics education and
an imperative of mathematics education research to further explore its possibilities.
This research also calls into further question the persistent, detrimental practice
of streaming based on previous attainment. By planning for all learners, anticipating
diversity and providing learning adjustments as required to year level curriculum,
teachers have an alternative to separating students into coarse class groupings with
known detrimental impacts.

5 Implications

Learning characteristics of students with intellectual disabilities cannot be ignored—

they have too great an impact on teachers’ work. When embracing the teaching of
diverse learners, teachers commence planning with learners’ characteristics central
to their thinking.
Medley (1987) defined Type G variables as “individual student characteristics,
abilities and personal qualities which determine outcomes of any specific learning
experience”. Recent research, as outlined in this chapter, raises questions about
the determinism of outcomes. Similar questions also emerge from a greater under-
standing of the impact of disability on learning, a field that continues to evolve and
with greater opportunities for learning afforded by inclusive practice around the
world, continues to surprise teachers and researchers alike. Perhaps a more accu-
rate definition for Type G variables might be those learner variables that “affect
outcomes”, rather than determine outcomes. These learner variables do not deter-
mine outcomes, at least in a predictable way. Indeed, by continuing to explore ways
to make learning accessible for students who are variable in their characteristics,
abilities, and qualities (Type G), there is the capacity for teachers to be surprised
(Russo et al, 2020). This surprise is likely to affect preactive teacher activities (Type
D) with flow on implications right through to student learning outcomes (Type A).
In addition to modification to the definition of Type G variables, there are impli-
cations for the placement of these variables in the framework. Currently, Type G
variables are shown to act between Type B and Type A. New ways of thinking about
learning for students with learning difficulties and disabilities, challenges us to think
about new ways of representing where Type G variables affect the PPP process.
Individual Student Characteristics, Abilities and Personal Qualities … 249

Teachers do not plan a lesson and teach it to the class only to find that learner charac-
teristics are affecting how that information is received. When working with diverse
learners, teachers factor in learner characteristics much earlier on, and throughout
the PPP process.
In this chapter exploring the impact of learner variables on student outcomes, a
focus has been taken on learners who struggle with mathematics. These students
present a considerable challenge to teachers as they work to improve learning
outcomes. In most countries around the world, it has only been in recent times
that students with significant mathematics learning difficulties and disabilities have
been included in mainstream classrooms with the expectation that they can achieve
learning outcomes. A deep understanding of the practice of teachers in these contexts
is still emerging (Tan et al., 2019). It would seem that there is much more to learn
about Type G variables and their effect on student learning outcomes and especially
so in inclusive mathematics classrooms. Furthermore, there is much to learn about
how teachers grow professionally through reflecting on the interplay between learner
variables, student activities, and the resulting learning outcomes.

References

Browder, D. M., & Spooner, F. (Eds.). (2014). More language arts, math and science for students
with severe disabilities. Brookes.
Browder, D. M., Trela, K., Courtade, G. R., Jimenez, B. A., Knight, V., & Flowers, C. (2012).
Teaching mathematics and science standards to students with moderate and severe develop-
mental disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 46(1), 26–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0022466910369942
Brown, R. I., Bayer, M. B., & MacFarlane, C. (1989). Rehabilitation programmes: Performance
and quality of life of adults with developmental handicaps. Lugus.
Bruner, J. S. (1960, 1977). The process of education. Harvard University Press.
Butterworth, B., Varma, S., & Laurillard, D. (2011). Dyscalculia: From brain to education. Science,
332(6033), 1049–1053. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1201536
CAST. (2020). Timeline of innovation. Center for applied special technology. http://www.cast.org/
impact/timeline-innovation
Chan, M. C. E., & Clarke, D. (2017). Structured affordances in the use of open-ended tasks to
facilitate collaborative problem solving. ZDM Mathematics Education, 49(6), 951–963. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11858-017-0876-2
Clarke, B., & Faragher, R. (2004). Possibilities not limitations: Teaching special needs children.
In B. Clarke, D. M. Clarke, G. Emanuelsson, B. Johansson, D. V. Lambdin, F. K. Lester, A.
Wallby, & K. Wallby (Eds.), International perspectives on learning and teaching mathematics
(pp. 379–394). National Center for Mathematics Education.
Clarke, B., & Faragher, R. (2014). Developing early number concepts for children with Down
syndrome. In R. Faragher & B. Clarke (Eds.), Educating learners with Down syndrome.
Research, theory, and practice with children and adolescents (pp. 146–162). Routledge.
Clarke, D. M., Cheeseman, J., Gervasoni, A., Gronn, D., Horne, M., McDonough, A., Montgomery,
P., Roche, A., Sullivan, P., Clarke, B. A., & Rowley, G. (2002). Early numeracy research project
final report. Mathematics Teaching and Learning Centre, Australian Catholic University.
Cockroft, W. H. (1982). Mathematics counts: Report of the committee of inquiry into the teaching
of mathematics in schools. HMSO.
250 R. M. Faragher

Creech-Galloway, C., & Collins, B. C. (2013). Using a simultaneous prompting procedure with
an iPad to teach the Pythagorean Theorem to adolescents with moderate intellectual disability.
Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 38(4), 222–232. https://doi.org/10.
1177/154079691303800402
Cuskelly, M., & Faragher, R. (2019). Developmental dyscalculia and Down syndrome: Indica-
tive evidence. International Journal of Disability, Development & Education, 66(2), 151–161.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912X.2019.1569209
Dalby, D., & Swan, M. (2019). Using digital technology to enhance formative assessment in mathe-
matics classrooms. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(2), 832–845. https://doi.org/
10.1111/bjet.12606
Dehaene, S. (2011). The number sense. How the mind creates mathematics. (Revised and Expanded
ed.). Oxford University Press.
Dowker, A., & Kaufmann, L. (2009). Atypical development of numerical cognition: Characteristics
of developmental dyscalculia. Cognitive Development, 24, 339–342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cogdev.2009.09.010
Dowker, A., Sarkar, A., & Looi, C. Y. (2016). Mathematics anxiety: What have we learned in 60
years? Frontiers in Psychology, 7:508. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00508
Downton, A., Knight, R., Clarke, D., & Lewis, G. (2006). Mathematics assessment for learning:
Rich tasks & work samples. Australian Catholic University.
Faragher, R. (2017). ‘Functional’ mathematics in an electronic age: Implications for classroom
practice. In V. Barker, T. Spencer, & K. Manuel (Eds.), Capital maths. Proceedings of the
26th biennial conference of the australian association of mathematics teachers Inc. (pp. 8–17).
AAMT.
Faragher, R. (2019). The new ‘functional mathematics’ for learners with Down syndrome: Numeracy
for a digital world. International Journal of Disability, Development & Education, 66(2), 206–
217. https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912X.2019.1571172
Faragher, R., & Clarke, B. (2014). Mathematics profile of the learner with Down syndrome. In R.
Faragher & B. Clarke (Eds.), Educating learners with Down syndrome. Research, theory, and
practice with children and adolescents (pp. 119–145). Routledge.
Faragher, R., & Clarke, B. (2020). Inclusive practices in the teaching of mathematics: Some find-
ings from research including children with Down syndrome. Mathematics Education Research
Journal, 32(1), 121–146. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-019-00294-x
Faragher, R., Hill, J., & Clarke, B. (2016). Inclusive practices in mathematics education. In K.
Makar, S. Dole, J. Visnovska, M. Goos, A. Bennison, & K. Fry (Eds.), Research in mathematics
education in Australasia: 2012–2015 (pp. 119–141). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-
10-1419-2_7
Faragher, R., Beswick, K., Cuskelly, M., & Nankervis, K. (2019). The affective impact of inclusive
secondary mathematics for learners with Down syndrome: “I just love it!”. In G. Hine, S.
Blackley, & A. Cooke (Eds.), Mathematics education research: impacting practice (Proceedings
of the 42nd annual conference of the mathematics education research group of Australasia)
(pp. 260–267). MERGA. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED604496.pdf
Flores, M. M. (2010). Using the concrete-representational-abstract sequence to teach subtraction
with regrouping to students at risk for failure. Remedial and Special Education, 31(3), 195–207.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932508327467
Florian, L. (2012). Preparing teachers to work in inclusive classrooms: Key lessons for the profes-
sional development of teacher educators from Scotland’s Inclusive Practice Project. Journal of
Teacher Education, 63(4), 275–285. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487112447112
Forgasz, H. (2010). Streaming for mathematics in years 7–10 in Victoria: An issue of equity?
Mathematics Education Research Journal, 22, 57–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03217559
Forgasz, H., & Cheeseman, J. (2015). Effective and inclusive mathematics teaching and learning.
In J. M. Deppeler, T. Loreman, R. Smith, & L. Florian (Eds.), Inclusive pedagogy across the
curriculum (Vol. 7, pp. 73–97). Emerald Group. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1479-363620150000
007011
Individual Student Characteristics, Abilities and Personal Qualities … 251

Gilmore, L., & Cuskelly, M. (2014). Mastery motivation in children with Down syndrome.
Promoting and sustaining interest in learning. In R. Faragher & B. Clarke (Eds.), Educating
learners with Down syndrome. Research, theory, and practice with children and adolescents.
(pp. 60–82). Routledge.
Goos, M., Geiger, V., & Bennison, A. (2015). Conceptualising and enacting numeracy across the
curriculum. In K. Beswick, T. Muir, & J. Wells (Eds.), Proceedings of the 39th psychology of
mathematics education conference. (Vol. 3, pp. 9–16). PME.
Hehir, T., Grindal, T., Freeman, B., Lamoreau, R., Borquaye, Y., & Burke, S. (2016). A summary
of the evidence on inclusive education. Abt Associates. http://alana.org.br/wp-content/uploads/
2016/12/A_Summary_of_the_evidence_on_inclusive_education.pdf
Hunter, J., Hunter, R., & Anthony, G. (2020). Shifting towards equity: Challenging teacher views
about student capability in mathematics. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 32, 37–55.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-019-00293-y
Kaufmann, L., & von Aster, M. (2012). The diagnosis and management of dyscalculia. Deutsches
Ärzteblatt International, 109(45), 767–778. https://doi.org/10.3238/arztebl.2012.0767
Koller, D., Le Pouesard, M., & Rummens, J. A. (2018). Defining social inclusion for children with
disabilities: A critical literature review. Children & Society, 32, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1111/
chso.12223
Lewis, K. E. (2014). Difference not deficit: Reconceptualizing mathematical learning disabilities.
Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 45(3), 351–396. https://doi.org/10.5951/jre
sematheduc.45.3.0351
Linchevski, L., & Kutscher, B. (1998). Tell me with whom you’re learning, and I’ll tell you how
much you’ve learned: Mixed-ability versus same-ability grouping in mathematics. Journal for
Research in Mathematics Education, 29(5), 533–554. https://doi.org/10.2307/749732
Lindenskov, L., & Lindhardt, B. (2020). Exploring approaches for inclusive mathematics teaching
in Danish public schools. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 32, 57–75. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s13394-019-00303-z
Mason, J., Burton, L., & Stacey, K. (2010). Thinking mathematically (2nd extended ed.). Addison-
Wesley.
Medley, D. M. (1987). Evolution of research on teaching. International encyclopedia of teaching
(pp. 105–113). Pergamon.
Manizade, A. G., Ribeiro, M., Makonye, J., Mellone, M., & Jakobsen, A. (2019). International
perspectives on evolution of research on teaching mathematics. In M. Graven, H. Venkat, A.
Essien, & P. Vale (Eds.), Proceedings of the 43rd conference of the international group for the
psychology of mathematics education (Vol. 1, pp. 179–180). PME.
Manizade, A. G., Buchholtz, N., & Beswick, K. (2023). The evolution of research on teaching
mathematics: International perspectives in the digital era: Introduction. In A. Manizade et al.
(Eds.), The evolution of research on teaching mathematics. Mathematics education in the digital
era (Vol. 22). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-31193-2_1
Monari Martinez, E., & Benedetti, N. (2011). Learning mathematics in mainstream secondary
schools: Experiences of students with Down’s syndrome. European Journal of Special Needs
Education, 26(4), 531–540. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2011.597179
Parsons, S., & Hallam, S. (2014). The impact of streaming on attainment at age seven: Evidence
from the Millennium Cohort Study. Oxford Review of Education, 40(5), 567–589. https://doi.
org/10.1080/03054985.2014.959911
Peters, L., & De Smedt, B. (2018). Arithmetic in the developing brain: A review of brain imaging
studies. Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, 30, 265–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcn.
2017.05.002
Räsänena, P., Salminena, J., Wilson, A. J., Aunioa, P., & Dehaene, S. (2009). Computer-assisted
intervention for children with low numeracy skills. Cognitive Development, 24, 450–472. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2009.09.003
Russo, J., Bobis, J., Downton, A., Hughes, S., Livy, S., McCormick, M., & Sullivan, P. (2020).
Students who surprise teachers when learning mathematics through problem solving in the
252 R. M. Faragher

early primary years. International Journal of Innovation in Science and Mathematics Education,
28(3), 14–23. https://doi.org/10.30722/IJISME.28.03.002
Scherer, P., Beswick, K., DeBlois, L., Healy, L., & Opitz, E. M. (2016). Assistance of students
with mathematical learning difficulties: How can research support practice? ZDM Mathematics
Education, 48, 633–649. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-016-0800-1
Skagerlund, K., & Träff, U. (2016). Number processing and heterogeneity of developmental dyscal-
culia: Subtypes with different cognitive profiles and deficits. Journal of Learning Disabilities,
49(1), 36–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219414522707
Sullivan, P. (2017). Challenging mathematical tasks. Oxford University Press.
Sullivan, P., Mousley, J., & Zevenbergen, R. (2006). Teacher actions to maximize mathematics
learning opportunities in heterogeneous classrooms. International Journal of Science and
Mathematics Education, 4, 117–143. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-005-9002-y
Tan, P., Lamber, R., Padilla, A., & Wieman, R. (2019). A disability studies in mathematics education
review of intellectual disabilities: Directions for future inquiry and practice. The Journal of
Mathematical Behavior, 54(June), 100672. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2018.09.001
United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. (2016). General Comment
No.4, Article 24: Right to inclusive education. https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/
GEN/G16/263/00/PDF/G1626300.pdf?OpenElement
United Nations. (2006). Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities and its optional
protocol. http://www.un.org/disabilities/default.asp?navid=15&pid=150
Vale, C., Atweh, B., Averill, R., & Skourdoumbis, A. (2016). Equity, social justice and ethics in
mathematics education. In K. Makar, S. Dole, J. Visnovska, M. Goos, A. Bennison, & K. Fry
(Eds.), Research in mathematics education in Australasia 2012–2015 (pp. 97–118). Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-1419-2_6
Verschaffel, L., Lehtinen, E., & Van Dooren, W. (2016). Neuroscientific studies of mathematical
thinking and learning: A critical look from a mathematics education viewpoint. ZDM, 48, 385–
391. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-016-0781-0
Wilkinson, S. D., & Penney, D. (2014). The effects of setting on classroom teaching and student
learning in mainstream mathematics, English and science lessons: A critical review of the
literature in England. Educational Review, 66(4), 411–427. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.
2013.787971
Wilson, S. (2018). “Fail at maths and you fail at life”: Learned barriers to equal opportunities—
Mathematics anxiety and quality of life. In R. I. Brown & R. M. Faragher (Eds.), Quality of life
and intellectual disability: Knowledge application to other social and educational challenges.
(Revised ed., pp. 71–87). Nova.
Xin, Y. P., & Tzur, R. (2016). Cross-disciplinary thematic special series: Special education and
mathematics education. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 39(4), 196–198. https://doi.org/10.
1177/0731948716669816
Zevenbergen, R. (2005). The construction of a mathematical habitus: Implications of ability
grouping in the middle years. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37(5), 607–619. https://doi.org/
10.1080/00220270500038495
Individual Student Characteristics, Abilities and Personal Qualities … 253

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate
credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and
indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative
Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by
statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder.
Individual Student Internal Contexts
and Considerations for Mathematics
Teaching and Learning

S. Megan Che and T. Evan Baker

1 Introduction

School classrooms are enormously intricate, complex, dynamic, and, to an extent,

unpredictable spaces where diverse humans meet together to deepen and expand their
intellectual prowess. As the introductory chapter to this volume more fully explicates,
the field of mathematics education research has devoted much intensive time and
effort to improving our understandings of the myriad factors pertaining to teaching
and learning in mathematics classrooms. Specifically, the chapters in this volume are
connected in our shared endeavors to elaborate on one of the contexts adapted from
Medley’s (1987) framework, which include internal and external student and teacher
contexts as well as characteristics and qualities of students, teachers, and learning
environments.
Within this larger project, this chapter presents, discusses, and problema-
tizes the progression of our field’s understandings of individual student internal
contexts through considerations of (1) meanings of internal/external (subject/object)
dichotomies, (2) individual student cognitive processes, (3) individual student affec-
tive processes, (4) how these individual student cognitive and affective experiences
connect with (are informed by and inform) each other as well as broader communi-
ties such as mathematics classroom learning environments and home environments,
and (5) implications for teachers and teacher educators.
Specifically, we situate the notion of an individual student as an entity in contin-
uous dialectic with environmental influences, to the point that—at one scale, it

S. Megan Che (B) · T. Evan Baker

Department of Teaching and Learning, Clemson University, 101 Gantt Circle Office 404E,
Clemson, SC 29634, USA
e-mail: [email protected]
T. Evan Baker
e-mail: [email protected]

© The Author(s) 2023 255

A. Manizade et al. (eds.), The Evolution of Research on Teaching Mathematics,
Mathematics Education in the Digital Era 22,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-31193-2_9
256 S. Megan Che and T. Evan Baker

becomes meaningless to distinguish between individual and environment. As we

begin this chapter, we explicate the scale we choose to use for our chapter: the scale
at which individuals are distinguishable from each other and their environments but
also inseparable from each other and their environments. In so doing, we elaborate a
connected perspective of student identity. We then similarly situate the experiences of
cognition and affect prior to deeply considering the progression of our understand-
ings of students’ cognitive and affective processes. We proceed to articulate and
examine ways these individual experiences connect with multi-individual commu-
nities like home environments and mathematics classrooms. Our chapter ends with a
consideration, from the lens of social justice, of implications of these understandings
for teachers and teacher educators.

2 Context

The title of this chapter presents a few boundaries and restrictions on our field of
view in an attempt to focus the reader’s attention on what we (the authors) would
like for you to be attending to. Aware of the risk of reductively simplifying and
nonchalantly utilizing heavy-handed attention-directing tactics, we here attempt to
openly articulate our meanings for these boundaries vis-à-vis the purposes of this
chapter. The first of these boundaries is the concept of an “individual”. As von
Glasersfeld (2013) points out, humans dialectically and continually construct and
reconstruct themselves based on one’s analysis (however (un)aware one may be of
this analysis) of how one’s peers view one. That is, I continually (re)construct my
notion of myself as an individual based, to a practically meaningful extent, on who
I think people around me think I am. Thus, my individuality is inseparable from
the constructions of people around me, on which I (at least partially, and however
unconsciously) base my own notion of who I am; identity construction is an inter-
twined, reflexive process of “understanding who I am and whom you see” (Walshaw,
2010, p. 490). For teachers, this means that the self-fulfilling prophecy is at best
incomplete (Wineburg, 1987); students do not simply live up to the expectations of
teachers because teachers’ expectations are not transmitted directly and unfiltered to
students. Students construct their ideas about teachers’ expectations and perspectives
of them for themselves, based on their experiences with teachers. To the extent that
teachers’ constructions of students influence those students’ identity constructions of
themselves as students, these students respond to what they (the students) think their
teacher’s expectations are of them. In constructing ourselves, we do so by playing
at shadows, mirror images, or doubles (Žižek, 1989; Turner & Oronato, 1999). A
potential implication for teachers of reflexive, complex, and non-linear processes of
identity construction is that our beliefs are not imparted in a direct one-to-one fashion
onto students’ psyches (Walshaw, 2010). As a teacher, for instance, if I fervently
believe that all students are capable of doing important mathematics, that belief
risks residing only within myself since—unless my students realize/internalize that
Individual Student Internal Contexts and Considerations … 257

I am constructing them as capable, talented, and smart—they may not (re)construct

themselves as such in our class.
The notion of individuality is further quickly complicated when one considers that
not all aspects of an individual, or not all of one’s identities, may be equally prone
to this process of reflexive reconstruction. Additionally, not every “other” may hold
equal sway over one’s reconstruction of themselves. Certain, perhaps more peripheral
characteristics or personality traits may vary relatively widely over the course of a
year, a month, a week, or even within a day (Markus & Kunda, 1986; Turner &
Onorato, 1999). Other, perhaps more central, identity aspects tend to be more stable,
though still dynamic (Markus & Kunda, 1986; Turner & Onorato, 1999). With time,
experience, and attention teachers can develop an awareness of which aspects of their
students’ individualities they might have the potential to influence and which aspects
are more deeply ingrained. Further, as teachers understand from their own experience,
the quality and quantity of leverage we hold over the individual constructions of
others are variable from person to person and also across time; we may be able to
more firmly convince a student one day of our belief in their potentialities than we
are on another day, and we may be less successful in our convincing than a different
teacher of that same student.
Because of the dynamic nature of at least some aspects of identity, it is important
for us to understand that one individual student may exhibit, enact, and construct
different student identities in different academic disciplines (Aydeniz & Hodge,
2011). Even within one discipline (mathematics, for instance), an individual student’s
identity may be changing and changeable. To encapsulate these dynamic processes
and complexities, we see (mathematics) identity as a fluid construct that dialectically
shapes and is shaped by social context; for our chapter, this context is a complex range
of individual, cultural, and social influences in a learning environment that are often
in states of tension between conflicting roles and relationships that are activated at
any moment in a mathematics classroom (McAdams, 2001; McCaslin, 2009; Nasir,
2002).
In the following sections, we focus closely on students’ construction of math-
ematics and students’ psychosocial construction of themselves as students of and
doers of mathematics. In this opening section, however, we seek to foreground
the interdependency of our individualities as we simultaneously acknowledge that,
at some scale (for instance, the scale of visible physical humans in a classroom)
we exist as sets of seemingly separate individuals brought together in community.
We posit that, from a different perspective (for instance, the not-directly-visible
cosmos composed of strands of relationship, influence, power, and control) and—
for many of the purposes of mathematics teaching and learning—we function more
as interconnected beings, inextricable from the perceptions of our surrounding envi-
ronment, which we ourselves also influence. As such, we (co)construct as we are
(co)constructed by the webs that enmesh us; the ontological status of our identities is
unclear and perhaps unknowable (Turner & Onorato, 1999; von Glasersfeld, 2001;
Walshaw, 2010; Walkerdine, 2003; Žižek, 1989, 1998). For us, the implications of
the uncertain ontology of identity are that we expect (and, at times, seek) the unex-
pected. In the indeterminacy of identity, for us, resides the potential for curiosity and
258 S. Megan Che and T. Evan Baker

wonder not just about our natural worlds but about our ‘own’ selves and those selves
of our students. This affords us opportunities for expansiveness and responsiveness.
This complex indeterminacy of identity also poses research challenges, not the
least of which is a variety of theories of identity. In the preceding discussion, we have
implicitly placed ourselves in a more poststructural view of identity than psycholog-
ical or socio-cultural (Grootenboer et al., 2006) because of our emphasis on dynamic
process (becoming) and on the relative nature of identity, but even that placement
is murky since our perspective shares many salient features with a socio-cultural
perspective, including the embodied and connected nature of identity. The experience
of not being quite able to provide a static, definitive definition for a critically impor-
tant aspect of student mathematical reality can be frustrating as well as confusing; in
our work, we are becoming more comfortable with uncertainty and more cognizant
of the value in process rather than product. That is, we see the process of thinking
through and with these various perspectives to be increasingly important to our
research methods and methodologies. Our distance from a definitive “answer” to the
nature of identity is becoming less of a challenge for us to navigate because we see
that distance as providing space for (re)thinking and (re)envisioning what we think
we know.
Another boundary we establish in our title is that of focusing on internal rather
than external contexts. What might we mean by that? Encircled and embedded as
we are within dialectical, dynamic, non-linear and non-deterministic connection,
all reverberating within material and historical situations, experiences, and narra-
tives, on what level does it make sense to distinguish between internal and external?
The demarcation of internal contexts serves, for the purposes of this chapter, to
establish an operationalization of what the object (see Deleuze & Guiattari, 1994;
Gallagher, 2000; Russell, 2001; Wittgenstein, 1969 for a sampling of philosophical
considerations of self, subject, and object) of this chapter is—mathematics students’
psychosocial processes of identity and content construction in school mathematics.
For much of this chapter, we will examine students’ constructions of themselves and
their mathematical contexts with an aim of better understanding how students come
to understand themselves as mathematics students as well as how students under-
stand mathematics. This understanding of students’ understandings can, hopefully,
further our reflexive (re)construction of ourselves as mathematics teachers and as
mathematics teacher educators. Therefore, our meaning for the word “internal” in
our title signifies that the primary basis of understanding for this chapter derives
from insights students construct within themselves about themselves as mathematics
students as well as the perceptions they have (co)constructed for/within themselves
about the discipline of school mathematics.
Understanding that these student insights about themselves and about mathematics
are situated within (that is, formed by and also forming) threads and strands of
material and historical circumstance, community (defined at various scales), and
family (expansively conceived), we want to reiterate that we are not attempting to
pretend away those strands but rather, for the moments of the reading and writing
of much of this chapter, to foreground the students in the strands rather than the
strands. In the penultimate section of this chapter, we (re)focus on the ways in which
Individual Student Internal Contexts and Considerations … 259

students interact and relate with (that is, how they are formed by and how they
form) the threads and strands connecting them with events and circumstances at
broader scales than an individual. Additionally, situating these insights in historical
circumstance, community (e.g., family, school, classroom, peer, biosystem) commits
us to (co)construct the student as an active, self-cognizing agent (Davis & Sumara,
1997; Newell, 2008) rather than (co)constructing the student reductively as a product
of context and environment.
One last boundary we have built as we define what this chapter might mean for us
and for you is the demarcation of which aspects of individual identity we intend to
include; for our purposes of articulating our field’s progression of understanding of
student internal context in school mathematics, we will consider student cognitive
(psychological) and (with) affective (social) contexts. Because of the importance of
both knowing and feeling in mathematics classrooms, we feel that giving emphasis
to these aspects of identity, for this moment, might afford us a clarity of insight
relevant to mathematics teaching and learning that could be potentially obscured
if we attempted a more distributed examination of student identity. Medley (1987)
framed these internal contexts as variables that affect student response to mathematics
teacher behavior. While we concur that student internal context often influences how
a student responds to activities in their mathematics classrooms (activities which
Medley framed as Type C, interactive mathematics teacher activities, and Type B,
student mathematics learning activities), our dialectic and indeterministic perspective
of student internal context is informed also by critical, postmodern, and construc-
tivist insights that have largely emerged in the decades since Medley established his
framework.
As we traverse the unfolding of our field’s understandings of student internal
cognitive contexts, we will be seeking insight about how students come to know
themselves—with the obvious implication that this knowing is ever incomplete and
is continually ongoing, that this knowing is much more a process than a product
(Davis, 2004). Particularly, we will discuss many of our field’s contributions to
questions of how students know themselves as mathematics students, what knowing
means for mathematics students, and what students know they know (or not) about
mathematics. As important and interesting as it is for mathematics teachers and math-
ematics teacher educators to attain deep insight, from students, about how mathe-
matics students come to know about themselves and about mathematics in school, it
is also interesting and important for us to understand students’ affective and sociolog-
ical realities and identities in school mathematical environments. In the next section,
we will articulate trends and patterns in our field’s progression of understanding
about how students feel in school mathematics classrooms—how students feel about
themselves as mathematics learners, and how students feel about mathematics (or
school) mathematics.
260 S. Megan Che and T. Evan Baker

3 Students’ Internal Contexts

In this section, we detail our field’s insights of student processes of generating

mathematical understandings, focusing on cognitive, sociological, and psychoso-
cial perspectives of student mathematical experiences. Additionally, in the second
subsection, we discuss mathematics students’ perceptions of themselves as mathe-
matics learners, including our understandings of mathematics students’ identities,
self-concepts, self-perception, and self-beliefs. In the third subsection, we discuss
students’ internal contexts vis-a-vis the subject of mathematics itself, so we inves-
tigate students’ perceptions and processes of forming attitudes about mathematics
content. Throughout, we emphasize those many places where the insights in these
subsections connect and overlap with those that we have highlighted in other subsec-
tions; these are not mutually exclusive categories we are setting up but rather focal
points in connection with each other.
Students’ cognitive processes as mathematics learners
In the decades prior to the accessibility of translations of Piaget (especially Piaget,
1972) and Vygotsky (see Vygotsky, 1978a, 1978b) in the U.S. in the 1970s,
the educational research community’s understandings of students’ epistemological
processes were influenced by a behaviorist management perspective, which empha-
sized connections between repetition, routinization, and skill performance (Doll &
Broussard, 2002); though there existed progressive counter-narratives to the reduc-
tionist and utilitarian outcroppings of behaviorism, particularly from Dewey, one
of the first philosophers to emphasize students’ active roles in learning (Dewey,
1933/1998; Bruner, 1990). From a behaviorist epistemology, students learn mathe-
matics by repeatedly performing small chunks of mathematical operations through
steps provided by a teacher, and fluent performance as well as immediate recall of
procedure are prioritized (Doll & Broussard, 2002). Constructivist epistemological
paradigms have, for the past several decades, expanded and complicated educational
scholars’ understandings of student processes of making sense of mathematics by
illuminating the active role of student cognition in learning processes (Doolittle,
2014). In mathematics education, our understandings of constructivist cognition have
been bolstered in no small measure by our long-standing research connections with
cognitive psychologists:
Cognitive psychologists have provided the concept of ‘well-organized’ schemata to explain
how people impose order on experiential information. Assimilation, accommodation, and
mode of functioning in response to new information are important in the enterprise of
schooling […] Schema use must be a dynamic, constructive process, for people do not
have a schema stored to fit every conceivable situation. In this view, acquisition of knowl-
edge implies changes in schemata, not just the aggregation of information. (Romberg, 1992,
p. 62)

Cognitive constructivism espoused by Piaget and the radical constructivism of

Von Glasersfeld (2013) are focused on how individuals internally, actively construct
knowledge as they seek to make sense of lived experiences (Bruner, 1990); the
Individual Student Internal Contexts and Considerations … 261

emphasis is understanding people’s internal cognitive structures and processes rather

than on an imposition or interaction of external ‘knowledge’ (Schunk, 2020). Social
constructionism (Vygotsky, 1978a, 1978b) tends to highlight the social nature of
knowledge construction and orients us to the importance of interaction in processes
of knowledge construction. Connecting these two orientations is the premise that,
rather than environmental stimuli producing knowledge (or adaptations), it is an
individual’s active processing of stimuli in relationship to that individual’s cognitive
structures that brings about knowledge (Huitt, 2003). Doolittle and Hicks (2003)
distill constructivist epistemology into four tenets:
1. Knowledge is not passively accumulated, but rather, is the result of active
cognizing by the individual.
2. Cognition is an adaptive process that functions to make an individual’s cognition
and behavior more viable given a particular environment or goal.
3. Cognition organizes and makes sense of one’s experience, and is not a process
to render an accurate representation of an external reality.
4. Knowing has its roots in both biological/neurological construction and in social,
cultural, and language-based interactions (pp. 77–78).
Given these understandings of individual student cognitive processes of learning,
several potential insights and implications for teachers emerge, including the indi-
rect nature of teaching (Ackermann, 2001). That is, the content that teachers may try
to impart into students is not transmitted in a direct, unfiltered manner. Instead,
students actively respond to content from teachers (stimuli) by connecting it to
(and connecting to it) their pre-existing cognitive structures. Doolittle and Hicks
(2003) discuss several additional learning principles which can inform constructivist
pedagogy, including:
• The construction of knowledge and the making of meaning are individually and
social active processes
• The construction of knowledge involves social mediation within cultural contexts
• The construction of knowledge takes place within the framework of the learner’s
prior knowledge and experience
• The construction of knowledge is integrated more deeply by engaging in multiple
perspective and representations of content, skills, and social realms
• The construction of knowledge is fostered by students becoming self-regulated,
self-mediated, and self-aware (Doolittle, 2014, pp. 498–490).
For mathematics teaching and learning environments, specifically, construc-
tivism is strongly connected with ontological questions about the nature of math-
ematics, because one corollary of certain constructivist views (particularly from
radical constructivism) is that the process of coming to know is an adaptive process
grounded in experiential realities and that knowing is not a process of discovering
external, independent, pre-existing realities (Lerman, 1989). Contrasting with an
enduring popular view of mathematics (the “Romance of Mathematics” as Lakoff
and Nuñez (2000) call it (p. 339)) as existing outside of the mind of a knower, as
Lakoff and Nuñez point out, “Ideas do not float abstractly in the world. Ideas can
262 S. Megan Che and T. Evan Baker

be created only by, and instantiated only in, brains” (p. 33). As Lakoff and Nuñez
detail precise ways in which humans have used language to develop mathematical
metaphors that extend our very limited innate mathematical capabilities, they connect
the ways in which human minds make sense of experiences that are external to us:
1. There are regularities in the universe independent of us.
2. We human beings have invented consistent, stable forms of mathematics (usually
with unique right answers).
3. Sometimes human physicists are successful in fitting human mathematics as they
conceptualize it to their human conceptualization of the regularities they observe
in the physical world. But the human mathematical concepts are not out there in
the physical world (pp. 345–346).
Many other constructivists in mathematics education assert, rather than claiming
that mathematics does or does not map an external reality, that—because we construct
our understandings from the basis of our own experiences and previous knowledge—
we cannot know whether a mathematical concept exists in an objective reality (Von
Glasersfeld, 1995; Steffe & Gale, 1995; Simon, 1995). Instead, our test of emergent
knowledge is not an independent, objective existence or truth but the extent to which
that mathematical knowledge works in our lived realities; that is, the extent to which
mathematical insights are “viable” (Von Glasersfeld, 1995). As students construct
their mathematical knowledge, they do so by coordinating mathematical material or
mental actions into organized, goal-directed action patterns (Steffe, 1991). The goal
towards which students are oriented is that of resolving the perturbation or disequi-
librium that arises when students have a novel experience and “restoring coherence”
to their experiential worlds (Cobb, 1994). Further, as students interact with peers and
teachers in a mathematics classroom environment, they have opportunities to test and
refine the viability of their mathematical conjectures, contributing to an emergence of
a socioculturally-embodied mathematical knowledge (Cobb, 1994; Cobb & Yackel,
1996).
In the next subsection, we leverage these current constructivist understandings of
student cognition to investigate how these cognitive processes might connect with
mathematics students’ perceptions of themselves as mathematics learners. In the last
section of this chapter, we explicate several insights specific to mathematics teachers
relating to a constructivist epistemology of student learning.
Students’ identity constructions as mathematics learners
During the past several decades, mathematics educators have (re)formulated a variety
of constructs to facilitate our understandings of how students view themselves as
learners of mathematics, including mathematics self-concept, self-efficacy, mathe-
matics identity, and mathematical disposition. Di Martino and Zan (2011) emphasize
that, far from being disconnected with cognitive processes, the interactions between
emotional and cognitive dynamics constitutes the concept of affect. This affective
sphere in mathematics education, which Di Martino and Zan (2011) frame as interac-
tions between Emotional Disposition, Perceived Competence, and Vision of Mathe-
matics, constitutes a fundamentally important “internal representation system” (p. 1).
Individual Student Internal Contexts and Considerations … 263

Medley’s (1987) framework articulates these internal contexts as characteristics (for

us, specifically, identity, self-concept, self-efficacy, disposition) of students that affect
their response to behaviors of mathematics teachers. In this subsection, we examine
our understandings of how mathematics students construct themselves as learners.
As we discussed in the opening section, for us, (mathematics) identity dynami-
cally dialectically shapes and is shaped by a complex range of influences existing
in a social context like a mathematics classroom. There is no shortage of reasons
to devote energy to better understanding student mathematics identity, given its
central location to mathematics learning. As Andersson et al. (2015) point out,
“When considering how students’ affective responses impact on their willingness to
engage in learning mathematics, the notion of identity becomes particularly impor-
tant because it provides ways to understand the complexity of students’ decision
making”. Grootenboar and Zevenberguen (2008) also affirm the importance of iden-
tity: “The teachers’ role is temporal, and at the end of the teaching period it is the
students’ mathematical identities that will endure.” Boaler and Greeno (2000) and
Boaler (2002) raise the point that mathematics learning environments provide stimuli
for students as they construct their mathematics identities and that the range of iden-
tities students construct may be linked to the mathematical learning environments
they experience. Specifically, there are indications that students learning in tradi-
tional lecture-based environments as compared to discussion-based environments
may construct different mathematical identities (Boaler, 2002).
Just as we in this chapter at times highlight certain frames of reference (the scale
of an individual rather than that of a classroom, for instance), mathematics education
researchers frequently foreground particular aspects of mathematics identity with a
view to deepening our insights relative to that specific aspect. Research in mathe-
matics education and psychology indicate that two prominent aspects of individual
student mathematics context that strongly connect to student mathematics perfor-
mance are prior academic (and mathematics) performance (sometimes referred to as
intelligence) (Deary et al., 2007; Frey & Detterman, 2004; Gustafsson & Undheim,
1996; Kuncel et al., 2004) and motivation (Gose et al., 1980; Schicke & Fagan,
1994; Spinath et al., 2006; Steinmayr & Spinath, 2009). These two characteristics
are clearly connected in feedback loops wherein strong motivation can fuel higher
performance, which can fuel further increases in performance as well as strength-
ened motivation; the reverse can also hold wherein lower academic performance can
dampen motivation, which can contribute to further declines in performance (Guay
et al., 2003; Marsh & Yeung, 1997). In the remainder of this section, we foreground
the notion of motivation before focusing on the influences of prior performance; then
we revisit the connections between these aspects of student mathematics identity in
a culminating discussion of the construct of mathematical disposition.
Mathematics education and psychological researchers rely on a variety of inter-
acting constructs to formulate different theories of motivation such as Bandura’s
(1986) social cognitive theory (Schunk & DiBenedetto, 2020), expectancy-value
theories (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002), and self-determination theory (Ryan & Deci,
2002); see Schukajlow et al. (2017) for a more comprehensive review of motiva-
tional theories in mathematics education. Psychological constructs that contribute
264 S. Megan Che and T. Evan Baker

to student motivation include expectancy-value (Eccles et al., 1983), task interest

(Cleary & Chen, 2009; Cleary & Kitsantas, 2017), and math anxiety (Pajares &
Graham, 1999) among others. However, research indicates the possibility that self-
efficacy may correlate with mathematics performance more strongly than other moti-
vational constructs (Cleary & Kitsantas, 2017; Pajares & Graham, 1999). Because of
this potentially stronger correlation of student self-efficacy with student performance,
the notion of self-efficacy merits further elaboration.
The set of a student’s mathematical self-perceptions, particularly self-efficacy
and/or self-concept (Steinmayr & Spinath, 2009) are central to student internal
context and to their mathematical identities. Though these two constructs sound
and seem very similar (and, indeed share several commonalities (Bong & Skaalvik,
2003)), many educational psychologists have constructed both theoretical and empir-
ical distinctions between self-concept and self-efficacy (Zimmerman, 2000; Bong &
Skaalvik, 2003; Parker et al., 2013; Chmieleqski et al., 2013). Self-concept and self-
efficacy are similar in that they are taken to (at least partially) explain an individual’s
thought, emotion and action in a given context where the individual’s perceived skills
and abilities come into play. Further, both self-concept and self-efficacy are domain
specific (Bong & Skaalvik, 2003), so an individual can have a strong self-concept
or self-efficacy in one area but not in another. Bong and Skaalvik (2003) turn to
Bandura (1986) to draw distinctions between the two constructs:
While self-concept represents one’s general perceptions of the self in given domains of
functioning, self-efficacy represents individuals’ expectations and convictions of what they
can accomplish in given situations. For example, the expectation that one can high-jump 6
ft is an efficacy judgment (Bandura, 1986). It is not a judgment of whether one is competent
in high jumping in general but a judgment of how strongly a person believes that [they]
can successfully jump that particular height under the given circumstances. Self-efficacy
researchers thus tend to emphasize the role played by specific contexts in efficacy appraisals.
(p. 5)

In the context of mathematics classrooms, then, mathematics self-concept

discloses individuals’ perceptions about themselves in the area of mathematics (or
perhaps in more specific domains like algebra or geometry) while mathematics self-
efficacy, following Bong and Skaalvik’s (2003) articulation, is a more bounded,
context-dependent estimation of the extent to which students believe they can succeed
at given specific mathematical tasks to certain levels. Both mathematics self-efficacy
and mathematics self-concept can influence students’ mathematical identities, math-
ematical dispositions, mathematical classroom experiences and the mathematics they
construct in practically meaningful ways, not the least of which is by fueling oneself
with the motivation to persevere.
Bandura (2010) noted that an individual’s self-efficacy relates to their belief in
their ability to exert an influence over events pertaining to their lives, a belief which
connects right to the foundation of human motivation and emotional well-being
as well as (academic) performance. Bandura (2010) points out that, unless indi-
viduals believe that they can produce “desired effects by their actions, they have
little incentive to undertake activities or to persevere in the face of difficulties.” As
one may expect, mathematics education researchers have devoted much energy to
Individual Student Internal Contexts and Considerations … 265

intensive studies of student mathematics self-efficacy, from investigating potential

sources of student mathematics self-efficacy (Lent et al., 1991; Lopez & Lent, 1992;
Usher & Pajares, 2009) to exploring connections between self-efficacy and math-
ematics performance (Hackett & Betz, 1989; Pajares & Graham, 1999; Pajares &
Miller, 1995) to the potential roles of mathematics self-efficacy in achievement,
problem solving, and even career choice (Betz & Hackett, 1983; Lopez & Lent,
1992; Pajares & Miller, 1994; Randhawa et al., 1993). Researchers also point to
the importance of mathematics self-concept to persistence (Parker et al., 2013) and
to mathematics performance. Seaton et al. (2014) suggest that addressing students’
mathematics self-concept may be as influential to their mathematics performance as
building their mathematical fluency.
These decades of research indicate that the way students view themselves as
learners of mathematics is centrally important to the mathematics those students
might construct. In the next section, we discuss how students’ views of themselves
interfaces with their views of mathematics as they engage in processes of learning
mathematics.
Students’ views on mathematics
Understanding the ways students construct mathematical knowledge by actively
seeking to make sense of their realities through adaptation to new experiences
connects to the previous discussion of students’ mathematical identities, because,
as we saw, the particular characteristics students construct about themselves as
mathematics learners can influence their construction of mathematical insights.
Another aspect of mathematical learning environments also connects, however, to
ways students might be primed to undertake mathematical knowledge construction,
and that is students’ views of the field of mathematics (Kilpatrick et al., 2001). As
McLeod (1992) notes, students in school mathematics settings regularly experience
a range of emotions; the frequency, ferocity, and severity of these emotions relates
to a student’s affective attitude towards the discipline of mathematics itself. McLeod
(1992) asserts that, “the improvement of mathematics education will require changes
in affective responses of both children and adults” (p. 575).
In school mathematics settings, students’ views about the nature of mathematics
(what mathematics is, what mathematics is like, what mathematics is not—from
psychosocial perspectives) is informed by their experiences as mathematics students.
These mathematical experiences are categorized by Medley (1987) as Type C, Inter-
active Mathematics Teacher Activities and Type B, Student Mathematics Learning
Activities. Unsurprisingly, students who have experienced success in school math-
ematics performance tend to continue to experience success in school mathematics
performance (Archambault et al., 2012; Reynolds, 1991). Concerningly, however,
students who have less successful school mathematics prior achievement tend to
struggle with mathematics performance (Archambault et al., 2012; Reynolds, 1991).
These trends make sense both from cognitive and affective perspectives, because,
if a child has somehow succeeded in learning mathematics content, it is reason-
able to surmise that they may be successful in learning more, and perhaps related,
mathematics content. Further, it is reasonable that a student experiencing success
266 S. Megan Che and T. Evan Baker

in school mathematics likely is boosted in their mathematics identity (self-concept,

self-efficacy), which can increase the chances that that student persists and perseveres
as well as enjoys mathematics while connecting school mathematics to other aspects
of their lives. We have realized for decades, from the work of Eccles and others, that
students’ impressions about and experiences with mathematics in school inform and
relate to both their mathematics identities and their construction of mathematical
knowledge (Eccles, 1983; Meece et al., 1990; Simpkins et al., 2006).
However, decades after the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM,
1989, 2000) embarked on its monumental reform movement, students are still
frequently taught mathematics from a traditional perspective where mathematics
is seen as a static discipline, a “sets of preexisting facts and procedures that is passed
along from teacher to student in an authoritarian manner” (Wilkins & Ma, 2003).
In such classrooms, students’ activities are dominated by silent, individual seatwork
and rote note taking, so many students suspect that mathematics is about memo-
rization of content (Wilkins, 2000). In such classroom environments, students often
reasonably surmise that mathematics is dry, boring, and potentially a waste of time.
Responding to this concerning student view of mathematics, mathematics educators
have, in the past few decades, begun to focus increasingly on supporting productive
student mathematical dispositions, which Kilpatrick et al. (2001) characterized in
their report Adding it Up as an intertwining of students’ views of mathematics with
their views of themselves as mathematics learners:
Productive disposition […] includes the student’s habitual inclination to see mathematics as
a sensible, useful, and worthwhile subject to be learned, coupled with a belief in the value of
diligent work and in one’s own efficacy as a doer of mathematics. (Kilpatrick, 2001, p. 107)

Gresalfi (2009) emphasizes that, just as the content students learn is insepa-
rable from the ways in which they learn it, students’ dispositions—their social,
affective, and motivational factors such as persistence, collaboration, and engaging
with novel problems—are both central to and inseparable from learning processes.
Dispositions involve students’ ideas about, perspectives towards, and their interac-
tions with content; dispositions “capture not only…what one knows but how [they]
know it…not only the skills one has acquired, but how those skills are leveraged”
(Gresalfi, 2009, p. 329). Students’ mathematical dispositions are clearly pertinent to
mathematics teachers, who may seek to better understand their students’ mathemat-
ical dispositions in relation to classroom mathematics practice. Clark et al. (2014)
emphasize four aspects of student identity that can provide information for mathe-
matics teachers relative to their students’ mathematical dispositions, which includes
students’
• perceptions of their mathematics ability and the ways these perceptions influence
their mathematics performance
• perceptions of the importance of mathematics inside and beyond their current
experiences in the mathematics classroom
• perceptions of the engagement in and exposure to particular forms of mathematical
activity and the ways these engagements influence students seeing themselves as
mathematics learners, and
Individual Student Internal Contexts and Considerations … 267

• motivations to perform at a high level and attributions of their success or failure

in mathematical contexts (p. 251).

4 Connections Among Individual Student Internal

Contexts and Broader Social Scales

Contexts of social systems (students, teachers, schools, families, communities, or

disciplines of study) are filled with relationship and connection. Although, in all
of the previous sections of this chapter, we have repeatedly attempted to plant this
theme, we use this section to specifically foreground these influences and connections
seemingly external to the scale of an individual student. These influences include
relationships between and among students and their classroom peers, their teachers,
their school community, their home contexts, their local social community, their
individual and familial histories and material contexts. Because of the limitations
both of language itself and of our (lack of) prowess with language, we are constrained
to list (rather incompletely) these relationships as if they are connected only to the
student and are separate from their own interconnections, but this is inaccurate. All of
these relationships are in dynamic and nondeterministic (although self-organizing)
conversation with all of the other relationships (and more), pinging and twinging
in transformative interdependence such that one apparently isolated experience that
may, for instance, directly connect only the student and their teacher activates this
entire biosystem of relationships (though perhaps not all to the same extent), buzzing
them alive with energy that can (un)make and/or (trans)form them. Thus, when we
have the privilege to interact with a student, we must also be interacting with their
entire relationship biosystem.
For us, this illuminates the impossibility of cleaving a mathematics student from
their ambient realities and contexts. As Aydeniz and Hodge (2011) explain,
students’ identities in relation to science or mathematics cannot be fully understood without
considering the multiple communities in which students participate including home commu-
nity, school community, and the online social communities that now define most students’
daily social lives in western societies. (p. 513)

For us, this means that, in a classroom relationship biosystem, it is not possible,
for instance, to affirm a student’s mathematical contributions while delegitimizing a
seemingly distinct aspect of that student, such as their non-English primary language,
because that student’s construction of mathematics is inextricably, meaningfully
connected to that core, identity-influencing experience of being, for instance, bilin-
gual. Additionally, we maintain that it is also not possible to generatively value,
say, a student’s mathematical persistence while delegitimizing, however indirectly,
a seemingly different but core aspect of that student’s reality, such as their gender
identities. When we (as people in general or especially as teachers) are dismis-
sive, even offhandedly, of the efforts of persons (like our students, for instance)
to have their humanity embraced and legitimized, we risk hindering for ourselves,
and perhaps for some time, the potential to affirm students in their mathematical
268 S. Megan Che and T. Evan Baker

processes. Because students’ identities are complex, dynamic, and interconnected,

teachers cannot assume that they can separate a student’s mathematical identity from
the student’s holistic identity.
Further, a stunting dismissal of our fellow humans’ identities and lived reali-
ties tends to atrophy classroom relationship biosystems, as one might imagine, at
(various) scale(s) and can profoundly influence students’ mathematical (just to name
one) identities, even for students apparently adjacent to the target of the dismissal.
That is, a delegitimization (very often) resulting in a degeneration of relationship can
tinge not just the holistic biosystems of the persons directly involved (the doer of
the delegitimization and the direct recipient(s)), but also those of all of the persons
cognizant of the delegitimization; vicarious experiences can powerfully impact our
efficacies (Zimmerman, 2000). Teachers, in practice, interact not just with a student
but with their entire relationship biosystem, and these interpersonal interactions
contribute to classroom-level interactions, which also interact with the holistic rela-
tionship biosystems of all aware persons in those interactions as well as impinging
upon the classroom-level network of relationship.
To dismiss or belittle aspects of students’ selves has potential restrictive ramifica-
tions for how a teacher can meaningfully interact with students in their mathematics
classroom. Conversely, there is a potential for a more expansive student–teacher
connection when teachers’ interpersonal behaviors consistently communicate how
highly each student and their intellectual contributions are valued. Student percep-
tion of teachers’ behaviors indicating tolerance, care for student wellbeing, and rela-
tive lack of authoritarianism is an important feature of student–teacher connections
(Van Petegem et al., 2008), so implications for teachers are profound on the scale
of students and, we emphasize, on the level of the classroom community relation-
ship biosystem as well. Teachers, because of their position in the classroom, have
considerable opportunity and responsibility to mindfully facilitate equitable status
relationships with all students; otherwise, students’ academic progress and class-
room participation (among other potential damages) are at risk (Alexander et al.,
1987; Cohen & Lotan, 1995; Fuller & Clarke, 1994).
The interconnected nature of student mathematics cognition, identity, and dispo-
sition to wider contexts like mathematics classrooms, schools, and communities
uncovers several issues pertaining to student access to opportunities to develop and
nurture productive identities and dispositions within dynamic and rigorous class-
room environments. Access to important mathematics content is far from equitably
attainable (Reddy, 2005), as academic curriculum tracks (Oakes, 2005), along with
intergenerational and geographically-dependent disparities in school funding struc-
tures (Kozol, 2012) pose non-trivial barriers and opportunity gaps (Horn, 2012)
to the fulfillment and facilitation of every students’ potential to be their most full
mathematical selves.
Much as student internal context cannot be bifurcated into disconnected pieces
like cognitive vs. emotional processes, individual students cannot be separated from
their multi-leveled social and historical contexts. The discussion in this section illus-
trates the futility, as understood within mathematics education scholars, of attempting
to isolate mathematical cognitive processes in students and interact (or operate
Individual Student Internal Contexts and Considerations … 269

with) solely those processes. Perhaps even more critically, this section empha-
sizes the responsibilities and obligations of teachers to advocate for student growth,
development, and health in holistic and connected ways.

5 Implications for Teachers

Though the reasons for inequitable access to high quality, rigorous, engaging math-
ematics learning opportunities are many, systemic, and extending beyond bounded
educational structures, we focus in this section on several aspects of mathematics
learning environments that teachers and students can more directly influence, and
which are closely connected to our previous discussions of student mathematics
learning processes, student mathematical identity constructions, and student atti-
tudes and views towards mathematics. These aspects include the existence and roles
of status in mathematics classrooms and socially just and affirming pedagogies in
mathematics.
Socially just and affirming mathematics pedagogies not only provide opportuni-
ties for mathematics teachers to provide students with enactive experiences, which
strongly inform students’ efficacy beliefs (Zimmerman, 2000) and which can foster
productive mathematics dispositions, but they can also facilitate students’ cogni-
tive growth. For instance, culturally responsive teaching is one such pedagogically
affirming approach, which Hammond (2014) characterizes as
An educator’s ability to recognize students’ cultural displays of learning and meaning making
and respond positively and constructively with teaching moves that use cultural knowledge as
a scaffold to connect what the student knows to new concepts and content in order to promote
effective information processing. All the while, the educator understands the importance
of being in a relationship and having a social-emotional connection to the student in order
to create a safe space for learning. (p. 15, emphasis in original)

Culturally responsive teaching in mathematics asks teachers to be open and

expansive to a variety of ‘real worlds’ that their students navigate and negotiate
daily (Gay, 2002). Further, socially just and affirming pedagogy expects teachers
to validate students lived realities in part by creating space for those realities in
mathematics learning processes. Simultaneously, culturally responsive mathematics
teaching expects that high quality, rigorous, important mathematics teaching and
learning occurs in classrooms. Our understandings of such justice-oriented peda-
gogies indicates that powerful and affirming mathematics teaching draws on and
leverages broader contexts that students inhabit beyond their individual selves and
expands students’ and teachers’ awareness of the ways mathematics holds power
to critically analyze and interpret our worlds, potentially opening up spaces for
justice-oriented agency and action (Aguirre & Zavala, 2013).
Just as our field has pointed to connectivity and generativity over the past several
decades, it has also emphasized the capability of (all) students to deeply think and
reason, so an affirming classroom relationship system is not devoid of student ques-
tioning and debating. When responding to a student contribution, for instance, an
270 S. Megan Che and T. Evan Baker

affirming expectation can be that the student will articulate, explain, and justify their
contribution and, if necessary, attempt to persuade peers in the classroom to agree
with their mathematical justification. An affirming mathematics classroom relation-
ship system does not let just any suggestion prevail; it acts—with often analytical
purpose—to ascertain which suggestions are viable for the mathematics commu-
nity and to justify why that viability exists. At the same time, however, we are
increasingly (if belatedly) aware of important commitments to social justice that
mathematics teachers entail as political agents in an unjust social system. We can
only weakly attempt to maintain the neutrality of mathematics and the teaching of
mathematics; this neutrality is exposed as a fiction, which, for us, implies that math-
ematics teachers’ socio-political self (and community) awareness is more and more
paramount. Beyond implementing mathematical instructional practices that deeply
and actively engage students in contextual and meaningful mathematics, Aguirre and
Zavala (2013) argue that culturally responsive mathematics teachers must
• develop a socio-cultural political consciousness
• understand and embrace social constructivist and socio-cultural theories of
learning
• get to know and leverage the mathematical resources of students, their families,
and their communities.
Socially justice-oriented mathematics classrooms can provide a potential-filled
connective space for nurturing and facilitating the aspects of student internal and
individual contexts we have discussed in this chapter.

6 Concluding Comments

The adapted framework for this volume articulates a number of factors, characteris-
tics, and contexts relevant for teaching and learning in mathematics classrooms. Each
of these is important on their own, and perhaps even more so in concert with other
contexts; for the authors of this chapter, we agree with Dewey (1906) and many
other educational scholars that students and their contexts are crucially important
to mathematics learning. In this chapter, we have provided an overview of several
influential aspects of individual student internal context (Type H), including student
mathematical identities, self-efficacy, and disposition. We have also emphasized the
significance of the connections between all of these aspects and other educational
and social considerations and contexts; students exist, as we all do, within a cosmos
of relationship rather than in an isolated vacuum.
Given this overview, several avenues for future research emerge in our field, as we
hope they do for the reader. Though each person may see different research poten-
tials arising from the work scholars in our field have already done, the potentials
we see are for an increased presence of postmodern research perspectives on student
internal context and for greater consideration of critical theoretical approaches in our
consideration of student and educational contexts. Postmodern perspectives disrupt
Individual Student Internal Contexts and Considerations … 271

static boundaries and binaries as well as linear, predictable pathways while empha-
sizing the importance of context and acknowledging the existence of indeterminacy
(Stinson & Bullock, 2012). These perspectives offer promise to our work in student
mathematical internal context because of the dynamic complexity of identity and its
non-linear enmeshment in broader conditions; we have the potential to (re)envision
our notions of student identity and student mathematics performance in ways that
are open to irregularity and spontaneity while maintaining rigor in research. Simul-
taneously, we see ourselves as undertaking an important responsibility to refrain
from treating students as isolated subjects; in socially aware and critical educational
research, it is incumbent upon us to deepen our understandings of the systemic nature
of concealed, asymmetric relationships of power (Stinson & Bullock, 2012) and the
ways those of social contexts of inequity reveal themselves in children’s educational
lived experiences and identities.
One social context that has emerged in the past two decades as a potentially
powerful research focus is that of online communities and the potential to inhabit yet
another identity as a virtual being in virtual worlds. Though mathematics researchers
have been studying the connections between technology and student mathematics
motivation, achievement, and attitude (Higgins et al., 2019) since the mid-1980’s,
the possibility to understand how online spaces and realities impact and are impacted
by students’ online mathematical identities is more recently being realized (Rosa &
Lerman, 2011), especially in the context of gamification (Lo & Hew, 2020). Tech-
nology has progressed from desktop computers placed in classrooms to hand-held
devices providing not only unprecedented access to information but also potential for
identity transformation and (re)construction. The responsive, adaptive, and dynamic
aspects of critical postmodern research perspectives seem well poised to contribute to
our understandings of students’ mathematical identities and internal social contexts
in a variety of technological mathematical learning environments, including gaming
environments, online mathematics classrooms, and social media environments while
also pushing us to better understand patterns and asymmetries in student access to
important online mathematics learning communities.

References

Ackermann, E. (2001). Piaget’s constructivism, Papert’s constructionism: What’s the difference.

Future of Learning Group Publication, 5(3), 438.
Aguirre, J. M., & del Rosario Zavala, M. (2013). Making culturally responsive mathematics teaching
explicit: A lesson analysis tool. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 8(2), 163–190.
Alexander, K. L., Entwisle, D. R., & Thompson, M. S. (1987). School performance, status relations,
and the structure of sentiment: Bringing the teacher back in. American Sociological Review,
665–682.
Andersson, A., Valero, P., & Meaney, T. (2015). “I am [not always] a maths hater”: Shifting students’
identity narratives in context. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 90(2), 143–161.
Archambault, I., Janosz, M., & Chouinard, R. (2012). Teacher beliefs as predictors of adolescents’
cognitive engagement and achievement in mathematics. The Journal of Educational Research,
105(5), 319–328.
272 S. Megan Che and T. Evan Baker

Aydeniz, M., & Hodge, L. L. (2011). Identity: A complex structure for researching students’
academic behavior in science and mathematics. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 6(2),
509–523.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice-
Hall.
Bandura, A. (2010). Self-efficacy. In The Corsini encyclopedia of psychology (pp. 1–3). John
Wiley & Sons, Inc. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470479216.corpsy0836
Betz, N. E., & Hackett, G. (1983). The relationship of mathematics self-efficacy expectations to the
selection of science-based college majors. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 23(3), 329–345.
Boaler, J. (2002). The development of disciplinary relationships: Knowledge, practice and identity
in mathematics classrooms. For the Learning of Mathematics, 22(1), 42–47. http://www.jstor.
org/stable/40248383
Boaler, J., & Greeno, J. G. (2000). Identity, agency, and knowing in mathematics worlds. Multiple
Perspectives on Mathematics Teaching and Learning, 1, 171–200.
Bong, M., & Skaalvik, E. M. (2003). Academic self-concept and self-efficacy: How different are
they really? Educational Psychology Review, 15, 1–40.
Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of meaning. Harvard University Press.
Chmielewski, A. K., Dumont, H., & Trautwein, U. (2013). Tracking effects depend on tracking
type: An international comparison of students’ mathematics self-concept. American Educational
Research Journal, 50(5), 925–957.
Clark, L. M., DePiper, J. N., Frank, T. J., Nishio, M., Campbell, P. F., Smith, T. M., Griffin, M. J.,
Rust, A. H., Conant, D. L., & Choi, Y. (2014). Teacher characteristics associated with mathe-
matics teachers’ beliefs and awareness of their students’ mathematical dispositions. Journal for
Research in Mathematics Education, 45(2), 246–284.
Cleary, T. J., & Chen, P. P. (2009). Self-regulation, motivation, and math achievement in middle
school: Variations across grade level and math context. Journal of School Psychology, 47(5),
291–314.
Cleary, T. J., & Kitsantas, A. (2017). Motivation and self-regulated learning influences on middle
school mathematics achievement. School Psychology Review, 46(1), 88–107.
Cobb, P. (1994). Where is the mind? Constructivist and sociocultural perspectives on mathematical
development. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 13–20.
Cobb, P., & Yackel, E. (1996). Constructivist, emergent, and sociocultural perspectives in the context
of developmental research. Educational Psychologist, 31(3–4), 175–190.
Cohen, E. G., & Lotan, R. A. (1995). Producing equal-status interaction in the heterogeneous
classroom. American Educational Research Journal, 32(1), 99–120.
Davis, B., & Sumara, D. (1997). Cognition, complexity, and teacher education. Harvard educational
review, 67(1), 105–126.
Davis, B. (2004). Inventions of teaching: A genealogy. Routledge.
Deary, I. J., Strand, S., Smith, P., & Fernandes, C. (2007). Intelligence and educational achievement.
Intelligence, 35(1), 13–21.
Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1994). What is philosophy? Columbia University Press.
Dewey, J. (1906). The child and the curriculum (No. 5). University of Chicago Press.
Dewey, J. (1933/1998) How we think (Rev. ed.). Houghton Mifflin Company.
Di Martino, P., & Zan, R. (2011). Attitude towards mathematics: A bridge between beliefs and
emotions. ZDM Mathematics Education, 43(4), 471–482.
Doll, W. E., & Broussard, W. (2002). Ghosts and the curriculum. Counterpoints, 151, 23–72.
Doolittle, P. E. (2014). Complex constructivism: A theoretical model of complexity and cognition.
International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 26(3), 485–498.
Doolittle, P. E., & Hicks, D. (2003). Constructivism as a theoretical foundation for the use of
technology in social studies. Theory & Research in Social Education, 31(1), 72–104.
Eccles, J. (1983). Expectancies, values and academic behaviors. In J. T. Spence (Ed.), Achievement
and achievement motives: Psychological and sociological approaches (pp. 358–396). Simon &
Schuster Macmillan.
Individual Student Internal Contexts and Considerations … 273

Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of
Psychology, 53(1), 109–132.
Fuller, B., & Clarke, P. (1994). Raising school effects while ignoring culture? Local conditions and
the influence of classroom tools, rules, and pedagogy. Review of Educational Research, 64(1),
119–157.
Frey, M. C., & Detterman, D. K. (2004). Scholastic assessment or g? The relationship between the
scholastic assessment test and general cognitive ability. Psychological Science, 15(6), 373–378.
Gallagher, S. (2000). Philosophical conceptions of the self: Implications for cognitive science.
Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(1), 14–21.
Gay, G. (2002). Preparing for culturally responsive teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(2),
106–116.
Grootenboer, P., Smith, T., & Lowrie, T. (2006). Researching identity in mathematics education:
The lay of the land. Identities, Cultures and Learning Spaces, 2, 612–615.
Grootenboer, P., & Zevenbergen, R. (2008). Identity as a lens to understand learning mathematics:
Developing a model. In Goos, M., Brown, R., & Makar, K. (Eds.), Navigating Currents and
Charting Directions (Proceedings of the 31st Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education
Research Group of Australasia) (pp. 243–250). MERGA.
Gresalfi, M. S. (2009). Taking up opportunities to learn: Constructing dispositions in mathematics
classrooms. The Journal of the learning sciences, 18(3), 327–369.
Gose, A., Wooden, S., & Muller, D. (1980). The relative potential of self-concept and intelligence
as predictors of achievement. The Journal of Psychology, 104(3–4), 279–287.
Guay, F., Marsh, H. W., & Boivin, M. (2003). Academic self-concept and academic achievement:
Developmental perspectives on their causal ordering. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(1),
124–136.
Gustafsson, J. E., & Undheim, J. O. (1996). Individual differences in cognitive functions. In D. C.
Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 186–242). Prentice
Hall International.
Hackett, G., & Betz, N. (1989). An exploration of the mathematics self-efficacy/mathematics perfor-
mance correspondence. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 20(3), 261–273. https://
doi.org/10.2307/749515
Hammond, Z. (2014). Culturally responsive teaching and the brain: Promoting authentic engage-
ment and rigor among culturally and linguistically diverse students. Corwin Press.
Higgins, K., Huscroft-D’Angelo, J., & Crawford, L. (2019). Effects of technology in mathematics
on achievement, motivation, and attitude: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Computing
Research, 57(2), 283–319.
Horn, I. S. (2012). Strength in numbers. In Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers.
Huitt, W. (2003). Constructivism. In Educational psychology interactive. Valdosta, Ga: Valdosta
State University. http://chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/col/cogsys/construct.html
Kilpatrick, J., Swafford, J., & Findell, B. (Eds.). (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathe-
matics. National Academy Press.
Kilpatrick, J. (2001). Understanding mathematical literacy: The contribution of research. Educa-
tional Studies in Mathematics, 47(1), 101–116.
Kozol, J. (2012). Savage inequalities: Children in America’s schools. Crown.
Kuncel, N. R., Hezlett, S. A., & Ones, D. S. (2004). Academic performance, career potential,
creativity, and job performance: Can one construct predict them all? Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 86(1), 148–161.
Lakoff, G., & Núñez, R. E. (2000). Where mathematics comes from. Basic Books.
Lent, R. W., Lopez, F. G., & Bieschke, K. J. (1991). Mathematics self-efficacy: Sources and relation
to science-based career choice. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38(4), 424.
Lerman, S. (1989). Constructivism, mathematics and mathematics education. Educational Studies
in Mathematics, 20(2), 211–223.
274 S. Megan Che and T. Evan Baker

Lo, C. K., & Hew, K. F. (2020). A comparison of flipped learning with gamification, traditional
learning, and online independent study: The effects on students’ mathematics achievement and
cognitive engagement. Interactive Learning Environments, 28(4), 464–481.
Lopez, F. G., & Lent, R. W. (1992). Sources of mathematics self-efficacy in high school students.
The Career Development Quarterly, 41(1), 3–12.
Markus, H., & Kunda, Z. (1986). Stability and malleability of the self-concept. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 51(4), 858.
Marsh, H. (1993). Academic self-concept: Theory, measurement, and research. In J. Suls (Ed.),
Psychological perspectives on the self: The self in social perspectives (Vol. 4, p. 59).
Psychological Press.
Marsh, H. W., & Yeung, A. S. (1997). Causal effects of academic self-concept on academic achieve-
ment: Structural equation models of longitudinal data. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(1),
41–54.
Medley, D. M. (1987). Criteria for evaluating teaching. In M. J. Dunkin (Ed.), The international
encyclopedia of teaching and teacher education (pp. 169–180). Pergamon.
Meece, J. L., Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (1990). Predictors of math anxiety and its influence
on young adolescents’ course enrollment intention. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1),
60–70. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.82.1.60
McAdams, D. P. (2001). The psychology of life stories. Review of General Psychology, 5(2), 100–
122. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.5.2.100
McCaslin, M. (2009). Co-regulation of student motivation and emergent identity. Educational
Psychologist, 44(2), 137–146. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520902832384
McLeod, D. B. (1992). Research on affect in mathematics education: A reconceptualization.
Handbook of Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning, 1, 575–596.
Newell, C. (2008). The class as a learning entity (complex adaptive system): An idea from
complexity science and educational research. SFU Educational Review, 2.
Nasir, N. I. S. (2002). Identity, goals, and learning: Mathematics in cultural practice. Mathematical
Thinking and Learning, 4(2–3), 213–247.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for
school mathematics. NCTM.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school
mathematics. NCTM.
Oakes, J. (2005). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality. Yale University Press.
Pajares, F., & Graham, L. (1999). Self-efficacy, motivation constructs, and mathematics performance
of entering middle school students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24(2), 124–139.
Pajares, F., & Miller, D. M. (1994). Self-efficacy, motivation constructs, and mathematics
performance of entering middle school students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(2),
193–203.
Pajares, F., & Miller, M. D. (1995). Mathematics self-efficacy and mathematics performances: The
need for specificity of assessment. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 42(2), 190.
Parker, P. D., Marsh, H. W., Ciarrochi, J., Marshall, S., & Abduljabbar, A. S. (2013). Juxta-
posing math self-efficacy and self-concepts as predictors of long-term achievement outcomes.
Educational Psychology, 34(1), 29-48.
Piaget, J. (1972). The principles of genetic epistemology. Viking.
Randhawa, B. S., Beamer, J. E., & Lundberg, I. (1993). Role of mathematics self-efficacy in the
structural model of mathematics achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(1), 41.
Reddy, V. (2005). State of mathematics and science education: Schools are not equal: Conversations.
Perspectives in Education, 23(1), 125–138.
Reynolds, A. J. (1991). The middle schooling process: Influences on science and mathematics
achievement from the longitudinal study of American youth. Adolescence, 26(101), 133.
Romberg, T. A. (1992). Perspectives on scholarship and research methods. In Handbook of research
on mathematics teaching and learning.
Individual Student Internal Contexts and Considerations … 275

Rosa, M., & Lerman, S. (2011). Researching online mathematics education: Opening a space for
virtual learner identities. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 78, 69–90. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s10649-011-9310-9
Russell, B. (2001). The problems of philosophy. OUP Oxford.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2002). Overview of self-determination theory: An organismic dialectical
perspective. In E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of Self-Determination Research
(pp. 3–33). University of Rochester Press.
Schicke, M. C., & Fagan, T. K. (1994). Contributions of self-concept and intelligence to the predic-
tion of academic achievement among grade 4, 6, and 8 students. Canadian Journal of School
Psychology, 10(1), 62–69.
Schukajlow, S., Rakoczy, K., & Pekrun, R. (2017). Emotions and motivation in mathematics educa-
tion: Theoretical considerations and empirical contributions. ZDM Mathematics Education,
49(3), 307–322.
Schunk, D. H., & DiBenedetto, M. K. (2020). Motivation and social cognitive theory. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 60, 101832.
Schunk, D. (2020). Learning theories: An educational perspective (8th ed.). Pearson. ISBN-13:
978-0134893754
Seaton, M., Parker, P., Marsh, H. W., Craven, R. G., & Yeung, A. S. (2014). The reciprocal rela-
tions between self-concept, motivation and achievement: Juxtaposing academic self-concept
and achievement goal orientations for mathematics success. Educational Psychology, 34(1),
49–72.
Simon, M. A. (1995). Reconstructing mathematics pedagogy from a constructivist perspective.
Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 26(2), 114–145.
Simpkins, S. D., Davis-Kean, P. E., & Eccles, J. S. (2006). Math and science motivation: A longitu-
dinal examination of the links between choices and beliefs. Developmental Psychology, 42(1),
70.
Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2002). Internal and external frames of reference for academic
self-concept. Educational Psychologist, 37(4), 233–244. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985
EP3704_3
Spinath, B., Spinath, F. M., Harlaar, N., & Plomin, R. (2006). Predicting school achievement from
general cognitive ability, self-perceived ability, and intrinsic value. Intelligence, 34(4), 363–374.
Steffe, L. P. (1991). The constructivist teaching experiment: Illustrations and implications. In
Radical constructivism in mathematics education (pp. 177–194). Springer.
Steffe, L. P., & Gale, J. E. (Eds.). (1995). Constructivism in education. Psychology Press.
Steinmayr, R., & Spinath, B. (2009). The importance of motivation as a predictor of school
achievement. Learning and Individual Differences, 19(1), 80–90.
Stinson, D. W., & Bullock, E. C. (2012). Critical postmodern theory in mathematics education
research: A praxis of uncertainty. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 80(1), 41–55.
Turner, J. C., & Onorato, R. S. (1999). Social identity, personality, and the self-concept: A self-
categorization perspective. In T. R. Tyler, R. M. Kramer, & O. P. John (Eds.), The Psychology
of the Social Self (pp. 11–46). Psychology Press.
Usher, E. L., & Pajares, F. (2009). Sources of self-efficacy in mathematics: A validation study.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34(1), 89–101.
Van Petegem, K., Aelterman, A., Van Keer, H., & Rosseel, Y. (2008). The influence of student
characteristics and interpersonal teacher behaviour in the classroom on student’s wellbeing.
Social Indicators Research, 85(2), 279–291.
Von Glasersfeld, E. (1995). A constructivist approach to teaching. In Steffe L. P. & Gale J. (Eds.),
Constructivism in education (pp. 3-15). Erlbaum.
Von Glasersfeld, E. (2001). Radical constructivism and teaching. Prospects, 31(2), 161–173.
Von Glasersfeld, E. (2013). Radical constructivism (Vol. 6). Routledge.
Vygotsky, L. (1978a). Mind in society. Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L. (1978b). Mind in society: Development of higher psychological processes. Harvard
University Press.
276 S. Megan Che and T. Evan Baker

Walkerdine, V. (2003). Reclassifying upward mobility: Femininity and the neo-liberal subject.
Gender and Education, 15(3), 237–248.
Walshaw, M. (2010). Mathematics pedagogical change: Rethinking identity and reflective practice.
Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 13(6), 487–497.
Wilkins, J. L. (2000). Special issue article: Preparing for the 21st century: The status of quantitative
literacy in the United States: This article continues our October 2000 special issue theme of
“A vision for science and mathematics education in the 21st century”. School Science and
Mathematics, 100(8), 405–418.
Wilkins, J. L., & Ma, X. (2003). Modeling change in student attitude toward and beliefs about
mathematics. The Journal of Educational Research, 97(1), 52–63.
Wineburg, S. S. (1987). The self-fulfillment of the self-fulfilling prophecy. Educational Researcher,
16(9), 28–37.
Wittgenstein, L. (1969). The blue and brown books (Vol. 958). Blackwell.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Self-efficacy: An essential motive to learn. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 25(1), 82–91.
Zizek, S. (1998). Cogito and the unconscious: Sic 2 (Vol. 2). Duke University Press.
Žižek, S. (1989). The sublime object of ideology. Verso.

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate
credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and
indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative
Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by
statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder.
External Context-Related Research:
Digital Resources as Transformers
of the Mathematics Teachers’ Context

Ghislaine Gueudet and Birgit Pepin

1 Introduction

The contribution of this chapter addresses current issues associated with the evolution
of research in mathematics education related to the external context for mathematics
teachers’ professional activity. The external context combines many elements, such
as for example materials, facilities, community support (Manizade et al., 2019). We
contend that, in this digital era, digital resources play an essential role in this external
context. We primarily focus on research concerning the external context and related
with digital resources: this includes research about the digital resources themselves,
as well as research about for example community support for the integration of digital
resources by teachers, or educational policy linked with digital resources.
In other words, we have concentrated on Medley’s (1987) Type I (external context)
variable in the context of digital resources. By doing that, we focus on the “materials”
variable (Manizade et al., 2019), with a specific focus on digital materials, and on
other materials when they are combined with digital materials. For the sake of the
size of the chapter, we do not review research concerning school administration (e.g.,
Hunter, 2019), supervision (e.g., Yang et al., 2021), community support (e.g., Nicol,
2018), and parental support systems (e.g., Wadham et al., 2020), when they are not
linked with digital resources.
Returning to our focus, digital technologies have led to tremendous changes in
these external context variables: not only changes in the access to available digital

G. Gueudet (B)
UR Etudes sur les Sciences et les Techniques, University Paris-Saclay, 407 rue du Doyen George
Poitou, 91400 Orsay, France
e-mail: [email protected]
B. Pepin
Eindhoven School of Education, Eindhoven University of Technology (TU/E), 23, Cascade, P.O.
Box 513, 5600 MB Eindhoven, The Netherlands
e-mail: [email protected]

© The Author(s) 2023 277

A. Manizade et al. (eds.), The Evolution of Research on Teaching Mathematics,
Mathematics Education in the Digital Era 22,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-31193-2_10
278 G. Gueudet and B. Pepin

materials, but also changes in what can be called “community support” through
digitalization (e.g., on platforms), or more generally for supporting the integration
of digital resources. Research in mathematics education about these external context
variables has undergone very significant changes. The factors ‘causing’ these changes
in the focus of research studies were related to the technologies themselves, but also
to other factors, such as events in the society impacting the educational system (e.g.,
the COVID-19 pandemic), have played a role. Moreover, these studies not only
concentrate on the changes in the external context (Type I) variables; we evidence in
this chapter that they also address the influence of digital resources as elements of the
external on several online variables and their interactions, in particular D (teachers’
pre-post-out-of-class activities) and E (teachers’ competence, knowledge and skills),
and also the process variables B (students’ mathematics learning activities) and C
(teacher-student interactions in class).
Given the large number of research publications concerning the teaching of math-
ematics in the digital era and related to the selected external context variables, we
restricted our search to the identification of important trends. In this chapter, we
address the following research question:
Which are the evolutions of research in mathematics education about digital resources as
context for mathematics teachers’ professional activity?

We considered recent research literature, research published between 2016 and

2020. This was done, because during that period a large body of research emerged
that addressed the changes due to digital resources. We also included selected seminal
pieces cited in the literature, covering the last 20 years. This included conference
proceedings of the following conferences: Congress of the European Society for
Research in Mathematics Education (CERME10,1 2017), CERME11, 2019); Mathe-
matics Education in the Digital Age (MEDA,2 2018; MEDA,3 ); International Confer-
ence on Technology in Mathematics Teaching (ICTMT13,4 2017), ICTMT14,5
2019); International Conference on Mathematics Textbooks Research and Develop-
ment (ICMT3,6 2019). Further, we included journal articles: we searched the 2016–
2020 issues of Educational Studies in Mathematics (ESM), Journal for Research
in Mathematics Education (JRME), ZDM Mathematics Education, Digital Expe-
riences in Mathematics Education (DEME). Moreover, we searched the following
books: Hoyles and Lagrange (2010, ICMI Study 17 about technology), Clark-Wilson
et al., (2014, 2021), Drijvers et al. (2016), Monaghan et al. (2016), Trouche et al.
(2019). We systematically searched for papers or chapters about digital technologies
and digital resources as contexts in mathematics teaching: we used the keywords
“technology”, “digital technology”, “digital resources”, “digital platforms”, “digital

1 All the CERME proceedings are available at http://erme.site/cerme-conferences/.

2 https://www.math.ku.dk/english/research/conferences/2018/meda/proceedings/.
3 https://www.jku.at/linz-school-of-education/steam/meda-conference-2020/.
4 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01632970.
5 https://duepublico2.uni-due.de/receive/duepublico_mods_00048820.
6 https://tagung.math.uni-paderborn.de/event/1/.
External Context-Related Research: Digital Resources as Transformers … 279

tools”, crossed with “teaching”, “teacher”, “teacher professional development”. We

excluded papers whose central focus concerned topics addressed in other chapters of
this book (e.g., mathematics teacher affect studies; studies on mathematics teacher
professional development; mathematics teacher knowledge). Nevertheless, we did
not restrict ourselves to the research about digital resources because studying the
influence of a given digital resource on the teaching of mathematics often includes
studying its use by teachers, or indeed the knowledge development through the use of
such resources. At the end of this process, we retained 160 papers and chapters. We
noted for each of these papers the questions addressed, and the main results obtained.
We have chosen the following organization for this chapter: After this Introductory
Sect. 1, we present theoretical elements guiding our review of the literature (Sect. 2).
In Sect. 3, we discuss evolution of research about educational policies and about
teachers’ professional activity, including assessment. Section 4 focusses on research
about the quality of digital curriculum resources, while Sect. 5 concerns selected
current evolutions. In Sect. 6 we present our conclusions.

2 Theoretical Frames guiding our Review

In this section we introduce the concepts that guided our review of the literature. We
present in particular what we mean by (1) educational technology as compared to
digital curriculum resources; and (2) mathematics teachers’ professional activity for
the purpose of this chapter.

2.1 Digital (Curriculum) Resources and Educational

Technology

The literature reviewed in this chapter concerns what we call digital resources. Digital
resources can be defined as materials that have been conceived and created digitally
or by converting analogue materials to a digital format. Examples of digital resources
are simulations, models, graphics, e-books, and e-notes intended to make learning
more engaging, accessible and contextualized. Over the past decade there have been
numerous research studies investigating the use of digital resources for mathematics
teaching (e.g., Clark-Wilson et al., 2014; Drijvers et al., 2016; Hoyles & Lagrange,
2010).
Within the general category of digital resources, we distinguish between digital
curriculum resources (DCRs) and educational technologies (ETs), following Pepin
et al. (2017a) who defined DCRs as follows:
It is the attention to sequencing—of grade-, or age-level learning topics, or of content asso-
ciated with a particular course of study (e.g., algebra)—so as to cover (all or part of) a
curriculum specification, which differentiates DCRs from other types of digital instructional
tools or educational software programmes. (p. 647).
280 G. Gueudet and B. Pepin

ETs can be defined as the digital tools that are used in and for education by students
or teachers (e.g., platforms). Once these tools are used for teaching (and learning) a
particular curriculum content, and built into for example a lesson plan, they would
have become DCRs.
Pepin et al. (2017a) observed that research about DCRs pays particular attention
to:
1. The aims and content of teaching and learning mathematics;
2. The teacher’s role in the instructional design process (i.e., how teachers select,
revise, and appropriate curriculum materials);
3. Students’ interactions with DCRs in terms of how they navigate learning
experiences within a digital environment;
4. The impact of DCRs in terms of how the scope and sequence of mathematical
topics are navigated by teachers and students;
5. The educative potential of DCRs in terms of how teachers develop capacity to
design pedagogic activities.
For our review, it makes sense that we bring these two together (DCRs and ETs),
as teachers are working in environments that are influenced by both. Nevertheless, as
we will see in what follows, the distinction between them can contribute to refining
our understanding of the research literature: for example, conceptualizing quality
(see Sect. 4) is a need that emerged from the studies about DCRs.

2.2 Teachers’ Professional Activity

Reviewing the literature about digital resources as external context for teachers’
professional activity depends on the perspective chosen on this professional activity.
Indeed, the external context and this professional activity are intertwined.
Borba and Villarreal (2005) started with the premise that technologies have
changed humankind, and emphasized that:
[...] humans-with-media, human-media or humans-with-technologies are metaphors that
can lead to insights regarding how the production of knowledge itself takes place [...] this
metaphor synthesizes a view of cognition and of the history of technology that makes it
possible to analyze the participation of new information technology ‘actors’ in these thinking
collectives in a way that we do not judge whether there is ‘improvement’ or not, but rather
identify transformations in practice. (p. 23)

The “Humans-with-media” perspective challenges the borders between what is

external and what is internal for the teachers interacting with a context comprising
digital resources. In terms of the framework of research on teaching mathematics
(Manizade et al., Chap. 1), it invites to consider that some of the digital media do not
only belong to the offline Type I variables, but can also be considered as belonging
to the online Type E variables, e.g., because the teacher-with-media can be seen as
a hybrid entity.
External Context-Related Research: Digital Resources as Transformers … 281

Using a historical lens, when digital resources became available for teachers and
mathematics classrooms, and teachers were increasingly encouraged to use those
‘tools’, the research literature also reflected this turn. Questions such as the following
were asked: What is the teacher-tool relationship (e.g., Brown, 2009)? In which ways
does the ‘tool’ influence teachers’ practices, or indeed their knowledge development
concerning the use of the ‘tool’? Particular theoretical lenses were developed to face
the challenges associated with answering such questions. The instrumental approach
to didactics (e.g., Guin et al., 2005) and the documentational approach to didactics
(e.g., Trouche et al., 2020a) provide us with theoretical tools which have been useful
to face this challenge in our review. The instrumental approach (Guin et al., 2005) was
developed to study, and theorize, the integration of computer tools into mathematics
education. It distinguishes between an artifact, a product of the human activity,
designed for a goal-directed activity, and an instrument developed by the user along
their activity for a given goal. The subject (e.g., the student) develops an instrument,
incorporating the artifact (external) and knowledge (internal). Two different subjects
even with the same goal do not develop the same instrument. The development of
an instrument is called instrumental genesis. This genesis comprises two inseparable
processes: instrumentation that describes how the features of the artifact influence the
subject’s activity; and instrumentalization which describes how the subject modifies
the artifact, according to their pre-existing knowledge.
The instrumental approach has been used in mathematics education research to
analyze how students learned with educational technologies (the calculator, in partic-
ular). The concept of orchestration was introduced by Trouche (2004) to address the
question: “How do teachers use technology in class, and why do they use it this
way?”. With the perspective of the instrumental approach, this question was formu-
lated as: “How do teachers orchestrate the students’ instrumental geneses with a
given educational technology?”. The instrumental orchestration was defined as the
systematic organization, arrangement and didactical use of artifacts in the classroom,
and therefore, concerns both Type C (interactive mathematics teacher activities) and
Type D (pre- and post-active mathematics teacher activities) of Medley’s variables.
Introduced by Trouche (2004) and refined by Drijvers (2012), the concept of
instrumental orchestration has been a first step in the development of studies refer-
ring to the instrumental approach and investigating the teacher’s role. This direction
of research has rapidly developed, with authors considering teachers’ instrumental
geneses. In particular, Haspekian (2014) introduced the concept of teachers’ double
instrumental geneses: the teachers had to learn the technical functionalities of the
artifact, and at the same time had to learn how to use the artifact for their teaching
goals. While these studies from the instrumental approach still focused on educa-
tional technologies, the available DCRs were rapidly growing, and opening new
avenues for a mathematics teacher’s (curriculum/tool/task) design activities (e.g.,
Pepin et al., 2017b), individually and collaboratively.
The proliferation of available DCRs and the need to understand its consequences
for teachers’ professional activity led to the introduction of the documentational
approach to didactics (DAD, Gueudet & Trouche, 2009; Gueudet et al., 2012;
Trouche et al., 2019, 2020a). This approach considered the interactions between
282 G. Gueudet and B. Pepin

teachers and (digital) resources mobilized for their teaching. Referring to Adler
(2000), the term resource was used with a very general meaning, namely anything
that can re-source the teacher’s practice is a resource. All the elements of teachers’
professional external context: (digital) curriculum resources, students’ productions,
discussions with colleagues can constitute resources. Even elements of their personal
context can become resources for their teaching: discussions with a member of a
family, a journal where the teacher notices interesting statistics etc. Teachers’ docu-
mentational work (searching for resources, selecting them, modifying them and using
them in class) is central to their professional activity.
The documentational approach drew on the instrumental approach and intro-
duced a distinction between a given set of resources, and a document, developed
by the teacher about their use of these resources for the goals of their activity. The
document connects the recombined resources and the teacher’s professional knowl-
edge. The development of a document was called documentational genesis. Like the
instrumental genesis, it encompasses two associated processes of instrumentation
and instrumentalization.
The DAD viewed a teachers’ professional activity as continuous design work
and considered teachers as (co-)designers. The availability of a wealth of resources,
digital resources in particular, opened new possibilities for teachers but also created
new complexity, requiring the development of teachers’ (co-)design capacity (Pepin
et al., 2017b). According to the documentational approach, Medley’s variables
Type C (interactive mathematics teacher activities) and Type D (preactive mathe-
matics teacher activities) are strongly linked, and the DAD can be considered as a
conceptualization of the links between variables of Type I, C, D and E.
At the end of this review of theory, we retain certain points that seem particularly
important to us, and we make certain choices for the rest of the chapter:
• In what follows we use “digital resources” as the most general term. We acknowl-
edge that it is complex to distinguish between Digital Curriculum Resources
(DCRs) and Educational Technologies (ET), and that both are often combined in
teachers’ practice. Nevertheless, this distinction can be useful for some aspects
of the literature.
• There are still many terms relevant for our study that are not always precisely
defined (e.g., “digital platform” can be used for very different digital resources,
depending on the cultural context in particular).
• The instrumental approach introduced the distinction between an artifact
(external) and an instrument (both external and internal) developed by teacher
interacting with this artifact. The documentational approach introduced a similar
distinction between resource (external) and document (both external and internal).
While we do not consider here studies focusing on teacher knowledge, we included
in our review studies focusing on the interactions between teachers and digital
resources.).
External Context-Related Research: Digital Resources as Transformers … 283

3 Evolution of Research about External Context Variables

linked with Digital Resources and about their Influence
on Teacher Work and Teacher Knowledge

In this section we analyze the evolution of research considering external context

variables (Type I) and their influence on the online variables Type C, D and E,
keeping our focus on teachers working with DCRs. While Medley (1987) considered
that external context variables influenced the Type E-D relation (between teachers’
competencies, knowledge and skills and teachers’ pre-post-out-of-class activities),
we align here with the new model proposed by Manizade et al. (Chap. 1 in this book)
by also considering their influence on the Type D-C relation (between teachers’
pre-post-out-of-class activities and teachers’ interactions with students in class).
We claim that one way that research about external context variables has evolved
concerns investigations about educational policies (including official curricula and
reforms) addressing the provision and use of DCRs. We present this research and
its evolution in Sect. 3.1. The research about teacher integration (or non-integration)
of DCRs has also evolved during the last 20 years. Since this integration is strongly
influenced by educational policies, we consider that research about teacher integra-
tion addresses the influence of Type I variables on Types C-D-E, and will discuss
this in Sect. 3.2. One of the levers used by educational policies to influence teacher
integration of DCRs is assessment; we focus on this issue in Sect. 3.3.

3.1 Educational Policies as Context for Teachers’ Work

with DCRs

Educational policies, including curriculum reforms, were not listed by Medley (1987)
amongst the examples of Type I variables. Nevertheless, educational policies of their
respective countries and institutions are an important element of the teachers’ external
context. In the “Challenges in basic mathematics education” brochure, Artigue (2011)
stresses that “Quality education for all today cannot be achieved without taking tech-
nological factors into account” (ibid p. 35). Within mathematics education research,
work on educational policies, and how they contribute to shaping the teachers’ use
of DCRs (how this Type I variable influences Types C and D) or how educational
authorities use DCRs in their attempts to shape teachers’ practices has developed
during the last 20 years.
Educational Policies and Access to Technology
Between 2000 and 2010, many studies investigated how educational policies and
projects at a national scale tried to promote through different means the use of
technologies in the mathematics classroom (UNESCO, 2005). These studies, often
comparing different national situations, examined in particular the issue of access
to technology. Specifically, how the policies try to develop this access, and does the
284 G. Gueudet and B. Pepin

actual provision of computers permit the design by the teacher of classroom orches-
trations where students exploit the potential of relevant software in their mathematical
activity?
Julie et al. (2010) described the situations in four countries (Russia, Hong Kong,
Vietnam, South Africa) and one region (Latin-America). They noted similarities in
the educational policies of these countries and particularly the acceptance at the
political and bureaucratic level of the use of digital technologies for mathematics
teaching and learning. The translation of policy into practice took very different
forms (in terms of equipment in computers, Internet access, provision of digital
resources, and teacher education), according to the different economic situations of
these countries. Nevertheless, in all countries they observed that unequal access to
technologies remained, and that the actual use of digital technologies in schools was
rare.
Sinclair et al. (2010) compared five projects concerning the use of technologies
in the teaching and learning of mathematics that had been undertaken at a national
scale in different parts of the world. These projects were: Mexico’s Enciclomedia,
Italy’s [email protected]; the US’s Sketchpad for Young Learners, Lithuania’s Mathematics
9 and 10 with The Geometer’s Sketchpad, and Iran’s E-content initiative. The authors
introduced three axes, for their comparison of the projects: (1) The curriculum
axis (Technology activities support existing curriculum vs. Technology activities
encourage new content); (2) The teacher practices axis (Technology activities reify
existing teacher practices vs. Technology activities endorse new practices); and (3)
Activity design (“Open” activity design for students vs. “Closed” student activity
design). Their analysis led them to observe shifts in the projects, such as increasing
participation of the teachers as co-designers and epistemic value (supporting the
learning of mathematics) of the technologies being progressively foregrounded rela-
tive to its pragmatic value (e.g., obtaining a numerical result). Nevertheless, at least
in some of the countries, difficulties of access to computers were an obstacle for the
implementation of these projects.
Analyzing Evolution of the Policies and their Implications
The work by Trouche et al. (2013) can be considered as a transition between the
‘early’ (2000–2012) works about educational policies and technologies, where the
issue of access was central, to more recent works (2013–2021) where DCRs are used
by educational authorities to support teacher design, and at the same time to try to
influence teacher classroom practices.
Trouche et al. (2013) analyzed the issues connected to policy implications on two
continua/ dimensions, as shown in Fig. 1.

1. bottom-up to top-down policy approaches (e.g., “A top- down policy could be

a national directive of imposing access to graphing calculators during national
examinations; whereas support for teachers who start to design their own online
resources can be seen as a bottom-up policy” (p. 2).); and
2. access—support approaches (e.g., “In the United States, the National Council
of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM), in its 2008 Position Statement, claims
External Context-Related Research: Digital Resources as Transformers … 285

Fig. 1 The two policy dimensions (left) with potential orientation towards bottom-up and
supporting policies (right), extracted from Trouche et al. (2013)

that “all schools must ensure that all their students have access to technology”
but also that “Programs in teacher education and professional development must
continually update practitioners’ knowledge of technology and its classroom
applications” (NCTM, 2008, p. 13).)

This evolution of the policies as envisaged by Trouche et al. (2013) is also linked
with evolution in research foci. Researchers in mathematics education have increas-
ingly investigated how the educational policies support teacher integration of tech-
nologies, and teacher design. The researchers themselves sometimes participate in
this effort, by developing curricula in particular. This evolution of the policies (and of
associated research) is linked with another kind of evolution: the educational author-
ities increasingly use DCRs to provide resources for teacher design (supporting this
design, acting on Type D variables), with further aim of influencing the classroom
practices (acting on Type C variables).
Use of DCRs for Supporting Teacher Design and Shaping Teacher Practices
The Cornerstone Maths project in England is an illustrative example (e.g., Clark-
Wilson & Hoyles, 2019) of systematically scaling-up of innovations involving DCRs.
It began in 2011 by designing curriculum units that embedded digital technology for
learning mathematics (called dynamic mathematical technology, DMT). Such tech-
nologies were said to offer the potential for teachers and pupils to (re-)express their
mathematical understandings. The national curriculum for mathematics (introduced
in England in 2012) specifies the content of the school mathematics curriculum
(5–16 years) but offers little pedagogical guidance with regard to the use of tech-
nology, implying that teachers should use their judgement about when ICT tools
should be used, and how. Consequently, there were no government-funded initia-
tives to support either secondary school mathematics teachers to develop ways of
integrating DMTs into their classroom practices or for mathematics departments to
embed such approaches within their school-designed schemes of work. Some use
of technology across the secondary curriculum was expected and lightly monitored
within the school inspection regime. There was the need to support within-school
286 G. Gueudet and B. Pepin

upscaling. The team judged it important to design and test an in-school professional
development toolkit as that could help instructional leaders in schools to support
other colleagues and to develop as leaders. The present step (reported in the article)
concerned the issue of supporting a large-scale and sustained use of this curriculum
units, and this was done via a web-based toolkit. However, there were also difficulties
in the context: due to a shortage of mathematics teachers, which acted as a barrier
for schools to sustain innovations and innovative practices. The study is also inter-
esting in terms of the importance of the schools as sites for supporting professional
development of teachers with respect to their work with digital curriculum resources.
While researchers sometimes participate in the design and dissemination of DCRs
to contribute to teacher professional development, the national educational authorities
more generally have offered resources to teachers. Their aim is to influence teachers’
practices in and out-of-class, and to contribute to their professional development (in
particular in the context of reforms). In many countries, digital platforms propose
DCRs to teachers.
Concerning platforms and their use by teachers, there are issues involving expec-
tation management. For example, in relation to ‘design’- developments, whilst in
some countries (and schools) mathematics teachers are to some extent expected to
(co-) design their curriculum, in others teachers are expected merely to follow the
approved textbook (Trouche et al., 2019). However, the free availability of an enor-
mous number of DCRs, leaves the teacher at a loss in regard to assessing the quality
of the available DCRs (see Sect. 4 below), and how to design or amend DCRs?
The availability of free resources is also of economic importance, as it raises the
issue of competition with commercial resources (e.g., textbooks). In some countries,
government institutions provide access to or design DCRs themselves. Others offer
opportunities for teachers to engage in the creation of resources. The DCRs’ design
issues cannot be seen on two dimensions; they are more complex, involving a variety
of ‘systems’ and agents with commercial and economic considerations.
In their investigation of digital platforms for mathematics teacher design (Gueudet
et al., 2021), the international team members analyzed the affordances and constraints
of commonly used digital education platforms available for mathematics teachers
(often provided by governments). They used the documentational approach and the
concept of ‘connectivity’ (Pepin, 2021), introduced by Gueudet et al. (2016) in their
study of e-textbooks. These authors distinguish between: (1) macro-level connec-
tivity (e.g., connections made between the book and other websites, or between the
resource systems of users); (2) micro-level connectivity (e.g., internal mathemat-
ical connections made by the authors between different representations; between
the mathematical content and real-life contexts). Transferring this concept to digital
platforms, Gueudet et al. (2021) compared three contrasting cases of platforms in
three European countries (France, Netherlands, and Denmark), in terms of poten-
tial instrumentation and instrumentalization processes for users, and of micro- and
macro-level connectivity. They found important differences between the platforms
that were strongly linked with national educational policies and national perspectives
on teachers’ work. For example, in Denmark the use of the platforms was compulsory,
and their features were chosen to compel teachers to design objective-driven lessons,
External Context-Related Research: Digital Resources as Transformers … 287

according to new national standards. In France, the digital platform was designed to
support the implementation of the new curriculum. In the Netherlands, the platform
was linked with a policy supporting the use of open educational resources.
As claimed by these authors, digital platforms or other digital resources offered by
the institution can be seen as interfaces between educational policies and teacher’s
practices (in class and out-of-class). Hence studies about educational policies are
strongly linked with the studies about teachers’ integration of digital resources that
we discuss in the next section.

3.2 Teachers’ Integration of Digital Resources

In this section we analyze the evolution of research about teachers’ integration of

digital resources. We argue that the studies about integration firstly tried to identify
the factors supporting or hindering the use of technologies by teachers in class. The
influence of Type I variables (e.g., educational policies) on the uses in class (Type C
variable) was identified by these studies; then they noted the importance of teacher
knowledge (Type E) as a factor of integration. As the environment for teachers in
terms of available resources has become more complex, specific theoretical frame-
works have emerged that allow for the consideration of interactions between variables
of Types C, D, E and I.
Early research mostly focused on questions concerning the factors explaining
the integration or non-integration of educational technologies. The factors identified
were firstly external variables, and integration was considered in terms of in class use.
We consider these works to address the influence of Type I on Type C variables. Some
of these variables were linked with the national or regional educational policies, in
terms of equipment, and technical support offered to the teachers in their schools
(Thomas, 2006). These policies also led to the presence, or not, of the technologies in
the mathematics curricula, and in the official examinations (Trouche, 2016), and this
had a strong influence on the extent of integration. Other external factors concerned
the level of the school environment, the school culture and the interactions among
colleagues in the school (Forgasz, 2006). If the use of technologies was promoted by
the school, with support staff, or by way of a collective project drawing on some kind
of technology, the integration was favored. On the other hand, if a group of teachers
in a school felt that the use of technology was an additional constraint imposed by
the superiors, this constituted a strong obstacle to integration in that school.
Progressively, the studies considered Type I variables as factors explaining inte-
gration and Type E variables like teachers’ experience and teachers’ knowledge (e.g.,
Attard et al., 2020; Geiger et al., 2016; Goos, 2014). This draws a more complex land-
scape, involving the interaction of four types of variables. The model (framework of
research on teaching mathematics) introduced by Manizade et al. (Chap. 1, this book)
considers the influence of Type I variables on the E-D and on the D-C relations. But
in this model the E-D-C relation is presented as linear: teacher knowledge influences
teacher preparation which in turn influences teacher activity in-class. In the studies
288 G. Gueudet and B. Pepin

we consider here, E-D-C can be viewed as a triangle, with two-way interactions along
each side of the triangle. Indeed, the researchers investigated how Type E variables
influenced the use of technology in-class (Type C) and out-of-class (Type D), still
taking-into-account the external context (Type I). The theoretical perspective of the
instrumental approach (Guin et al., 2005) strongly associates the technology (Type
I), the teacher’s knowledge (Type E), and her practice both in class (Type C) and
out-of-class (Type D) and has been used by some authors to study the interactions
between teacher knowledge and their use of technology.
Assude (2007) introduced the concept of ‘instrumental integration stages’. She
proposed four stages of increasing technology use in the classroom. In the instru-
mental initiation stage, the teacher wants the students to learn how to use the soft-
ware; in the instrumental exploration stage, the students explore the software through
mathematical tasks; the instrumental reinforcement means that the software in used
to reinforce mathematical knowledge, and finally in instrumental symbiosis stage the
software and the mathematics are combined in the students’ mathematical activity.
Assude (2007) explained that these stages do not correspond to stages of professional
development. Rather, even in the same lesson, the teacher could propose software
use corresponding to instrumental reinforcement at some point, and to instrumental
exploration at another moment. Assude (2005) also foregrounded the importance
of time as factor hindering or favoring the integration of technology by teachers.
The consideration of time economy as an essential variable was realized in partic-
ular by Ruthven (2009), who proposed a theoretical framework combining variables
of different natures and including this notion of time economy. This framework
called “the Structuring Features of the Classroom Practices” (SFCP) associates five
features (considered here as variables) that explain how a teacher integrates a new
digital technology:
• the working environment: classroom equipment, support in the school (Type I);
• the activity format: the teacher and their students have a usual activity format
(Type C);
• the curriculum script: professional knowledge (Type E);
• the time economy (Type I);
• the resource system: mathematical tools and curriculum materials in use in the
classroom (Type I, with interactions with Type C).
The SFCP framework foregrounded the importance of considering different
features for understanding the integration or non-integration of a given educational
technology. It played an important role in the evolution of research from studies
focused on a single educational technology to studies considering sets of resources,
including digital resources of different kinds. Considering these five features led to
studies evidencing the interactions between Type I, Type E and Type C variables.
The SFCP framework (Ruthven, 2009) was together with the instrumental
approach one of the sources of the documentational approach. One of the main devel-
opments brought about by the studies referring to the documentational approach has
been the strong association of the teacher’s work in the classroom and outside the
External Context-Related Research: Digital Resources as Transformers … 289

Fig. 2 The Chinese abacus, material (on the left), virtual (on the right) (Gueudet & Poisard, 2018)

classroom, because teacher design as an essential and continuous process takes place
in class and out-of-class leading to associations among variables of Types C and D.
Studies referring to the documentational approach (Trouche et al., 2019) consid-
ered complex sets of resources (e.g., Gueudet & Poisard, 2018; Wang et al., 2018).
The integration by a teacher of an available resource meant that the teacher, using this
resource, developed one or several documents. For example, Gueudet and Poisard
(2018) studied the integration by a primary school teacher of a set of resources7
designed by a research team for the teaching of number, using the Chinese abacus,
both material and digital, as seen in Fig. 2.
The mathematics teacher planned for her students to use manipulatives. She inte-
grated both the material and the digital abacus in her lesson. This was observed by
the researchers through the analysis of the documents developed by the teacher for
different aims of her activity. In this case the virtual abacus was never considered
as isolated, but as associated with the material abacus, lesson plans, examples of
students’ productions, and other resources designed by the researchers.
To summarize, the integration of digital resources by teachers is viewed with
the perspective of the documentational approach as their integration in teachers’
resource systems (Trouche et al., 2020a). Studying this integration process requires
to consider the work of the teacher in class (Type C) and out-of-class (Type D),
and teacher knowledge (Type E) previously developed that will influence the use of
digital resources or developed along the use of these resources. The digital resources
offered (e.g., by the educational authorities, but also simply available on the web)
are Type I variables; but along their use in class and out-of-class the teachers develop
documents, which are mixed entities: research about documents associates Types
I-E-D and C variables.
One of the factors shaping links between education policies, digital resources and
teachers’ work concerns assessment. We consider research about assessment in the
next subsection.

7 http://seminaire-education.espe-bretagne.fr/?page_id=611.
290 G. Gueudet and B. Pepin

3.3 Assessment, Digital Technologies and Digital Curriculum

Resources

The amount of research about assessment has significantly increased since 2000,
and this also concerns research about assessment involving digital technologies or
digital curriculum resources. Assessment is both a Type I variable, as an aspect of
the curriculum, and an outcome of interactions between Type C and D variables,
since the teacher designs assessment for their students and implement them in class.
Hence, the research about assessment and digital resources concerns Types I, C and
D variables. Since most of this research developed during the last ten years, we do not
analyze in detail its historical evolution. The most important historical evolution that
we want to stress in this subsection is the emergence of research about assessment,
and especially about digital resources and assessment.
Stacey and William (2013) introduced a useful distinction, further developed
by Drijvers et al. (2016), to categorize this research. Assessment with technology
concerns the use of technology during an assessment, such as when the students are
allowed to use CAS in a written exam. Assessment through technology concerns
digital assessment, for example with online exercises. According to the distinctions
we use here, assessment with technology is linked with DCRs.
Digital technology has been introduced internationally in mathematics curricula.
This introduction has been followed by the integration of technology in both forma-
tive and summative assessment (Stacey & William, 2013). Teachers designing assess-
ments with technology had new possibilities in their choice of tasks: they could
propose rich problems that the students would not be able to solve without tech-
nologies (e.g., Leung & Bolite-Frank, 2015). These new possibilities were associ-
ated with a new complexity. In particular when designing summative assessments,
teachers need to find a delicate balance between proposing tasks that are too complex
and creating the possibility of a black-box use of technology. How teachers design
assessments with technology also strongly depends on national educational policies,
including whether and how technology can be used in mathematics exams (Drijvers
et al., 2015). Moreover, technology can be used in very different ways in mathe-
matics exams. Jankvist et al. (2021), presented contrasting examples of the use of
CAS in different countries. In Denmark, for example, CAS has been used in the
final exams in upper secondary school since 2005, and in lower secondary school
since 2013. Jankvist et al. (2021) offered the example of a task presented at the final
exam to Grade 9 students, showed that the students could solve this task without
any mathematical reasoning, using the CAS as a black-box. They contrasted this
example with a task given in Germany for the upper-secondary final exam in Bavaria
in 2014. That involved complex mathematical modelling and would have been very
difficult to solve without CAS. These differences in exams have strong impacts on
the teachers’ practices with educational technologies in class.
In the literature assessment through technology is called Computer-Aided-
Assessment (CAA) or sometimes Computer Assessment System is also used, but
we use here CAA in order to avoid a possible confusion with Computer Algebra
External Context-Related Research: Digital Resources as Transformers … 291

Systems. Sangwin et al. (2010) identified three possible outcomes generated by a

CAA: a numerical mark; written feedback or statistics concerning a cohort’s achieve-
ment. A numerical mark and automated feedback on technical errors offer to teachers
the possibility of concentrating their own feedback on understanding (Olsher et al.,
2016). Statistical overviews of cohort achievement are also a new element in teacher’s
external context, which can lead to adaptations of the content of the course. These
can include adaptions, for example, when using clickers at university level (e.g.,
Lockard & Metclaf, 2015).
Other outcomes of CAA have been identified. For example, the FASMED project
(Formative Assessment in Science and Mathematics Education), Aldon et al. (2017b)
also foregrounded the possibilities opened by CAA in terms of automatically gener-
ated feedback or statistical overviews. They added possibilities for tracking students’
learning paths, through access to statistics, and also to rich data about the students’
mathematical activity.
Finally, technological advances have opened the way for a new kind of association
between assessment with technology and assessment through technology resulting
from automated scoring. Drijvers (2018) studied the automated scoring of students
through digital means, using Intelligent Tutoring Systems. While online assessment
sometimes means multiple-choice quizzes focused on technical skills, these new
automated scoring tools have the potential to assess complex reasoning, and students’
productions with educational technologies, particularly Dynamic Geometry Systems.
These new tools offer possibilities for the design of digital assessment, associated
with a subtle automatic scoring. As designers, teachers can propose dynamic and
interactive tasks; as graders, they save a lot of time and have access to analyses of
their students’ work (Drijvers, 2018).
To summarize Sect. 3, it can be said that the research in mathematics educa-
tion concerning the influence of digital resources and other associated Type I vari-
ables (e.g., educational policies) has evolved during the past 20 years towards more
complexity and more refined analyses of the interactions between different kinds of
variables. This refinement has been associated with an increasing complexity of the
teachers’ working environment in terms of digital resources, which has contributed
to the development of specific theories. These theories have evidenced the need for
considering different dimensions and the ways they are linked. These dimensions
corresponded to Type I (e.g., the digital resources themselves, but also, for example,
the time economy), Type C (teachers’ practices in class), Type D (teachers’ practices
out-of-class) and Type E (teacher knowledge).

4 On the Quality of Digital Curriculum Resources

In this section, we review the literature concerning the quality of digital resources in
teachers’ contextual environment, as we assume that a conceptualization of quality
influences teachers’ choice of resources. Considering that over the past decade a
considerable amount of research in mathematics education has investigated teachers’
292 G. Gueudet and B. Pepin

lesson planning and enactment of designed lessons involving the use of digital
resources (e.g., Aldon & Trgalová, 2017; Clark-Wilson et al., 2014, 2021; Trouche
et al., 2019), it is surprising that a similar amount has not attended to the resources’
quality within teachers’ contexts of teaching. However, there are a number of studies
attending to this issue in teacher design of their curriculum. In conceptualizing the
quality of DCRs, we have to distinguish between (1) different aspects of quality
criteria, and (2) quality of which kinds of digital resources.

4.1 Quality of Dynamic Mathematics Materials

Whilst there is no consensus of what ‘platform’, actually is, many dynamic mathe-
matics materials are ‘deposited’ on platforms of some kind. The literature presents
research on numerous online platforms providing a large number of Open Educa-
tional Resources (OER) for teaching mathematics: e.g., GeoGebra Materials, 2016;
LearningApps, 2016; I2Geo, 2016. Teachers find it difficult to choose amongst the
enormous quantity of resources and note inconsistency in their quality (Trgalová
et al., 2011). Quality variability is particularly likely if the platform is not supported
by ‘gatekeepers’, that is a dedicated ‘editorial team’ that checks on the quality of
‘self-made’ resources that are often freely available or shared by different types of
users (Camilleri et al., 2014).
There are several platforms that provide mechanisms for assessing the quality of
their resources, in order to be able to rank the materials according to their quality.
In the context of the Intergeo project, for example, Trgalová et al., (2011, p. 1163)
identified nine “relevant indicators” of the quality of dynamic geometry resources
on their platform I2Geo: “metadata, technical aspect, mathematical dimension of the
content, instrumental dimension of the content, potential of the DG, didactical imple-
mentation, pedagogical implementation, integration of the resource into a teaching
sequence, [and] usage reports.” In that project a questionnaire was developed based
on these nine quality indicators. The assessment of the quality of a particular resource
on the I2Geo platform required users to respond to nine broad statements, which can
be extended optionally to 59 questions (ibid).
In her search for quality aspects of ‘dynamic materials’, Kimeswenger (2017)
interviewed experts in electronic resource development, who described their views
on educationally valuable use of dynamic materials. The analysis of the expert inter-
views revealed eight core “quality dimensions” as crucial factors: (1) author, (2)
mathematical content, (3) resource type, (4) supporting the learning of mathematics,
(5) integration into teaching, (6) advantages of dynamic material, (7) design and
presentation, and (8) technical aspects. She also provided examples of these quality
criteria. For example, for the criterion “Supporting the learning of mathematics”,
the following question is asked: “Does the dynamic material support the learning of
mathematics?” and in of the following ways:
External Context-Related Research: Digital Resources as Transformers … 293

• Allows students to explore with the dynamic construction;

• Allows students to discover mathematics;
• Encourages students to make their own assumptions;
• Encourages students to formulate insights.
She also emphasized that the majority of experts stated that there is/was/should
be a strong correlation between the ‘quality’ of the author and the created material,
and the authors’ views on learning.
In another study, Ladel et al. (2018) developed the ACAT framework for the eval-
uation of apps, in order to provide information on quality of apps and also on the
various possibilities for teachers to evaluate apps in an efficient and reliable way.
Artifact-Centric Activity Theory (ACAT) is a model developed to capture complex
situations that arise when digital technology is introduced in classroom situations.
They proposed five steps and questions for the evaluation: (S1) What is the math-
ematical object of the app? (S2) How do students interact with the mathematical
object, mediated by the app? (S3) How does the interaction develop? (S4) Is the app
suitable for teaching and learning the mathematical object? (S5) How can the app be
used in classroom instruction?
Leaning on selected theories in mathematics education (e.g., cognitive load),
Donevska-Todorova and Weigand (2018) developed three design principles for
‘resources and tasks for technology-enhanced teaching and learning mathematics’.
These were; (P1) Reduction of the total cognitive load by decreasing extraneous
cognitive load; (P2) Reduction of the total cognitive load by decrease of the intrinsic
cognitive load; (P3) Connection of active engagement and focus on mathematical
content. Donevska-Todorova (2019) also developed a framework for evaluating the
quality of tablet apps in primary mathematics education and their integration in
student-centered learning environments. Focusing on the didactical potentials of
tablet-apps, she identified six overarching categories: (1) mathematical content and
relation to curriculum, (2) communication, collaboration and cooperation, (3) differ-
entiation, (4) feedback and assessment, (5) connections and networking and (6) logis-
tics. She claimed that the proposed model may become “meaningful for teachers’
decision making when selecting and implementing touchpad-apps in their instruc-
tional practices but also for developmental surveying of existing apps, their re-designs
and further novel designs involving identified potentials” (p. 121). Based on this
framework, Donevska-Todorova and Eilerts (2019) also developed review criteria
related to a particular content area: space and shape.

4.2 Quality of E-Textbooks

The e-textbook can be seen a system of digital curriculum resources. In their efforts
to identify aspects of the quality of e-textbooks, Pepin et al. (2015) distinguished
between three models of currently available e-textbooks – dynamic, evolving or “liv-
ing”, and interactive. In the “dynamic” model, a static textbook (traditional or digital)
294 G. Gueudet and B. Pepin

is linked to other learning objects. In the “living” model, textbooks are dynamically
and cumulatively authored by a community, often a community of teachers (e.g.,
Gueudet et al., 2013). The third model of e-textbooks – interactive – is based on a
toolkit model, and is anchored in a set of learning objects, where tasks and inter-
active materials can be linked and combined in different ways. These distinctions
also relate to the quality aspect of ‘coherence’. Drawing on Gueudet et al. (2013)
and Yerushalmy and Chazan (2008), distinguished between two types of coherence
in textbooks. First, coherence of the design of a textbook encompasses aspects such
as mathematical correctness, epistemological stance toward mathematical topics,
sequencing that avoids gaps in the mathematical progression, consistent handling
of mathematical objects, and consistency with national curricula. These aspects of
coherence are constituted in the textbook’s expositions, its tasks, and ways in which
technology is made available to students. The second type of coherence-in-use is
the coherence of what teachers actually propose to their students, drawing on the
textbook, or on other curricular material. The e-textbook is changing the boundary
between coherence of design and coherence in use. Issues pertaining to sequencing
and availability of technology, which have been considered aspects of design of
a linear textbook, are becoming aspect of coherence in use, as teachers re-design
the textbook (e.g., Gueudet, et al., 2018). In order to help teachers to use digital
resources in ways that provide a coherent learning trajectory for students, Confrey
and her team (e.g., Confrey et al., 2017) have designed tools and materials to help
teachers develop learning trajectories through a “bag of resources” in alignment with
particular standards (in this case US Common Core State Standards).

4.3 Quality of Dynamic Mathematical Tasks

Concerning the quality in dynamic mathematics tasks, one of these quality aspects
related to authentic tasks, which require realistic objects and questions (e.g., Jablonski
et al., 2018). An example is MathCityMap which takes up the idea of outdoor math-
ematics through the creation of math trails by using an app and a web portal in which
every registered user is allowed to create and publish their own tasks. Through
a constantly growing community and the provision of a particular quality of the
published material, the system is based on a multistep review process and several
criteria for published tasks. Criteria for tasks in a MathCityMap math trail include
the following: (1) Uniqueness (every task should provide a picture that helps identify
the object of the task and what the task is about); (2) attendance (authenticity- the
task can only be solved at the object location); (3) activity (embodied mathematics,
i.e., mathematics can only be fully comprehended through an active experience);
(4) multiple solution (solvable in different way); (5) reality (meaningful relevance);
(6) hints (every task should provide at least one hint in terms of solving the task);
(7) school math and tags (the task should feature a connection to school math); (8)
solution formats (e.g., each task should be based on a meaningful answer format,
such as intervals for measurement tasks); (9) tools (the task should be solved without
External Context-Related Research: Digital Resources as Transformers … 295

special and extraordinary tools). A math trail idea is a combination of different tasks
that should harmonize as a trail. Therefore, the whole trail comes into the review
process after every task of a trail has been through it.

4.4 Quality of Curriculum Programs

Choppin et al. (2014) created a typology for analyzing the quality of digital curricula
in mathematics education. They documented two distinct curriculum types, individ-
ualized learning programs and digitized versions of traditional textbooks. In order
to help educators better understand the characteristics of these materials, they devel-
oped and applied a framework to analyze a representative sample of digital curriculum
programs. The framework has three distinct themes:
Theme 1 relates to students’ interactions with the programs, and was subdivided
into three categories that describe students’ interactions with the programs:
1. Student learning experiences (what students see and do in the program);
2. differentiation/individualization (features that enable teachers to select content
according to their perceptions of students’ abilities); and
3. social/collective features (features of the programs aimed at virtually connecting
groups of students or other stakeholders).
Theme 2 concerns curriculum use and adaptations, that address the flexibility
of each program in terms of providing tools and resources to sequence and design
lessons for teachers. Choppin et al. (2014) analyzed programs according to four
categories that provide teachers the ability to:
1. Map and sequence lessons;
2. Design content of lessons;
3. Locate and use multi-media presentation materials; and
4. Make and store notes for future planning.
Theme 3 encompasses the analysis of assessment systems. As assessment systems
offer the potential for online assessments and the ability to automatically analyze and
report assessments, they proposed criteria for the analysis of the assessment systems,
built into the programs, and focused on the following four categories of functionality:
1. Create assessments;
2. Record and store results of assessments;
3. Generate dashboard or other summaries of data; and
4. Generate and transmit reports/results to multiple audiences, including teachers,
parents, and administrators.
Choppin et al. (2014) claimed that while the programs offered some of the features
identified as transformative, particularly with respect to assessment systems that
rapidly and visually report student performance, there were many features that did
not take full advantage of the digital medium.
296 G. Gueudet and B. Pepin

To summarize this section, it appears that there is a huge variety of DCRs. As

different DCRs (and types of DCRs) have different affordances and constraints (also
as compared to analogue materials), perceptions of what is ‘quality’ also vary: from
interactive, over add-on, to dynamic materials, to name but a few of the quality
notions. Moreover, notions of didactic quality seem to change their ‘appearance’
in teachers’ work with digital resources (e.g., what does consistency or coherence
means in e-textbooks).

5 Recent Developments and Future Directions for Research

We have seen in the previous sections that the progress of research on teaching
taking-into-account digital resources is manifested through development of theories,
which propose different dimensions to understand the interactions of teachers with
available digital resources, and the consequences of these interactions. We foresee
that this progress will continue, since teachers’ working environment (and hence their
professional activity in class and out-of-class) continue to evolve with new elements,
predictable or not at this stage.
In this section, we consider three themes that correspond to recent evolutions in the
external contexts of mathematics teachers’ professional activity and that are giving
rise to a growing body of research. We have chosen themes illustrating different
elements of the external context for teachers: (1) official curricula and the inte-
gration of programming in these curricula; (2) the collective work of teachers in
different kinds of teams or networks related to digital resources; and (3) the COVID-
19 pandemic, which foregrounded the importance of digital tools, in particular for
distance teaching (and learning).

5.1 Introduction of Programming in the Mathematics

Curricula Internationally and Consequences for Teachers

Research in mathematics education about programming is not new (e.g., Papert,

1993), albeit the interest for programming in mathematics education declined at the
end of the 90s and beginning of 2000s.
Then a major change happened in the official curricula internationally: between
2010 and 2020 that saw programming introduced in primary and secondary school
curricula of many countries (see e.g., Haspekian, 2017; Misfeldt et al., 2020;
Modeste, 2015). In some countries programming was introduced as a specific disci-
pline and has been taught by computer science teachers. In others it has been inserted
in mathematics curricula and has been taught by mathematics teachers. These changes
in curricula have led to a renewal of research about programming and computa-
tional thinking in mathematics education. While the early works in the 70s and 80s
External Context-Related Research: Digital Resources as Transformers … 297

were mostly focused on students’ learning and their development of computational

thinking, researchers now acknowledge the importance of the teacher (Benton et al.,
2017; Pérez, 2018), and the need to investigate how teachers integrate programming
in their mathematics courses.
In the Scratchmath project in UK, Benton et al. (2017) designed a curriculum
for primary school teachers, and the team studied teachers’ implementation of
this curriculum. The authors observed that some primary school teachers were
not familiar with programming, and that the concept of an algorithm was diffi-
cult for them. Nevertheless, the framework designed by the researchers supported
teachers in their implementation of strategies with their students. The choice of
strategies depended in particular on their confidence with Scratch. The teachers
also made different choices in terms of emphasizing programming, or mathematics.
This research was similar to other studies evoked in Sect. 3.2 concerning teacher
integration of digital resources, and how they were integrated.
The issue of the links between programming and mathematics that these devel-
opments draw attention to has been investigated in several studies. Pérez (2018)
proposed a framework evidencing different dimensions of computational thinking;
this framework has been actually developed has a tool for secondary school math-
ematics teachers engaging for the first time with the teaching of programming and
facing the need to combine mathematical thinking and computational thinking.
Misfeldt et al. (2020) examined the official curricula in Denmark, Sweden and
England, and examined the enacted curriculum through selected cases. They iden-
tified four possible types of relations between mathematics and programming: “(1)
specific relations to mathematical concepts or processes [.]; (2) explicit relations to
mathematics [.]; (3) implicit relations to mathematics, [.]; and (4) no or weak relations
to mathematics.” (ibid. p. 259). How teachers can and do combine mathematics and
programming in this new context is a promising and important direction for research.
The role of the teacher in courses combining programming and mathematics has
already been the subject of research at university level, where programming has been
present in some courses since the early 2000s. One example is the MICA courses
(Mathematics Integrated with Computers and Applications) at Brock University in
Canada. Buteau and Muller (2014) evidenced that teachers in these courses also
intervened as policy makers, and that this role was essential for implementing and
sustaining the intervention at the departmental level. In their recent research, Buteau
et al. (2020) used the instrumental approach and the theory of orchestration, to study
how a teacher in MICA courses supported students’ instrumental geneses with a
programming language, for mathematical investigations. They showed that the lab
setting was a key element in the teacher’s orchestration, where the work of the
students on their projects were supported. Lockwood & Mørken (2021) called for
more research exploring the relationships between computing and mathematics at
university level, and this is also certainly a promising direction for research.
Studies about teaching programming and mathematics have much in common with
the recent studies evoked in Sect. 3.2, about how teacher integrate digital resources.
They have also investigated how a Type I variable (the introduction of programming
in the official curriculum) affects Type C, D and E variables. We note, nevertheless,
298 G. Gueudet and B. Pepin

that the nature of Type E variables in this case is specific, since it questions the links
between mathematics and programming.

5.2 Teacher Collaborative Activities

Research on mathematics teachers’ collective work with DCRs has developed signif-
icantly over the last 20 years, and particularly in the most recent of these years.
This includes research on teacher’s work in established communities as well as in
spontaneously set-up communities with a common purpose, and it also includes the
collective work online, in schools, at home or in institutions that offer collective work
as professional development.
Regarding collective work in organized teacher collectives, Gueudet et al. (2016)
provided a window into the collective design of an e-textbook, which was made
possible by new “digital” opportunities: e.g., platforms, discussion lists. The context
of the collective work was provided by the French Sesamath teacher association and
their design of a Grade 10 e-textbook in terms of the “functions” chapter. This study
concerned the influence of Type I variables on the collective teacher design (Type D).
Here the Type I variables include the digital platform, but also from the point of view
of an individual teacher, member of the group, the other members of the group (in
this case mathematics teacher and computer science specialists). At the individual
level, these variables also influence a member of the group in terms of professional
knowledge (Type E), and the Type D-E variable interaction, as described in Medley’s
framework.
In terms of teachers working ‘spontaneously’ with colleagues, Trouche et al.
(2020b) reported on the collective work of an experienced mathematics teacher at
secondary level, who has also worked as a teacher educator in a university depart-
ment. They investigated her work and professional development with colleagues
(e.g., lesson planning), with a particular interest in the digital resources, including
both digital curriculum resources (e.g., e-textbooks, online resources) and digital
technologies (e.g., for communicating, sharing). Results show that her transition to
DCRs was a critical process in her professional learning trajectory. Of importance
were the notions of resource system for studying the teacher’s activity as a whole,
and of documentational trajectory for studying the teacher’s activity over the time. In
other words, they point to a teacher’s resource system (an organized system of digital
and analogue resources) and his/her collective work (over time) as major ingredi-
ents for professional learning and development. The authors claimed to contribute
to a better understanding of the impact of digital resources on mathematics teachers’
work and professional learning over time, and of the ways the context of collaboration
shapes their professional work and learning. Hence, they consider the interactions
between variables of Type I (digital resources, colleagues) and variables of Type C,
D and E (since the practice and the knowledge of the teacher evolved).
Other recent research concerns teacher collective work with DCRs in a context
of preservice or in-service teacher education, hence interactions between Type I
External Context-Related Research: Digital Resources as Transformers … 299

and Type J offline variables (with consequences for Types C, D and E variables).
Although the collective work in the context of teacher education has been researched
for more than 20 years, the use of various digital means opened new possibilities, in
particular in terms of blended or distant learning, that have been recently investigated.
For example, in a study by Borba et al. (2018) online pre-service teacher distance
education is the context. The purpose of this study was to analyze the role of digital
technologies in two specific contexts: how teachers, tutors, and students play a role in
producing interactive DCRs, and how digital technologies themselves can play a role
in teaching distance learning courses. However, for these roles to emerge, the authors
pointed to the need for participants in online courses to interact collaboratively. Their
results showed that the roles are related and that digital technologies transform both
teacher and student roles and participation in the virtual classroom, with the result
that an ‘agency of media’ (meaning here the possibility to combine different media,
to change media when relevant) emerges in online mathematics education.
Lesson Study (LS, Takahashi, 2014) provides context in which teachers collabo-
rate to design lessons (through cycles of plan—teach—reflect). LS has been inves-
tigated for more than 20 years by mathematics education researchers; but they are
renewed by digital resources, allowing in particular the organization of blended
training. Joubert et al. (2020) reported on a Lesson Study in a blended approach
to support isolated mathematics teachers (who could not meet face-to-face), to use
and integrate mobile technology in their teaching. They identified eleven aspects
playing an important role in the processes: technology; collective/group; learning
management system; online facilitation; technological pedagogical content knowl-
edge; (mobile) learning strategies; a lesson planning form; backward design; time;
photos, videos and reports; and reflection questions. The eleven aspects that emerged
led to the development of a framework consisting of three dimensions of LS, namely
Collaboration, Instructional Development, and the Iterative Improvement Process,
supported by the identified aspects.
Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) are another kind of digital curriculum
resource that now contribute in mathematics teachers’ in-service education. Holle-
brands and Lee (2020) reported on the design of three MOOCs for mathematics
teachers’ professional learning. The designs were based on principles of effective
online professional development that included: self-directed learning, learning from
multiple voices, job-connected learning, and peer-supported learning. The team
examined how these design principles were enacted in the development of the
MOOC-Eds and how they influenced the engagement of 5767 participants. Evidence
showed that the three MOOC-Eds were successful in “allowing two experienced
mathematics teacher educators to design engaging experiences for teachers that have
shown to have positive impacts on their beliefs, perspectives and practices in teaching
mathematics and statistics” (p. 872). The authors claimed that scaling-up professional
development for teachers requires much more than simply transforming typical in-
person experiences into online videos and readings. As they grounded their design
in an interconnected model of professional growth (Clarke & Hollingsworth, 2002)
and used best practices from mathematics teacher education and design principles
300 G. Gueudet and B. Pepin

for online teacher engagement, they claimed that they could establish a large-scale
professional development program that engaged and impacted teachers from around
the world.
An assessment of design principles used to guide the development of MOOCs
for teachers was conducted by Aldon et al. (2017a). They examined how instruc-
tors’ practices influenced collaboration and participation in MOOCs implemented
in France (eFAN Maths MOOC) and Italy (UniTo: Geometria MOOC and Numeri
MOOC). The MOOCs from these countries supplemented discussion forums with
the use of other collaborative tools (e.g., Padlet, social networks, collaborative project
spaces). There were differences noted in how the instructors facilitated collaboration.
With those in the French MOOCs focused on fostering local collaboration while the
Italian MOOCs encouraged collaboration among all participants within the MOOC.
The study pointed to the importance of examining not just the design of a MOOC for
teachers, but also how such MOOCs are enacted and experienced by participants.
Many possibilities for combining digital resources and mathematics teachers’
collective work exist, and can have different consequences for teacher knowledge
and teacher practice (within a teacher training program or more informally). Cai et al.
(2020) suggest that digital technologies can contribute to the design of shared knowl-
edge base for mathematics teachers and for researchers in mathematics education.
The effective realization of these new possibilities constitutes a challenge for the
mathematics education research communities and a promising direction for future
research.

5.3 Digital Resources in Mathematics Education, Equity,

and COVID-19

The socio-economic environment in which students live is also a critical compo-

nent of the professional context for teachers. Research in mathematics education is
increasingly taking this context into account, and there is interest in how teaching
can contribute to equity (Forgasz & Rivera, 2012). Questions have been raised in
particular about the use of technologies because students have different accesses and
relationships to technology, depending on their socio-cultural background, how can
teaching be equitable when teachers use technology in their mathematical courses?
Can they use technology to create opportunities for students from different socio-
cultural backgrounds? Forgasz et al. (2010) present a synthesis or research inves-
tigating such issues. They showed that obstacles to the use of technologies linked
to issues of access seem to have decreased in rich countries, whereas they remain
prevalent in developing countries. They also presented teaching interventions (in rich
countries) where technology was used to create mathematical learning opportunities
for all students.
While resources in the form of computers, software, and Internet access have
tremendously increased since these early studies, important disparities in terms of
External Context-Related Research: Digital Resources as Transformers … 301

access to digital technologies remain at an international level (e.g., Bethell, 2016).

The external context for mathematics teachers is thus very different according to the
country in which teachers work, and we acknowledge that research synthesized in this
chapter mostly addresses the context of teachers in rich countries. Nevertheless, even
in these rich countries, socio-economic differences exist between different schools.
In the U.S. Kitchen and Berk (2016) argue that the use by teachers of computer
assisted instruction in schools that predominantly serve low-income students may
favour work on technical tasks, instead of problems fostering a rich mathematical
activity. This reduces the opportunities of learning for these students.
Research in mathematics education has increasingly considered equity issues, and
how digital resources can contribute to equitable teaching. Referring to the framework
guiding this book, we consider that this research investigates how a Type I variable
(digital resources) can be used to counterbalance negative effects of another Type I
variable (the socio-economic background) on the relations between processes (Types
C and B) and product (Type A, learning outcomes). For example, in a study conducted
in a primary school in ‘unfavorable’ (in socio-economic terms) contexts in Mexico,
Sandoval and Trigueros (2021) observed that when primary school teachers create a
classroom culture grounded on mutual respect, listening to each other, and combined
this with the use of software supporting students’ problem-solving activity, all the
students can grasp the important mathematical ideas.
Finally, major changes in the mathematics teachers’ external context in recent
years have been due to the COVID-19 pandemic. From Kindergarten to University,
teachers all over the world were forced to teach online of at least some of the time
over several months. This dramatic context is also a new theme (or a large set of new
themes) for research.
From the first lockdown, researchers in mathematics education launched ques-
tionnaires to investigate the consequences of this situation for teachers’ practices,
including naturally their use of technologies.
Drijvers (2020) and his colleagues, for example, conducted a study entitled
“Math@Distance study” in Flanders, Germany and the Netherlands. They asked
1719 secondary school mathematics teachers about their teaching practices during
lockdown. The use of digital resources was an important aspect in their study. They
observed that the use of video conferencing software drastically increased. More
surprisingly, the use of online exercises and online learning environments decreased.
During the synchronous video lessons, the teacher presents, the students answer ques-
tions; but the collective work of students was scarce. Hodgen et al. (2020) reached
similar conclusions, analyzing questionnaires and interviews with 49 heads of mathe-
matics departments in secondary schools in England. Moreover, disadvantaged pupils
were less engaged in the teaching due to problems of access, low parental support,
and new personal and familial difficulties. Solomon (2021) stressed that equity is
one of the most difficult challenges in the COVID-19 context; at the same time this
context presented new opportunities for teachers to access student thinking using
some of the technologies utilized during distant teaching.
Technological equipment and online teaching practices have changed since these
“early” in the pandemic chronology studies. We assume that “Which digital resources
302 G. Gueudet and B. Pepin

can support teachers, and students, in secondary school mathematics for distant or
hybrid teaching in a context of pandemic?” will remain an important research ques-
tion for some years to come. This is because the pandemic unfolds over several years
and the research will need several years of setbacks to understand these phenomena.

6 Conclusions

The question leading this chapter was:

How has the evolution of research in mathematics education about digital resources impacted
the context of mathematics teachers’ professional activity?

Reviewing the relevant literature, we have observed a very large number of

changes in the research studies. We have selected and presented particular direc-
tions in these that seemed to be the most pertinent. Our focus was not only on digital
resources themselves (e.g., e-textbooks, mathematical software, digital platforms,
online assessment systems, tools for distant collaboration, videos, and other kinds
of digital media), but on various aspects of teachers’ external context linked with
digital resources: community support, or time economy for example. Moreover, we
have shown that the research studies on these topics strongly associate Type I, Type
E, Type D and Type C variables.
The changes we observed and insights we gained can be summarized as follows:
• Evolution in the research about educational policies: early studies considered the
policies in terms of material equipment of the schools, and then the place of the
educational technologies in national curricula. They evidenced some discrepan-
cies between the intended curriculum and the enacted curriculum, linked with a
lack of equipment, and teachers’ professional development concerning the use of
technologies. The role of technology in national assessments (often very limited)
was an important factor explaining the discrepancies. Recent research has been
more focused on DCRs (e.g., digital platforms), proposed by the educational
authorities to support teachers’ design, in particular in a context of reforms.
• Evolution in research about teachers’ integration of digital resources: the research
questions evolved from the integration of a single educational technology by a
teacher to questions about complex sets of resources available in a digital envi-
ronment. This evolution in the questions being asked was linked with the devel-
opment of theoretical frameworks and new conceptualizations of digital resource
integration by teachers. New questions arose about the role of the teacher. In a digi-
talized context, students develop as self-directed learners together with support
from their peers, and teachers become the scaffolders of knowledge development.
The research also highlighted new requirements for the teachers, including a need
to change their perspective on the mathematics (e.g., seeing programming as an
integral part of mathematics). Finally, an increasing number of studies considered
the potential and actual collective dimensions of teachers’ work and how these
have been impacted by digital resources.
External Context-Related Research: Digital Resources as Transformers … 303

• Evolution in the research about the digital resources: Concurrent with devel-
opment and use of new digital resources, new issues have emerged and have
been developed. These included the quality of digital resources. Research has
produced different kinds of tools for assessing this quality, and revealed the need
to re-conceptualize quality, to consider new possibilities for connectivity, and new
perspectives on the teachers as designers of their own curriculum (Type D and
Type C variables, since the design takes place out-of-class and in-class). It has
become evident that new technologies and digital resources necessitate and drive
new pedagogical approaches. In other words, questions are not only concerned
with how the teacher may be able to suitably integrate resources, but with the
digital resources themselves (e.g., digital learning environments) require and force
teachers to take a different stance and build their ‘teaching’ (or coaching) around
the new digital environment.
Different causes were combined to produce these changes. Each time that a new
digital resource is introduced in school, it is a new element in the external context
for teachers and opens the way for research on the potential of this digital resource,
on its actual use, on its impact on teaching and on teacher knowledge (Types C, D
and E). The general evolution of research on mathematics education has also influ-
enced research about DCRs as part of teachers’ context (this can involve any of the
variables). New research issues (e.g., assessment; teachers’ and students’ collective
work) encompass studies about digital resources and mathematics teaching. The
socio-political turn, and the value of research addressing equity issues is also an
important trend in recent research present in the literature we reviewed.
We foresee further evolution in research in all the directions mentioned above that
stress the need for more research on:
• Educational policies pertaining to the offering of digital curriculum (e.g., digital
platforms) and the tensions between supporting teacher creativity (with these
resources) and efforts of the national agencies offering the resources to help
teachers align with education reforms;
• Provision and quality of particular DCRs (e.g. for particular mathematical topic
areas, including programming);
• Digital assessment procedures, developing from simple tests to complex digital
environments where students can work collaboratively on tasks;
• Distant and hybrid teaching at all school levels, and its links with equity issues.
Moreover, in an external context requiring teachers to become the designers of
their own curriculum, more research is needed on educative digital resources for
teacher professional development (Type J variable). We contend that digital resources
as elements of the external context for mathematics teachers’ professional activity
are often underestimated, and their affordances, constraints, and potential to drive
under-researched. For us, this review was an eye-opener, and we believe that there
are many avenues for mathematics education research in this field.
304 G. Gueudet and B. Pepin

References

Adler, J. (2000). Conceptualising resources as a theme for teacher education. Journal of Mathematics
Teacher Education, 3, 205–224.
Aldon, G., Arzarello, F., Panero, M., Robutti, O., Taranto, E., & Trgalová, J. (2017a). MOOC for
mathematics teacher training: design principles and assessment. In G. Aldon & J. Trgalová (Eds.),
Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Technology in Mathematics Teaching
(pp. 200–209). Lyon, France.
Aldon, G., Cusi, A., Morselli, F., Panero, M., & Sabena, C. (2017b). Formative assessment and
technology: Reflections developed through the collaboration between teachers and researchers.
In G. Aldon, L. Bazzini, & U. Gellert (Eds.), Mathematics and technology (pp. 551–578).
Springer.
Aldon, G., & Trgalová, J. (2017). In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Technology
in Mathematics Teaching. Lyon, France: Institut Français de l’Education.
Artigue, M. (2011). Challenges in basic mathematics education. UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.
org/ark:/48223/pf0000191776_eng
Assude, T. (2007). Teachers’ practices and degree of ICT integration. In D. Pitta-Pantazi & G.N.
Philippou (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth Congress of the European Society for Research in
Mathematics Education (pp. 1339–1348). Larnaka: Department of Education, University of
Cyprus.
Assude, T. (2005). Time management in the work economy of a class. Educational Studies in
Mathematics, 59(1), 183–203.
Attard, C., Calder, N., Holmes, K., Larkin, K., & Trenholm, S. (2020). Teaching and Learning Math-
ematics with Digital Technologies. In J. Way, C. Attard, J. Anderson, J. Bobis, H. McMaster, & K.
Cartwright (Eds.), Research in mathematics education in Australasia 2016–2019 (pp. 319–347).
Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-4269-5_13
Benton, L., Hoyles, C., Kalas, I., & Noss, R. (2017). Bridging Primary programming and math-
ematics: some findings of design research in England. Digital Experiences in Mathematics
Education, 3(2), 115–138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40751-017-0028-x
Bethell, G. (2016). Mathematics education in Sub-Saharan Africa: Status, challenges, and
opportunities. World Bank.
Borba, M. C., Chiari, A. S., de S., & de Almeida, H. R. F. L. (2018). Interactions in virtual learning
environments: New roles for digital technology. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 98(3),
269–286. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-018-9812-9
Borba, M., & Villarreal, M. (2005). Humans-with-media and the reorganization of mathemat-
ical thinking: Information and communication technologies, modeling, experimentation and
visualization. Springer (Mathematics Education Library).
Brown, M. W. (2009). The teacher-tool relationship: Theorizing the design and use of curriculum
materials. In J. T. Remillard, B. A. Herbel-Eisenmann, & G. M. Lloyd (Eds.), Mathematics
teachers at work: Connecting curriculum materials and classroom instruction (pp. 17–36).
Routledge.
Buteau, C., Muller, E., Santacruz Rodriguez, M., Gueudet, G., Mgonbelo, J, & Sacristán, A.-I.
(2020). Instrumental orchestration of using programming in mathematical investigations. In A.
Donevska-Todorova, E. Faggiano, J. Trgalová, Z. Lavicza, R. Weinhandl, A. Clark-Wilson & H.-
G. Weigand (Eds.), Proceedings of the MEDA2020 Conference (pp. 443–450). Linz University.
Buteau, C., & Muller, E. (2014). Teaching roles in a technology intensive core undergraduate
mathematics course. In A. Clark-Wilson, O. Robutti, & N. Sinclair (Eds.), The mathematics
teacher in the digital Era (pp. 163–188). Springer.
Cai, J., Morris, A., Hohensee, C., Hwang, S., Robison, V., Cirillo, M., Kramer, S. L., & Hiebert, J.
(2020). Improving the impact of research on practice : Capitalizing on technological advances
for research. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 51(5), 518–529. https://doi.org/
10.5951/jresematheduc-2020-0165
External Context-Related Research: Digital Resources as Transformers … 305

Camilleri, A. F., Ehlers, U. D., & Pawlowski, J. (2014). State of the art review of quality issues
related to open educational resources (OER). Publications Office of the European Union.
Choppin, J., Carson, C., Borys, Z., Cerosaletti, C., & Gillis, R. (2014). A typology for analyzing
digital curricula in mathematics education. International Journal of Education in Mathematics,
Science, and Technology, 2(1), 11–25.
Clarke, D., & Hollingsworth, H. (2002). Elaborating a model of teacher professional growth.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 947–967.
Clark-Wilson, A., Donevska-Todorova, A., Faggiano, E., Trgalová, J., & Weigand, H.-G. (2021).
Mathematics education in the digital age. Routledge.
Clark-Wilson, A., & Hoyles, C. (2019). A research-informed web-based professional development
toolkit to support technology-enhanced mathematics teaching at scale. Educational Studies in
Mathematics, 102(3), 343–359. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-018-9836-1
Clark-Wilson, A., Robutti, O., & Sinclair, N. (2014). The mathematics teacher in the digital Era.
Springer.
Confrey, J., Gianopulos, G., McGowan, W., et al. (2017). Scaffolding learner-centered curric-
ular coherence using learning maps and diagnostic assessments designed around mathematics
learning trajectories. ZDM Mathematics Education, 49, 717–734. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11
858-017-0869-1
Donevska-Todorova, A. (2019). Towards a theoretical foundation for quality tablet app-enriched
learning environments in primary school mathematics education. International Journal of
Technology in Mathematics Education, 26(3), 121–129.
Donevska-Todorova, A., & Eilerts, K. (2019). Designing and disseminating review criteria for
quality of tablet apps in primary school mathematics. In B. Barzel, R. Bebernik, L. Göbel,
M. Pohl, H. Ruchniewicz, F. Schacht, D. Thurm (Eds.), Proceedings of the 14th International
Conference on Technology in Mathematics Teaching (pp. 279–288). Essen, Germany.
Donevska-Todorova, A., & Weigand, H.-G. (2018). Design principles for resources and tasks for
technology-enhanced teaching and learning mathematics. In H.-G. Weigand, A. Clark-Wilson,
A. Donevska-Todorova, E. Faggiano, N. Groenbaek, & J. Trgalová (Eds.), Proceedings of the
MEDA Conference (pp. 51–58). Copenhagen, Denmark: University of Copenhagen.
Drijvers, P. (2020). Math@distance: Distance mathematics teaching during the COVID-19 lock-
down. In Moving forward in the midst of a pandemic: International lessons for math teachers.
Hosted by the U.S. National Commission of Mathematics Instruction National Academies of
Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
Drijvers, P. (2018). Digital assessment of mathematics: Opportunities, issues and criteria. Mesure
Et Évaluation En Éducation, 41(1), 41–66.
Drijvers, P. (2012). Teachers transforming resources into orchestrations. In G. Gueudet, B. Pepin, &
L. Trouche (Eds.), From text to ‘lived’ resources: Mathematics curriculum materials and teacher
development (pp. 265–281). Springer.
Drijvers, P., Ball, L., Barzel, B., Heid, M. K., Cao, Y., & Maschietto, M. (2016). Uses of technology
in lower secondary mathematics education: A concise topical survey. Springer.
Drijvers, P., Monaghan, J., Thomas, M., & Trouche, L. (2015). Use of technology in secondary
mathematics: Final report for the International Baccalaureate. International Baccalaureate
Organization. Retrieved from www.ibo.org/globalassets/publications/
Forgasz, H. (2006). Factors that encourage or inhibit computer use for secondary mathematics
teaching. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 25(1), 77–93.
Forgasz, H., Vale, C., & Ursini, S. (2010). Technology for mathematics education: Equity, access
and agency. In C. Hoyles & J.-B. Lagrange (Eds.), Mathematics education and technology :
Rethinking the terrain: The 17th ICMI study (pp. 385–404). Springer.
Forgasz, H., & Rivera, F. (2012). Towards equity in mathematics education gender, culture, and
diversity. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-27702-3
Goos, M. (2014). Technology integration in secondary school mathematics: The development of
teachers’ professional identities. In A. Clark-Wilson, O. Robutti, & N. Sinclair (Eds.), The
mathematics teacher in the digital Era (pp. 139–162). Springer.
306 G. Gueudet and B. Pepin

Geiger, V., Calder, N., Tan, H., Loong, E., Miller, J., & Larkin, K. (2016). Transformations of
teaching and learning through digital technologies. In K. Makar, S. Dole, J. Visnovska, M. Goos,
A. Bennison, & K. Fry (Eds.), Research in mathematics education in Australasia 2012–2015
(pp. 255 280). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-1419-2_13
Gueudet, G., Pepin, B., Courtney, S., Kock, Z.-J., Misfeldt, M., & Tamborg, A. (2021). Digital
platforms for mathematics teacher curriculum design: Affordances and constraints. In A. Clark-
Wilson, A. Donevska-Todorova, E. Faggiano, J. Trgalová, & H.-G. Weigand (Eds.), Mathematics
education in the digital age: Learning, practice and theory (pp. 84–98). Routledge.
Gueudet, G., Pepin, B., Sabra, H., Restrepo, A., & Trouche, L. (2018). E-textbooks and connec-
tivity: Proposing an analytical framework. International Journal for Science and Mathematics
Education, 16(3), 539–558.
Gueudet, G., Pepin, B., Sabra, H., & Trouche, L. (2016). Collective design of an e-textbook:
Teachers’ collective documentation. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 19(2–3),
187–203.
Gueudet, G., Pepin, B., & Trouche, L. (2013). Collective work with resources: An essential
dimension for teacher documentation. ZDM—Mathematics Education, 45(7), 1003–1016.
Gueudet, G., Pepin, B., & Trouche, L. (Eds.). (2012). From Textbooks to ‘lived’ resources:
Mathematics curriculum materials and teacher documentation. Springer.
Gueudet, G., & Poisard, C. (2018). Design and use of curriculum resources for teachers and
teacher educators: Example of the Chinese abacus at primary school. International Journal
of Educational Research, 93, 68–78.
Gueudet, G., & Trouche, L. (2009). Towards new documentation systems for teachers? Educational
Studies in Mathematics, 71(3), 199–218.
Guin, D., Ruthven, K., & Trouche, L. (Eds.). (2005). The didactical challenge of symbolic
calculators: Turning a computational device into a mathematical instrument. Springer.
Haspekian, M. (2014). Teachers’ instrumental geneses when integrating spreadsheet software. In
A. Clark-Wilson, O. Robutti, & N. Sinclair (Eds.), The mathematics teacher in the digital Era
(pp. 241–275). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4638-1_11
Haspekian, M. (2017). Computer science in mathematics new curricula at primary school: new tools,
new teaching practices? In G. Aldon, & J. Trgalová (Eds.). Proceedings of the 13th International
Conference on Technology in Mathematics Teaching (pp. 23–32). France.
Hodgen, J., Taylor, B., Jacques, L., Tereshchenko, A., Kwok, R., & Cockerill, M. (2020). Remote
mathematics teaching during COVID-19: Intentions, practices and equity. UCL Institute of
Education.
Hollebrands, K. F., & Lee, H. S. (2020). Effective design of massive open online courses for math-
ematics teachers to support their professional learning. ZDM Mathematics Education, 52(5),
859–875. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-020-01142-0.
Hoyles, C., & Lagrange, J. B. (Eds.). (2010). Mathematics education and technology—Rethinking
the terrain. The 17th ICMI study. Springer.
Hunter, J. M. (2019). Support provided by administrators for mathematics teachers: a case study
of one North Louisiana high school (Doctoral dissertation). Lousiana Tech University, USA.
Jablonski, S., Ludwig, M., & Zender, J. (2018) Task quality versus task quantity. A dialog-based
review system to ensure a certain quality of tasks the MathCityMap web community. In H.G.
Weigand, A. Clark-Wilson, A. Donevska-Todorova, E. Faggiano, N. Groenbaek, & J. Trgalová
(Eds.), Proceedings of the MEDA2018 Conference (pp. 115–124). Copenhagen, University of
Copenhagen, Denmark.
Jankvist, U.-T. Dreyøe, J., Geraniou, E., Weigand, H.-G., & Misfeldt, M. (2021). CAS from an
Assessment Point of View: Challenges and Potentials. In Clark-Wilson, A., Donevska-Todorova,
A., Faggiano, E., Trgalová,J. & Weigand, H.-G. Mathematics education in the digital age.
Learning, practice and theory (pp. 99–120). Routledge.
Joubert, J., Callaghan, R., & Engelbrecht, J. (2020). Lesson study in a blended approach to support
isolated teachers in teaching with technology. ZDM Mathematics Education, 52, 907–925.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-020-01161-x
External Context-Related Research: Digital Resources as Transformers … 307

Julie, C., Leung, A., Thanh, N., Posadas, L., Sacristán, A. I., & Semenov, A. (2010). Some regional
developments in access and implementation of digital technologies and ICT. In C. Hoyles &
J.B. Lagrange (Eds.), Mathematics education and technology—Rethinking the terrain. The 17th
ICMI study (Vol. 13, New ICMI Study Series, pp. 361–383). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/
978-1-4419-0146-0_19
Kimeswenger, B. (2017). Identifying and assessing quality criteria for dynamic mathematics mate-
rials on platforms. In T. Dooley & G. Gueudet (Eds.), Proceedings of the Tenth Congress of
the European Mathematical Society for Research in Mathematics Education (pp. 2414–2421).
CERME 10, Dublin, Ireland: DCU Institute of Education and ERME.
Kitchen, R., & Berk, S. (2016). Research commentary : Educational technology: An equity challenge
to the common core. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 47(1), 3–16. https://doi.
org/10.5951/jresematheduc.47.1.0003
Ladel, S., Kortenkamp, U., Larkin, K., & Etzold, H. (2018). Evaluation of apps using the ACAT
framework. In H.G. Weigand, A. Clark-Wilson, A. Donevska-Todorova, E. Faggiano, N.
Groenbaek, & J. Trgalová (Eds.), Proceedings of the MEDA 2018 Conference (pp. 171–178).
Copenhagen, Denmark: University of Copenhagen.
Leung, A., & Bolite-Frant, J. (2015). Designing mathematics tasks: The role of tools. In A. Watson &
M. Ohtani (Eds.), Task design in mathematics education : An ICMI study 22 (pp. 191–228).
Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09629-2
Lockard, S. R., & Metcalf, R. C. (2015). Clickers and Classroom voting in a transition to advanced
mathematics course. Primus, 25(4), 326–338. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511970.2014.977473
Lockwood, E., & Mørken, K. (2021). A call for research that explores relationships between
computing and mathematical thinking and activity in RUME. International Journal of Research
in Undergraduate Mathematics Education, 7(3), 404–416. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40753-020-
00129-2
Manizade, A., Mellone, M., Makonye, J.-P., Ribeiro, M., & Jakobsen, A. (2019). International
perspectives on evolution of research on teaching mathematics. In M. Graven, H. Venkat, A.
Essien & P. Vale (Eds.), Proceedings of the 43rd Conference of the International Group for the
Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, pp. 179–180). Pretoria, South Africa: PME.
Medley, D. M. (1987). Evolution of research on teaching. In M. Dunkin (Ed.), The international
encyclopedia of teaching and teacher education (pp. 105–113). Pergamon.
Misfeldt, M., Jankvist, U. T., Gerianou, E., & Bråting, K. (2020). Relations between mathematics
and programming in school: juxtaposing three different cases. In A. Donevska-Todorova, E.
Faggiano, J. Trgalová, Z. Lavicza, R. Weinhandl, A. Clark-Wilson & H.-G. Weigand (Eds.),
Proceedings of the MEDA2020 Conference (pp. 255–262), Linz University.
Modeste, S. (2015). Impact of informatics on mathematics and its teaching. On the importance
of epistemological analysis to feed didactical research. In F. Gadducci, M. Tavosanis (Eds.),
History and philosophy of computing, series: IFIP advances in information and communication
technology (Vol. 487). Springer.
Monaghan, J., Borwein, J., & Trouche, L. (2016). Tools and mathematics: Instruments for learning.
Springer.
NCTM (2008, March). The role of technology in the teaching and learning of mathematics. A
position of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Retrieved http://www.nctm.org/
uploadedFiles/About_NCTM/Position_Statements/Technology%20final.pdf
Nicol, C. (2018). Connecting mathematics, community, culture and place: Promise, possibilities,
and problems. In G. Kaiser, H. Forgasz, M. Graven, A. Kuzniak, E. Simmt, & B. Xu (Eds.),
Invited Lectures from the 13th International Congress on Mathematical Education. ICME-13
Monographs. Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-72170-5_24
Olsher, S., Yerushalmy, M., & Chazan, D. (2016). How might the use of technology in formative
assessment support changes in mathematics teaching? For the Learning of Mathematics, 36(3),
11–18.
Papert, S. (1993). Mindstorms: Children, computers and powerful ideas. Basic Books.
308 G. Gueudet and B. Pepin

Pepin, B. (2021). Connectivity in support of student co-design of innovative mathematics curriculum

trajectories. ZDM Mathematics Education, 53, 1221–1232. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-021-
01297-4
Pepin, B., Choppin, J., Ruthven, K., & Sinclair, N. (2017a). Digital curriculum resources
in mathematics education: Foundations for change. ZDM—Mathematics Education, 49(5),
645–661.
Pepin, B., Gueudet, G., & Trouche, L. (2017b). Refining teacher design capacity: Mathematics
teachers’ interactions with digital curriculum resources. ZDM Mathematics Education, 49(5),
799–812. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-017-0870-8
Pepin, B., Gueudet, G., Yerushalmy, M., Trouche, L., & Chazan, D. (2015). E-textbooks in/for
teaching and learning mathematics: A disruptive and potentially transformative educational tech-
nology. In L. English & D. Kirshner (Eds.), Handbook of international research in mathematics
education (pp. 636–661). Taylor & Francis.
Pérez, A. (2018). A framework for computational thinking dispositions in mathematics education.
Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 49(4), 424–461. https://doi.org/10.5951/jre
sematheduc.49.4.0424
Ruthven, K. (2009). Towards a naturalistic conceptualisation of technology integration in classroom
practice: The example of school mathematics. Education & Didactique, 3(1), 131–149.
Sandoval, I., & Trigueros, M. (2021). Technology, knowledge and learning. In A. Clark-Wilson, O.
Robutti & N. Sinclair (Eds.), The mathematics teacher in the digital Era (2nd ed.). Springer.
Sangwin, C., Cazes, C., Lee, A., & Wong, K. L. (2010). Micro-level automatic assessment supported
by digital technologies. In C. Hoyles & J.-B. Lagrange (Eds.), Mathematics education and
technology: Rethinking the terrain: The 17th ICMI study (pp. 227–250) Springer.
Sinclair, N., Arzarello, F., Trigueros, Lozano, M.D., Dagiene, V., Behrooz, E., & Jackiw, N. (2010).
Implementing digital technologies at a national scale. In C. Hoyles, & J.-B. Lagrange (Eds.),
Mathematics education and technology: Rethinking the terrain: The 17th ICMI study (pp. 61–
80). Springer.
Solomon, Y. (2021). Mathematics education in and beyond the COVID-19 pandemic: challenges
and opportunities for mathematics education. Thinking about inclusion, diversity and equity. In
Communication at the pre-CERME12 virtual event.
Stacey, K., & Wiliam, D. (2013). Technology and assessment in mathematics. In M. A. Clements, A.
Bishop, C. Keitel, J. Kilpatrick, & F. Leung (Eds.), Third international handbook of mathematics
education (pp. 721–751). Springer.
Takahashi, A. (2014). The role of the knowledgeable other in lesson study: Examining the final
comments of experienced lesson study practitioners. Mathematics Teacher Education and
Development, 16(1).
Thomas, M. O. J. (2006). Teachers using computers in the mathematics classroom: A longitudinal
study. In J. Novotna, H. Moraova, M. Kratka, & N. Stelikhova (Eds.), Proceedings of the 30th
Annual Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education
(Vol. 5, pp. 265–272). Prague: PME.
Trgalová, J., Soury-Lavergne, S., & Jahn, A. P. (2011). Quality assessment process for dynamic
geometry resources in Intergeo project. ZDM—Mathematics Education, 43(3), 337–351.
Trouche, L. (2004). Managing the complexity of human/machine interactions in computerized
learning environments: Guiding students’ command process through instrumental orchestra-
tions. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 9(3), 281–307.
Trouche, L. (2016). Integrating tools as an ordinary component of the curriculum in mathe-
matics education. In J. Monaghan, L. Trouche, & J.M. Borwein (Eds.), Tools and mathematics.
Instruments for learning (pp. 267–304). Springer.
Trouche, L., Drijvers, P., Gueudet, G., & Sacristán, A. I. (2013). Technology-driven developments
and policy implications for mathematics education. In A. J. Bishop, M. A. Clements, C. Keitel,
J. Kilpatrick, & F. K. S. Leung (Eds.), Third international handbook of mathematics education
(pp. 753–789). Springer.
External Context-Related Research: Digital Resources as Transformers … 309

Trouche, L., Gueudet, G., & Pepin, B. (2020a). Documentational approach to didactics. In S. Lerman
(Ed.), Encyclopedia of mathematics education (2nd ed., pp. 239–247). Springer. An updated
version and translations in different languages in the context on the DAD-Multilingual project
is available at https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/DAD-MULTILINGUAL/
Trouche, L., Gueudet, G., & Pepin, B. (2019). The “Resource” approach to mathematics education.
Springer.
Trouche, L., Rocha, K., Gueudet, G., Pepin, B., & Wang, C. (2020b). Transition to digital resources
as a critical process in teachers’ trajectories: The case of Anna’s documentation work. ZDM
Mathematics Education, 52, 1243–1257. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-020-01164-8
UNESCO. (2005). Towards knowledge societies (UNESCO World Report). Retrieved from http://
www.unesco.org/en/worldreport
Wadham, B., Darragh, L., & Ell, F. (2020). Mathematics home-school partnerships in diverse
contexts. Mathematics Education Research Journal. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-020-003
57-4
Wang, C., Trouche, L., & Pepin, B. (2018). An investigation of Chinese mathematics teachers’
resources work and their professional development in collectives. In G. Schubring, L. Fan, & V.
Giraldo (Eds.), Proceeding of the Second International Conference on Mathematics Textbooks,
Research and Development. Rio, May 8–11, 2017.
Yang, W., Huang, R., Li, Y., & Li, H. (2021). Training teacher-researchers through online collective
academic supervision: Evidence from a postgraduate teacher education programme. Journal of
Computer Assisted Learning, 37, 1181–1193.
Yerushalmy, M., & Chazan, D. (2008). Technology and curriculum design: The ordering of disconti-
nuities in school algebra. In L. English (Ed.), Handbook of international research in mathematics
education (2nd ed., pp. 806–837). Routledge.

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate
credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and
indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative
Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by
statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder.
Competency Framework
for the Qualification of Facilitators
of Mathematics
Joyce Peters-Dasdemir , Lars Holzäpfel , Bärbel Barzel ,
and Timo Leuders

1 Introduction

As pointed out by Medley (1987), research related to teaching is always focused on

student learning outcomes (Type A). The factors relating to teachers which directly
influence these outcomes include four online variables. Teachers’ competencies,
knowledge, and skills play a critical role in this regard (Type E) and are connected
to the variables describing proactive (planning, evaluation in Type D) and interac-
tive (process of teaching in Type C) observable teacher behaviors relating to their
performance. The overall basis for teacher competencies are teachers’ pre-existing
characteristics which they already have prior to admission to teacher education (Type
F).
For optimal performance, it is crucial to strengthen teachers’ competencies (Type
E); this is a core goal when conducting mathematics teacher training and reflection on
experiences (see Type J). This offline variable is intended to foster teachers’ personal

Data collection and analysis were supported by the expert network within the German Centre for
Mathematics Teacher Education (DZLM). We have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

J. Peters-Dasdemir (B) · B. Barzel

Faculty of Mathematics, University of Duisburg-Essen, Thea-Leymann-Straße 9, 45127 Essen,
Germany
e-mail: [email protected]
B. Barzel
e-mail: [email protected]
L. Holzäpfel · T. Leuders
Institute for Mathematical Education Freiburg, University of Education Freiburg, Kunzenweg 21,
79117 Freiburg Im Breisgau, Germany
e-mail: [email protected]
T. Leuders
e-mail: [email protected]

© The Author(s) 2023 311

A. Manizade et al. (eds.), The Evolution of Research on Teaching Mathematics,
Mathematics Education in the Digital Era 22,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-31193-2_11
312 J. Peters-Dasdemir et al.

and individual professionalization as a core presage variable in terms of presage-

process–product Research (PPPR, see Medley, 1987, p. 108; Manizade et al., 2019).
Mathematics teacher training includes pre-service activities at university as well as
professional development (PD) programs for teachers already in service.
The core issue in teacher training is linking the cognitive side of knowledge
with experience (Type J) gained in either pre-service or in-service training. Schön’s
concept of “The Reflective Practitioner” (1983) highlights this link as the initial
connection between teachers’ practice and knowledge, and thus also sheds more light
on research into professionalization. The aim of any professionalization process is
to lead teachers to recognize new ideas and innovative approaches for their teaching
and enable them to implement these in the classroom. This process must be initiated
and supported during PD programs. It is important that facilitators provide teachers
with opportunities to reflect on and enhance all facets of knowledge because—in
addition to the central role of knowledge in thinking, acting, and learning—learning
is an active, constructive process, with knowledge and learning rooted in contexts and
cultures (Brown & Borko, 1992; Putnam & Borko, 2000). It is worth emphasizing
here that it is knowledge and beliefs themselves which are the critical targets of
change for classroom implementation, since these largely determine what teachers
do in the classroom. Accordingly, during PD programs, these components must be
considered targets of change (Putnam & Borko, 2000). Borko and colleagues (2014)
describe delivering appropriate PD programs as challenging and see facilitators as
responsible for appropriately implementing such learning opportunities.
Although facilitators play an important role, a complete description of the compe-
tencies required to fulfill the complex tasks they must perform to conduct effective
PD is lacking. Even though facilitators are usually experienced teachers, teaching
experience in itself does not guarantee that a teacher has the necessary competen-
cies to help other teachers develop their own mathematics teaching (Even, 2005).
Our paper follows in the footsteps of Manizade and colleagues’ (2019) framework
along with Medley’s (1987) concept of “mathematics teacher training and experi-
ence” (Type J). As mentioned in the book’s introduction, over the years there have
been many approaches to assessing the quality of teacher education and training and
to evaluating (via empirical studies) the influence of corresponding variables on the
development of teacher competencies. The importance of PD has also increased in
recent decades, and thus corresponding variables such as teacher engagement and
participation in PD have also been the focus of research. However, rather than looking
at variables such as the design and quality of professional development, the focus
here will be on the competencies of facilitators themselves with the aim to describe
the range of competencies required by facilitators in mathematics. This chapter’s key
aim is to advance teaching research and build on Medley’s framework by focusing
on learning outcomes to include the effectiveness of those involved in educating
teachers themselves.
Scope of Our Work
To describe the competencies needed by facilitators in mathematics education
and understand their responsibilities regarding chain effects on students’ learning
Competency Framework for the Qualification of Facilitators … 313

outcomes, it is important to build on existing research findings and insights from the
field of teacher professionalization (Sect. 2). Epistemologically, learning is an active
process of constructing new knowledge (von Glasersfeld, 1998) and it is therefore
important to design any learning process as an interplay of content and learners’
perspectives. Facilitators in PD programs must regard teachers as learners. However,
unlike students and pupils, teachers are adults and experienced professionals, and
facilitators must motivate them and initiate PD in an appropriate way. Therefore,
this paper examines the field of general adult education, with a focus on the specific
needs of mathematics teachers as adult learners. The first topic under discussion is
thus mathematics education. Following this, we start our review with findings and
insights regarding adult learning in general (Sect. 2.1) and then specifically from
the perspective of mathematics education (Sect. 2.2). An overview of both fields
is necessary to examine the various challenges that facilitators must address when
leading mathematics teachers to reflect on and develop their practices and teaching
routines.
Section 3 provides insights into how the role, tasks, and competencies of facili-
tators are currently conceptualized. To better understand and categorize our under-
standing of facilitators, the role is first explicitly defined (Sect. 3.1). Once again, the
(overlapping but distinct) fields of PD in adult education and mathematics educa-
tion are both considered in this part of the paper. In the field of adult education
(Sect. 3.2), the review is based on existing competency frameworks already discussed
in the literature (Wahlgren, 2016). However, these frameworks require adaptation and
further development to be effectively applied within the specific context of mathe-
matics education. Some of the existing competency frameworks within general adult
education will also be discussed to provide a historical review of the development of
these considerations (Sect. 3.2). This is followed by a focus on the teaching profes-
sion in mathematics education (Sect. 3.3). The challenge—as will be shown in the
following sections—is to develop a competency framework that fits the professional
requirement profile as well as the cultural and structural framework. To emphasize
the complexity of this challenge, we will conclude this section by presenting such
an evolutionary process based on the literature review performed within the context
of the DZLM expert network (Sect. 3.4).
In the outlook, we will summarize the findings and lines of development from the
last twenty years and take a look at further challenges in the field of mathematics
teacher training and reflection on experiences (Sect. 4). In doing so, technological
developments and their influence on teaching and training will be presented as an
example.
Methodology of Our Literature Review
Depending on the topic and the existing literature, different types of literature reviews
may be appropriate (Higgins & Green, 2008). To provide an overview of the research
evidence on the competencies of facilitators in mathematics, we chose to conduct
an integrative review to cover the breadth of both fields of interest, general adult
education and mathematics education (Whittemore & Knafl, 2005). An integrative
review represents a holistic approach offering the possibility of bringing together
314 J. Peters-Dasdemir et al.

studies using a wide variety of methods, meaning that qualitative and quantitative
methods are considered in addition to theoretical and empirical ones. This enables
us to not only depict the current state of research but also to create direct links to
possible areas of application. Due to the involvement of several people (the four
authors) in the research, a certain level of objectivity can be assumed in the selection
and evaluation process.
Since reviews usually include all studies that are found to consider the research
field, the number of studies included can vary dramatically. In the first search run for
the field of general adult education, a very broad constellation was found extending
in very different directions. Narrowing the search to the competencies of mathe-
matics teachers and existing research on mathematics facilitators produced relatively
focused and clearer results. Due to the wide range of work in both content areas, we
decided to focus mainly on articles and studies looking closely at teacher compe-
tencies and their development and which attempt to formulate quality standards for
facilitators. Furthermore, we also set restrictions in terms of publication date and
study design. For example, for general adult education, we looked predominantly at
literature from the last twenty years or which (in some cases) introduced changes
or innovations to previous frameworks. For the requirements and competencies of
mathematics facilitators, such restrictions were unnecessary due to the small field
of research. By means of communicative validation, the focus was then condensed
to the articles that have been integrated here. The results of the research have been
discussed and checked how the authors assess the validity of the results (according to
Mayring, 1990). When selecting articles, in addition to general keywords, particular
attention was paid to their compatibility with teacher education and, based on the
journals consulted in the database search, to high-quality international peer-reviewed
journals. More narrowly, the discipline of mathematics was also a key focus, since
it soon became obvious that subject-specific content was important.
We searched the literature using various keywords such as professional devel-
opment, competency framework, competencies of facilitators, and requirements
for facilitators in both content areas. We used several databases to include global
studies. The databases included ERIC, ELSVIER, and even MathEduc, which was
available until December 2019. These journals included the International Journal
of Science and Mathematics Education (IJSME), International Journal of STEM
Education, Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education (JMTE), Journal of Mathe-
matical Behavior (JMB), Journal for Research in Mathematics Education (JRME),
Psychology of Mathematics Education (PME), Mathematics Education Research
Journal (MERJ), and ZDM—Mathematics Education. The International Handbook
of Mathematics Teacher Education was also consulted, as Volume 4 is specifically
addressed to facilitators in mathematics education. With reference to facilitators of
adult education more generally, the following journals were reviewed: the Journal
of Teacher Educator (JTE), Journal for Research on Adult Education (ZfW), Adult
Education Journal, Teaching and Teacher Education, Educational Psychology and
Educational Researcher (ER). Finally, in reviewing the articles that were crucial for
us, we also consulted others that were listed in these articles if further insights could
be generated. It can be noted that all mathematics-specific articles specifically related
Competency Framework for the Qualification of Facilitators … 315

to PD competencies, rather than PD design and quality, have been listed in this paper.
Because there is such variety in the field of general adult education, we primarily
selected those that provided an overall view of development cycles or used a Delphi
study, as there is much variation to be found at the national level. All 78 referenced
articles that were relevant to our work are mentioned and cited in this chapter.

2 The Evolution of Framing Teachers’ Professionalization

2.1 PD in General Education

Medley’s (1987) description of PPPR focused on processes to improve student

learning outcomes. The general steps he identifies are nonetheless valuable and
provide crucial foundation for further concretization. The modeling he used to
describe each teaching and learning process—at the teacher-student level in his
case—can be elevated and applied to the facilitator-teacher level too, thus providing
a perspective on facilitators’ competencies as well.
Innovations and change processes due to new curricula or new administrative
conditions pose many challenges for schools and teachers, who need intensive
support and assistance to tackle them. This requires PD programs that reach as many
teachers as possible by scaling-up PD programs of a high standard. In Hattie’s meta-
study (2009, p. 119 ff.), he calculates the influence of content-related in-service PD
programs with an effect size of d = 0.62 and classifies PD programs as an important
intervention with significant effects on improving teaching quality. Facilitators of
teacher PD programs, in turn, need comprehensive, evidence-based qualifications to
be able to successfully design and implement teacher PD programs. The meta-study
by Timperley and colleagues (2007) also reported the effects of teacher training on
student outcomes. This study discovered that there was an average effect of d = 0.66,
but variations were found by school subject and student level. For example, the effect
in mathematics was d = 0.50. From the various meta-analyses, it can be concluded
that teachers who regularly participate in PD programs sustain and even enhance their
professionalism throughout their working lifespan, thus also effecting pupil learning
outcomes. For this to occur, Lipowsky and Rzejak (2015) note that in-service teachers
need regular PD. This in-service PD must involve a sufficient quantity of high quality
learning opportunities planned and implemented by facilitators.
The insights provided by Medley (1987) in his description of state of the art
teaching research can also be applied to learning outcomes among teachers following
PD programs. In other words, the first question is which competencies teachers need
to carry out effective teaching in schools. Based on the answer, the competencies
that facilitators should have to deliver effective PD programs should be identified.
Simultaneously, research that examines teacher competencies and pre-existing char-
acteristics must also be considered, as this strand of research can shed further light
316 J. Peters-Dasdemir et al.

on the knowledge needed by facilitators to adequately enhance the competencies that

teachers require.
A detailed illustration which highlights that the design and use of CPD programs
are not the only initial and preparatory component of the transfer process in teacher
professionalization can be found in Lipowsky’s (2014) “offer-and-use model on PD
level” (Fig. 1). It provides a highly differentiated framework to concretize in detail
the challenges of the offline variable “mathematics teacher training and experiences”
(Manizade et al., 2019) to achieve a successful transfer process and successful CPD
at every level (see also Guskey, 2002), including for student learning outcomes.
Most research on PD focuses on describing the design of PD programs and
assessing their quality. For example, the meta-study by Darling-Hammond and
colleagues (2017), which reviewed 35 effective PD, identifies seven characteristics
of effective teacher PD, that mainly relate to PD program design and implemen-
tation (e.g., content focused, sustained duration, or opportunities for feedback and
reflection).
In addition to this focus on content, how the PD is carried out and how spontaneous
situations are managed and properly moderated are also important. These areas relate
to learning processes in subject lessons and active learning using the theory of adult

Fig. 1 Offer-and-use model for research on teachers’ professional development. Lipowsky (2014,
p. 515), English version: Lipowsky and Rzejak (2015, p. 30)
Competency Framework for the Qualification of Facilitators … 317

learning should be considered here. Collaboration should also be supported in in-

service contexts, and various models of effective practices should be applied. The
format of permanence should be another focus. Finally, regarding feedback and
reflection opportunities, coaching and expert support are mentioned. However, like
in the illustration of Lipowsky’s model (2014), the competencies of the facilitators
themselves are a crucial initial component.

2.2 PD in Mathematics Education

Focusing on the context of mathematics, Sztajn (2011, p. 221) pointed out that the
attention paid to research in the field of mathematics teacher education increased
significantly in the 1990s. When this is connected to Medly’s framework (1987) and
its adaptation in the context of research on mathematics teaching and mathematics
teacher education by Manizade and colleagues (2019), it becomes apparent how this
field has evolved to reflect current research.
In their meta-study, Timperley and colleagues (2007) looked at the effects of
teacher training on student outcomes in a differentiated way, depending on school
subject and student level. In mathematics, they speak of an effect size of d = 0.50
for student learning outcomes, although this differentiated view relates only to 11
core studies. For mathematics specifically, stronger effects were found in studies that
focused on building teachers’ content knowledge and pedagogical knowledge than
studies that looked only at content knowledge. As reflected in several research papers
on PD programs and most notably in the review by Sztajn and colleagues (2017),
there is a growing body of empirical research that reveals the structure, content,
and impact of effective CPD in mathematics education. Predominantly, these studies
provide insights into the characteristics of PD programs that provide appropriate
learning opportunities for teachers.
Other studies indicate that PD opportunities for mathematics teachers are recog-
nized as a critical factor in increasing student achievement. Figure 2, which depicts
the chain of effects from the competency level of facilitators (teacher leaders (TL))
to student learning outcomes, illustrates that the design and use of PD programs is
not the only initial and preparatory component in the transfer process within teacher
professionalization. Borko and colleagues (2014, p. 149 ff.) see the quality of math-
ematics instruction as the central factor influencing student learning. In this regard,
the emergence of teacher competencies for quality instruction is seen as starting
from high-quality PD programs. Accordingly, facilitators must be able to consider
and implement all aspects of PD programs so that their influence on the quality of
mathematics instruction is sufficient. This also requires establishing qualification
standards for this group of adult learners (PD for TLs).
As can be seen in Fig. 2, frameworks usually describe facilitators from the class-
room level (see Carroll & Mumme, 2007; Perks & Prestage, 2008; Jaworski, 2008;
Hauk et al., 2017; Prediger et al., 2019). Thereby, knowledge on the lower level
is always a component of the level above. Here, Carroll and Mumme (2007) see
318 J. Peters-Dasdemir et al.

Fig. 2 Implementing the

problem-solving cycle:
theory of action (Borko
et al., 2014, p. 152)

mathematical knowledge at the classroom level: a teacher’s mathematical knowl-

edge for the mathematics teacher educator within a larger context. That includes, for
example, knowledge of teachers’ professional learning. Perks and Prestage (2008)
add an additional aspect they call “professional traditions” describing a structure
similar to Carroll and Mumme’s in which each level is nested within the next. This
new area includes knowledge of school curricula or practices as well as research
at classroom level. At teacher PD level, this is expanded to include knowledge of
systems, institutions, and teachers’ own research efforts.
However, the framework focuses more on the types of knowledge that must be
brought into the classroom and less on the interactions between people and content.
Thus, despite very similar nesting in both frameworks, the focus lies on different
areas. In the work of Hauk and colleagues (2017), the relationships between knowl-
edge and thinking types associated with the development of mathematical knowl-
edge for teaching are presented. To illustrate this, they have used a concrete case of
a specific type of elementary-middle school. Like Carrol and Mumme, the “three-
tetrahedron model (3TM) of professionalization research” (Prediger et al., 2019)
revisit the interaction between individuals—actors—, but rather than focusing on a
specific type of school, it is intended as an overarching framework (Fig. 3, Prediger
et al., 2019, p. 410). Following this, the 3TM instead describes rather the mesh of the
different levels and is not to be understood as a process model as in Medley (1987).
In Germany, these research topics are the focus of the work of the German
Center for Teacher Education in Mathematics (DZLM), a nationwide institution for
the development and research of in-service PD programs for mathematics teachers
(Prediger et al., 2019), concentrating on the qualification of facilitators. In the 3TM,
individual levels are described and related to one another (Prediger et al., 2019). The
elements of the three-tetrahedron model are the most important reference points for
facilitator activities (see in more detail Prediger et al., 2019):
Competency Framework for the Qualification of Facilitators … 319

Fig. 3 Three-tetrahedron model (3TM) for content-related PD research (Prediger et al., 2019,
p. 410)

• The lowest level is the classroom tetrahedron, in which the pedagogical triangle
has been extended by the corner “classroom resources.” This classroom tetrahe-
dron, as a whole, is PD content.
• The teacher PD level regards teachers learning this content—so here too, there is a
tetrahedron with the relevant actors (facilitators as teachers; teachers as learners)
and a corner for resources, especially resources seeking to further education.
• Facilitators themselves are “learners” at the top level. Here, facilitators are
involved in continuous qualification programs, which vary greatly in quality and
quantity in different systems depending on local framework conditions.
Regarding the development of a competency framework for facilitators, it is impor-
tant to realize that facilitators are related to all elements of the 3TM, since they are
both learners on the qualification level and teachers on the PD level, while the class-
room level, as the PD content, is always on the facilitators’ minds. In addition,
depending on the framing of the educational system in question, facilitators may
act as teachers as well. In most systems, facilitators are also teachers and are active
in the development of their own schools. They can act as colleagues among peers,
accompany a quorum as a regular guest, or provide impetus as external experts.
For the qualification of facilitators, all relevant aspects of the individual must be
considered (e.g., Bromme, 1992; König & Blömeke, 2009). This involves a cognitive
perspective on the facilitators’ knowledge and orientations and a situated perspec-
tive on their work as a facilitator (Prediger, 2019). These perspectives are comple-
mentary and may be located within a continuum from disposition to performance
(Blömeke et al., 2015; Depaepe et al., 2013). In this paper, the focus is on the cognitive
perspective. We will discuss competencies, which represent the latent characteristics
required to perform effectively as facilitators (Weinert, 2001, p. 27). These cover
320 J. Peters-Dasdemir et al.

facilitators’ knowledge, beliefs, and attitudes, which can be learned and improved
through institutional learning opportunities (Klieme et al., 2008; Weinert, 2001).
Interest in PD in mathematics has increased, with consideration given to location
and structure as well as interrelationships within the impact chain, but as Sztajn and
colleagues (2017) pointed out, in terms of what is known about PD, the knowledge
gap still includes what facilitators should be required to know and be able to do and
what is associated with their preparation of PD. This field of interest has become
more significant in more recent working groups. Since 2011, there have been several
working groups at PME addressing this field, and attention has also been paid to
mathematics facilitators at CERME and ICME. There have also been three major
international publications, namely JMTE (2018, Vol. 21(5)), The International Hand-
book of Mathematics Teacher Education (2020, Vol. 4), and the book “The Learning
and Development of Mathematics Teacher Educators” by Goos and Beswick (2021)
which specifically address the knowledge, skills and development of facilitators in
mathematics education.
Although the topic has been identified as important, there is still little research
on this phase of teacher education. This is at odds with the attention given to the
design of high-quality learning processes for teachers and facilitators, as previously
mentioned. It is interesting to see which research strands have stood out in this area
of mathematics teacher training over the past 20 years. While comprehensive and
accurate knowledge of facilitator competencies was neglected in the past, it is now
recognized as being an area of great interest which is worthy of specific consideration.
We therefore aim to address the competencies of facilitators as a new presage variable.

3 Facilitators’ Competencies—A New Presage Variable

As initiating PD with adult learners presents specific challenges for facilitators to

overcome, we first focus on our understanding of facilitators as well as their role and
then take a closer look at the field of general adult education. Following this, we look
in detail at findings in the field of facilitators in mathematics education and highlight
developments in this area of research.

3.1 The Role of Facilitators

In most school systems, there are people entrusted with the task of planning, orga-
nizing, and carrying out CPD programs for in-service teachers. In many (but not all)
school systems, these people have worked or still work as teachers and are often, in a
sense, “self-made” (Zaslavsky, 2008, p. 93). They usually devote themselves to these
activities in addition to their work as teachers and often have few systematic qual-
ifications for this activity. The many different designations in use—such as mathe-
matics trainers, moderators, multipliers, teacher educators, didacticians, specialists,
Competency Framework for the Qualification of Facilitators … 321

coaches, or facilitators (see also Bernhardsson & Lattke, 2011, p. 19)—show the
heterogeneity of the work they carry out. Henceforth, we will call them facilitators,
as we feel this term best expresses their role in guiding teachers to undertake change
processes more easily.
A “facilitator” is a person who opens new possibilities and accompanies others
on development processes; in contrast, “teachers’ leader” or “teachers’ educator”
designates a hierarchical relationship (e.g., in teacher PD programs with structurally
conditioned relationships of dependence). Lunenberg and colleagues (2014) iden-
tify six different roles: teacher of teachers, researcher, coach, curriculum developer,
gatekeeper, and broker. A look at these various roles once again highlights the mani-
fold requirements for facilitators in terms of both knowledge and competencies.
The diverse roles a facilitator might perform require expertise, skills, and special
abilities such as accompanying, demonstrating, counseling, mentoring, evaluating,
empowering, cooperating, and so on (Shagrir, 2013). Smith (2005) and Zaslavsky
(2008) concretized these requirements by listing facilitators’ typical characteristics
(e.g., Shagrir, 2013; Smith, 2005; Zaslasvsky, 2008). Smith (2005) identifies specific
qualities and behavior for facilitators, who he states should:
• be self-aware to reflect on their actions and discuss them,
• have in-depth professional knowledge based on theory (on testing in practice),
• be involved in research (to be involved in creating new knowledge) and in the
writing processes of the curriculum,
• be good teachers and have experience in different age groups (school levels),
• have a comprehensive understanding of the education system and
• have reached a high level of professional maturity and autonomy.
These requirements, as Shagrir (2013) points out, obligate facilitators not only
to establish clear work procedures at each stage, but also to sustain the relation-
ship between the field of practice and teacher education institutions. Interestingly,
these characteristics are all interdisciplinary and their application to mathematics
and mathematics teachers is only implicit. Therefore, it is unsurprising that similar
issues are also discussed in adult education research, with the added discourse of the
respective professional field.

3.2 Facilitators in General Adult Education

Why do we need such competency frameworks in adult education at all? The neces-
sity arose over time. Just as with other professional training strands, as adult educa-
tion became an increasingly important field of action, professionalization had to
occur, since the demands on teachers were constantly growing. Adult education
represents a significant challenge and cannot be undertaken lightly, as pointed out
by MacKaye back in 1931 when he described it as an “act of war” for which one
must prepare tactically (as cited in Rossman & Bunning, 1978, p. 140). Delivering
it is a challenging task which therefore requires in-depth qualifications. In the first
322 J. Peters-Dasdemir et al.

half of the twentieth century, numerous programs were developed in which studies
were conducted to identify the central requirements and the core activities of adult
trainers. As Rossman and Bunning (1978) noted, one of the first texts on training
adult educators was published in 1948 by Hallenbeck. Since then, more and more
attention has been paid to this topic, and over time, awareness has arisen that this
activity must be taken up as a profession.
The literature shows that over several decades, various frameworks have been
developed for adult education to teach skills, knowledge, and competencies (see
Wahlgren, 2016). During this period, the question of adult educators’ competencies
has been studied from different perspectives and in different contexts. Three main
positions can be distinguished according to Wahlgren (2016): Delphi studies, national
curricula for adult educators, and studies on competencies for vocational educators.
Wahlgren (2016) gives an overview of these developments and draws attention to
the fact that these findings were mostly gained through Delphi studies by experts in
this field. It is noteworthy that the differentiation between skills and knowledge is no
longer made in more recent studies, and that these two concepts are no longer even
the focus of research. Instead, attention is focused on the concept of competency: “In
the more recent study, a distinction between knowledge and skills is no longer made,
but the concept of competencies is still used.” (Wahlgren, 2016, p. 346.) In addition,
Wahlgren emphasizes that communication skills and the related ability to identify
students’ needs and experiences have consistently been found to be essential, even
though different studies identified different emphases and rankings (Wahlgren, 2016,
p. 346). One of the most recent large-scale Delphi studies on adult learning relating
to facilitators’ core activities was published by Bernhardsson and Lattke (2011), and
makes it possible to compare different competency frameworks both over time and
across countries, as Wahlgren (2016) has done.
There are numerous efforts underway to formulate uniform frameworks that can
be used not only across occupational groups but also across countries. However,
this is particularly difficult for teachers, as not only does each country have specific
school qualification frameworks, but teachers as a professional group differ greatly
from other professional groups such as lawyers or police officers. In this context,
the prominent project QF2TEACH is worth mentioning. In QF2TEACH, the core
competencies of teachers for continuing education are developed in relation to the
European context (see Bernhardsson & Lattke, 2012). Such projects usually focus on
comparing different activity profiles, but also on the degree of concretization, which
varies across frameworks. Our aim is thus to identify the overarching structures that
are considered relevant.
There are certainly substantial differences between the various occupational fields
that may explain the far greater differences in the related formulation of competency
frameworks. Facilitators must be experts in their specific domain (in this case math-
ematics education) and must know about the individual characteristics that teachers
need to successfully carry out their profession. In the frame of DZLM, we aimed
for a competency framework for facilitators of mathematics education. As a starting
point we choose the GRETA competency framework of the German Institute for
Adult Education (DIE, Leibniz Centre for Lifelong Learning) in the field of general
Competency Framework for the Qualification of Facilitators … 323

adult education, for two reasons. First, it fits well with the existing requirements (the
abbreviation GRETA in German stands for “basics for a standardized process for
recognizing teachers’ and trainers’ competencies in adult and continuing education”;
www.die-bonn.de/greta; see Fig. 4), which are as follows:
• The cultural context (cf. Wahlgren, 2016) emerges from it.
• The specific requirements of this professional field are considered.
• The level of detail corresponds to that which appears to be suitable for the later
use of the framework.
• Docking with the required subject area of mathematics is possible.

The GRETA framework offers an interdisciplinary structural competency frame-

work covering all the basic competencies required to be able to teach well in adult and
continuing education and it highlights the importance of including content-specific

Fig. 4 GRETA competency framework (Strauch & Lencer, 2017). https://ec.europa.eu/epale/en/

blog/greta-competence-model-teachers-continuing-training
324 J. Peters-Dasdemir et al.

competencies. This framework uses Baumert and Kunter’s framework (2013) as

orientation and was developed through a Delphi-process with educational practi-
tioners and stakeholders. The comprehensive framework of Baumert and Kunter
(2013) refers specifically to mathematics teachers. It relies on Shulman’s (1986)
structural knowledge dimensions: content knowledge (CK), pedagogical content
knowledge (PCK), and general pedagogical knowledge (PK). Baumert and Kunter
(2013) also included existing organizational knowledge, coaching knowledge to
communicate professionally with parents (see Bromme & Rambow, 2001), and
beliefs and values as separate categories, with fluid transitions.
The GRETA framework was developed in a Delphi-process with educational
practitioners, researchers, and stakeholders, meaning manifold perspectives were
involved. Facilitators for every subject area must consider aspects of general adult
education because program participants are adult professionals. In addition, they
must be experts in the specific domain (in this case, mathematics education) and
must know about the individual characteristics that teachers need for the successful
accomplishment of their profession. In this regard, the DIE has developed an inter-
disciplinary structural competency framework covering all the basic competencies
required to be able to teach well in adult and continuing education.
The GRETA framework is designed to identify all relevant competency aspects
(outer ring), domains (inner ring), and facets (middle ring) via an assessment
procedure (Lencer & Strauch, 2016). The framework comprises an even more
holistic understanding by providing four aspects of competency (see Fig. 4): profes-
sional knowledge and skills, content and field-specific knowledge, professional self-
monitoring, and professional values and beliefs. The framework is applicable to all
fields of adult education so the areas pertaining to subject-specific competencies
have been left blank and must be filled in for the discipline under consideration
(mathematics education in our case).

3.3 Facilitators in Mathematics Education

As noted in Sect. 2.2, several working groups have been at PME since 2011, and facil-
itators in mathematics education have also been a focus for CERME and ICME since
2021. In addition, since 2018 there have been three major international publications
specifically dedicated to this field.
In contrast to the previous section which dealt with adult education in general,
this section now focuses on the target group of facilitators and on facilitators in
mathematics education specifically. A general adult education framework is insuffi-
cient as a competency framework for the qualification of facilitators in mathematics
education, as content-specific concretizations must be made. For example, in the
meta-study by Timperley and colleagues, they note that, when it comes to the school
sector,
Competency Framework for the Qualification of Facilitators … 325

Experts need more than knowledge of the content of changes in teaching practice that might
make a difference to students; they also need to know how to make the content meaningful to
teachers and manageable within the context of teaching practice. We are calling these skills
provider pedagogical content knowledge. (Timperley et al., 2007, p. xxix)

This makes it clear that, above all, domain-specific knowledge is also highly
relevant to the content in which one is acting.
Here, we take a more concrete approach and focus on teachers and facilitators
in mathematics. By adopting this specific focus, more concrete facets of interest
can be identified, which can then be elaborated as individual categories—always in
comparison to an underlying general framework of adult education. Consequently,
a concrete examination of the subject-specific challenges involved in the discipline
of mathematics must take place. Teacher beliefs sometimes play an important role
in mathematics education because they guide actions determining how the subject
is taught (Kunter et al., 2013). For instance, mathematics as a discipline may be
conceptualized in a more receptive way, with a focus on algorithms and automa-
tion. Alternatively, mathematical thinking and problem-solving may be the focus
(e.g., Rott, 2020). The content of qualification programs for facilitators would differ
according to these perspectives.
At the same time, it must be kept in mind that such a framework does not apply
equally to every facilitator. The many designations used for people who carry out
this role not only testify to the heterogeneity of their tasks but also make it clear that
very different roles and activities are linked to the diverse requirements and compe-
tencies. Facilitators also play decisive roles in PD in terms of the extent to which
teachers are motivated and supported in their learning (Linder, 2011). To the areas
mentioned by Smith (2005, see Sect. 3.1), Zaslavsky (2008) adds further require-
ments for facilitators in mathematics education such as adaptability and conscious
selection of methods and media. It should be noted that facilitators are often expected
to be very good (or even the best) teachers (as Smith notes in his list above). However,
the role of a facilitator can be compared to that of a soccer coach, in that someone
who may not be (or have been) the best player or teacher may be able to successfully
train others. Carroll and Mumme (2007) also suggested that facilitators should have
detailed subject content knowledge, information about the participating teachers as
well as the students of those teachers, knowledge of how to teach students and adults,
and knowledge of how to use materials for training to create a productive learning
environment.
Various studies have set different priorities for the content knowledge that facili-
tators should have. However, all studies emphasize that facilitators’ knowledge must
exceed the teachers’ knowledge to enable the former to encourage the latter to grow
and acquire new knowledge, i.e., fulfilling a similar role that teachers must play for
their students (Borko et al., 2014). This goes hand in hand with the 3TM already
described (Fig. 3, Prediger et al., 2019).
Although, according to these three levels, facilitators should have extended knowl-
edge compared to teachers, it should be emphasized that there are also knowledge
elements that are relevant for teachers but not for facilitators (Beswick & Chapman,
326 J. Peters-Dasdemir et al.

Fig. 5 Knowledge in teacher education (Jaworski, 2008, p. 336)

2015). These include, for example, detailed knowledge of school curricula or back-
ground knowledge about individual students. For facilitators, only general knowl-
edge of educational standards and curricula is important, as well as relevant empirical
findings from (current) research. This is also expressed in Jaworski’s framework of
knowledge in teacher education (2008, Fig. 5).
The extended knowledge of facilitators refers not only to new knowledge of math-
ematical content and the relevant pedagogical aspects aimed at PD-level, but also to
their pedagogical knowledge of adult education. This includes, for example, knowl-
edge of teachers’ existing practices (Even, 2005; Even et al., 2003) and current views
on PD programs in mathematics education (Borko et al., 2014).
In addition to current views on PD programs, Borko and colleagues (2011)
also highlighted knowledge about mentoring (i.e., the accompanying support in the
implementation of training content) for PD in mathematics. Facilitators should be
able to stimulate productive mathematical work in teachers and lead discussions
about student reasoning and instructional practices while encouraging reflection,
as well as build professional learning communities. In this context, mentoring is
seen as a special form of individual support and, unlike coaching, the individual’s
interests are seen as the absolute priority. Particularly in the second key aspect of
mentoring discussed by Borko and colleagues (2011), leading discussions about
student reasoning and instructional practices as well as effective use of video-based
PD programs can contribute as forms of facilitation (e.g., Ebers, 2020; van Es &
Sherin, 2010; van Es et al., 2014; Zhang et al., 2011). In this regard, communica-
tion about video cases is an important component in training teachers’ awareness
and ability to analyze. Content should be purposefully related to the teaching and
learning of mathematics, ideally contributing to more reflective classroom practice.
Certainly, several of the interdisciplinary competencies mentioned earlier can be
directly applied to the roles of facilitators for mathematics teachers. However, it is
Competency Framework for the Qualification of Facilitators … 327

also apparent from the formulation of individual areas of competencies that a domain-
specific focus is needed. As Tzur (2001), in describing in his own development as
a mathematics facilitator, states, “… a development from a lower to a higher level
is not a simple extension, that is, doing more and better of the same thing. On the
contrary, development entails a conceptual leap that results from making one’s and
others’ activities and ways of thinking at a lower level the explicit focus of reflection”
(Tzur, 2001, p. 275).
As the following example shows, it is not enough to swap out content, rather the
entire spectrum of competencies mentioned is needed because they are all system-
ically interrelated. In one teacher training program on mathematical modeling, the
focus is the student task “There is a 3 km traffic jam on the motorway. How many
vehicles are caught in this traffic jam?” (see Peter-Koop, 2005, p. 6). It quickly
becomes clear that there is no standard procedure or clear solution to this problem.
Some of the participating teachers loudly reject the task as irrelevant to mathematics
teaching since the task is not in line with their idea of mathematical thinking. The
teacher training situation is now challenging for the facilitator in several respects.
First, the subject matter “modeling” needs to be taught—meaning that a subject-
specific PD program is essential (e.g., Bardy et al., 2021; Dreher et al., 2018). At the
same time, it is also important to question participants’ skeptical attitude towards the
task and to address their basic beliefs about teaching and learning mathematics. At
this point, competencies are required of the facilitator that go beyond pure content
or pedagogical content knowledge.
The example shows the need for facilitators to have a wide range of competencies:
subject-specific competencies at the classroom level and subject-specific competen-
cies regarding mathematics teachers’ particular needs, problems, and obstacles as
well as social competencies as adult educators. All these must be deployed as needed
in a fluid interplay of PD activities. As Koster and colleagues (2005) concluded, refer-
ences to PD activities should be made in addition to a competency framework. In
this article, a competency framework is understood as part of a more comprehen-
sive concept of the professional profile, which is additionally linked to activities.
These activities define the purpose of the competencies (see Koster et al., 2005).
In other words, a competency framework is a working repertoire of expertise that
provides orientation and enables someone to perform professionally. As the previous
PD activity example showed, facilitators need different competencies for different
PD activities on specific PD topics.
In the field of mathematics education, plenty of studies exist which describe the
differentiation of facilitators’ knowledge towards teachers in mathematical education
(e.g., Ball et al., 2008; Beswick & Chapman, 2015; Beswick & Goos, 2018; Borko
et al., 2014; Lesseig et al., 2016; Smith, 2005). However, a systematic description
of a framework is still missing. This is essential to adequately support and, poten-
tially, qualify facilitators. As early as 1999, Even stressed the importance of holding
frequent planning meetings with facilitators learning a new mathematics PD program
to develop their knowledge and leadership skills and to create a professional refer-
ence group. She described such meetings as the cornerstone for the “development of
a common vision and feeling of shared ownership” (Even, 1999, p. 20).
328 J. Peters-Dasdemir et al.

Reviewing the relevant literature on the generation of competency frameworks

in adult education enabled us to identify the relevant categories that underpin these
frameworks. Furthermore, we were able to deduce the important stakeholders for this
process. With these findings, we laid the foundations for implementing a Delphi study,
which involved researchers in mathematics education and key stakeholders (senior
administrators). Through cycles of design, evaluation, and redesign, the framework
was evaluated for holism, integrity, and practicality. It was important to strike the
right balance between general adult education and mathematics education. We briefly
report on this process in the following section.

3.4 Facilitators’ Competencies Framework

Here, we give a brief insight into the study undertaken and, above all, present the
result of the Delphi study. Based on our results, we will once again take up the findings
from the literature review. A detailed version of the Delphi study can be found in
the PME paper by Peters-Dasdemir and colleagues (2021). As with other reported
studies, it was important for us to identify a competency framework designed to fit the
present setting, local requirements, and stakeholder acceptance to qualify facilitators
in Germany appropriately. For this purpose, we also included the literature review
shown above and embedded it in the Delphi study.
The process consisted of three consecutive rounds in which 61 experts with
different professional backgrounds participated. In these discourses, the most impor-
tant stakeholders were invited to evaluate the framework regarding its practical appli-
cability. We involved 33 researchers, 28 stakeholders, and several teachers with expe-
rience in CPD. We completed three cycles of further development. All researchers
involved were experts in the field of CPD in mathematics education for primary and
secondary levels and were asked to use this expertise to point out key competen-
cies for facilitators. The selection of the people involved in the Delphi study was
carried out along the 3TM so that all levels involved in the facilitator activities were
included. This was in line with the basic idea of a Delphi study which should include
all experts with different backgrounds. The results of the Delphi study showed that
experts from different fields were able to develop a common understanding of the
competencies necessary for the qualification of facilitators who are responsible for
the CPD of mathematics teachers. It leads to the DZLM framework covering four
areas, which are concretized from the perspective of mathematics education (see
Fig. 6): (1) Professional Values and Beliefs, (2) Professional Self-Monitoring, (3)
Competencies at the Professional Development Level, and (4) Competencies at the
Classroom Level.
Like the GRETA framework, we have chosen to structure these aspects and the
related competencies in a circle format to symbolize the dynamic fluidity and inter-
connection between all competency domains in the inner ring. Besides the Compe-
tencies on the Classroom Level with PK-C, CK-C, and PCK-C, there is an extra level
for Competencies on the Professional Development Level. All surveys focused on
Competency Framework for the Qualification of Facilitators … 329

Fig. 6 Competency framework of facilitators in mathematics education

the question of the differences and similarities that exist between the competencies
of teachers at the classroom level and those of facilitators at the PD level. This is
similar to the work of Borko and colleagues (2014), who based their framework on
the work of Ball and colleagues (2008) on “Mathematical Knowledge for Teaching
(MKT)” analogously for facilitators. There was an intense debate about whether
these two aspects should be separated as equal parts or whether competencies at
classroom level are an integral part of competencies at PD level. This led to the
specification in the two areas on competencies at classroom and PD levels. The final
agreement was that content knowledge at PD level (CK-PD) would cover all aspects
of teachers’ knowledge. This is in line with Beswick and Chapman’s (2015) and
Jaworski’s (2008) similar views but in our case was expanded to include knowledge
domains. Looking at the established specifications CK, PK and PCK at the PD level,
PK-PD and PCK-PD for facilitators need to be further specified (Wilhelm et al.,
2019). Both consider the specific focus on teachers as learners, either from a general
adult education perspective (PK-PD) or in a subject-related way (PCK-PD) (Prediger,
330 J. Peters-Dasdemir et al.

2019). PCK-PD encompasses all “skills to engage teachers in focused activities and
conversations about these mathematical concepts and relationships and to help them
gain a better understanding of how students are likely to approach related tasks”
(Jacobs et al., 2017, p. 3). This also includes, for example, the possible learning
hurdles when teaching mathematics (Rösken-Winter et al., 2015). Furthermore, the
PD and qualification programs developed and implemented within the framework
of the DZLM were also examined as examples. A subject-specific view was appro-
priate for working out specific requirements and then classifying them into a larger
framework. As with Borko and colleagues (2014), a PD excerpt for problem-solving
in mathematics was chosen to gain insight into the facilitators’ concrete tasks. As
a result, both perspectives (“tasks” and “activities and competencies”) are set in
relation to each other.
To cooperate efficiently with higher authorities such as ministries or learning
communities, facilitators require competencies similar to the coaching knowledge
required of teachers communicating with laypersons. As a result, the clear structure
of the framework with four key competency areas (Competencies on the Classroom
Level, Competencies on the PD Level, Professional Values and Beliefs, and Profes-
sional Self-Monitoring) needed to be changed to become five by adding Professional
Social Competencies. Another reason was that “communication and cooperation”
must be considered at all levels and is a competency relevant to all actors (teachers,
facilitators, stakeholders).
An intermediate result of the evaluation of an online questionnaire with a response
rate of 34% was that the domains of Communication and Cooperation as well as
Coaching and Counseling are often only perceived as a level between facilitators
and teachers. This is due to the representation of Competencies on the PD Level.
Therefore, a small change was made here so that both aspects were placed in the
new area of Professional Social Competencies. Thus, as in the 3TM, the relation-
ship of these competency aspects to facilitators, to teachers, and among facilitators
themselves should be better emphasized. Essentially, no significant discrepancies
occurred here. A comparison with the literature on general adult education reveals
that the competencies of facilitators of mathematics teachers can also be divided into
the four essential areas of social and communicative competencies, personal compe-
tencies or self-competencies, values and beliefs, and field competencies. In terms of
different levels, however, content knowledge and (content) pedagogical knowledge
are subdivided into PD and classroom levels.
The aspects of Professional Values and Beliefs and Professional Self-Monitoring
were essentially retained but required partial restructuring due to specific characteris-
tics of facilitators of mathematics. Respect of Professional Values and Beliefs can be
taken as an example: it may be useful to consider beliefs about teaching and learning
mathematics (Grigutsch et al., 1998) in all PD courses. However, if a facilitator is
mainly concerned with the subject of language sensitization, then their beliefs on
language sensitization would be important or, in the case of the subject of digitiza-
tion, beliefs on use of digital media would matter. In the same course, changes in
the focus on self-efficacy beliefs or in the knowledge of frequent teacher problems
occur when delivering different PD content, and it is therefore not possible to present
Competency Framework for the Qualification of Facilitators … 331

competency facets in great detail. The areas of Professional Values and Beliefs and
Professional Self-Monitoring have a strong interplay. Above all, the dual role and
one’s own understanding of one’s role as a facilitator has an increased influence.
Thus, Role Identity was included alongside Professional Beliefs and Professional
Ethics. The concept of motivational orientation was replaced by Self-efficacy Beliefs,
as this aspect of PD is more relevant to mathematics (Bandura, 1999; Thurm &
Barzel, 2020). At times, the question arose in the discussions as to whether one’s
own experience should be included as a competency domain. For the stakeholders, it
was important to include Professional Experience to explicitly promote appreciation
of teaching practice. In addition to formal learning pathways, it is often the informal
paths (practice experiences) that strengthen facilitators’ competencies (Zaslavsky &
Leikin, 2004).

4 Outlook

Teacher PD plays an important role in the continuous development of mathematics

teaching and learning. Medley (1987) articulates this in the context of teachers’ pre-
existing characteristics (Type F) and their required competencies (Type E). In this
chapter, we focused on facilitators as core actors and on professionalizing mathe-
matics teachers (Type J). One can also note that while Medley ends with instructors
as teachers, it is clear to see that the chain of effects extends beyond this point. To
strengthen teacher competencies, we need to start one level higher (e.g., Lipowsky,
2014; Prediger et al., 2019). As Medley states, teacher competencies need to be
strengthened, and by extension, research on the competency development of facili-
tators needs to be undertaken in the field of teacher education. This is necessary to
achieve real improvement in the quality of PD programs and their implementation
and thus for Type J to positively impact on Type E. The framework developed within
this study is designed to be used for this purpose.
There are many competency frameworks for adult educators or facilitators gener-
ally, but they are not always usable in specific cases, either because they lack focus or
because they are too non-specific. In such cases what is needed is adaptation; for our
purposes, a framework that is tailored to the teaching profession and which focuses
on the didactic perspective of mathematics. But what is new about this competency
framework compared to existing frameworks as reported in the overview by Rossman
and Bunning (1978), Wahlgren (2016) or the framework by Bernhardsson and Lattke
(2011)? The challenge was to use these rather general frameworks as a starting point
to develop a specific competency framework for facilitators in mathematics educa-
tion, and even more specifically to the context of the DZLM, and to develop such a
framework in cooperation with key stakeholders in school administration to ensure
a systemic strategy.
First, the professional field of teaching must be considered as a specific feature
here. The general competency frameworks that have emerged from adult education
are too broad in their orientation for this and do not emphasize aspects relevant to the
332 J. Peters-Dasdemir et al.

teaching profession or inadequately differentiate individual competency facets (see

GRETA framework; Wahlgren, 2016). However, this differentiation is necessary to
address the relevant domains.
A further specification that had to be considered here was the discipline of mathe-
matics because even within the teaching profession, there are significant differences
across subjects. In addition to the differences between scientific disciplines such as
mathematics and physics, professional cultures in the field (teachers, engineers, etc.)
also vary considerably. Therefore, specific areas have emerged, which also account
for attitudes towards the subject.
Lattke and Zhu (2010) drew attention to another reason for developing a specific
framework for mathematics facilitators: cultural context is key. Cross-cultural studies
show that cultural norms significantly influence views of what constitutes “good”
mathematics teaching (Dreher et al., 2021). Of course, a different focus can be applied
in terms of cultural context (whether this is regional, national, or global). However,
in a field where close cooperation with local authorities and schools is required, local
challenges must be considered. Close dialogue with stakeholders in the local system
should therefore largely determine which components are included in such a frame-
work. Local, cultural anchoring is always present when such a framework is devel-
oped with stakeholders on the ground—and the resulting competency framework
would in all probability look different if it were to be developed elsewhere.
The continuous changes taking place in the school system require teachers to
act dynamically and to respond in a differentiated way to changing needs. Facilita-
tors, through the relationship between the field of practice and the teacher educa-
tion system, can build an important bridge here by considering social changes and
responding to them within the educational system and, accordingly, by responding to
these innovations in PD programs. To do so they need to be competent and perform
their role properly. As we have seen, facilitators in mathematics education have
professional status and must therefore have a wide range of competencies.
The developed competency framework provides a research-based systematic
overview for research and development of what should be kept in mind, especially the
affective and self-regulatory competencies, in addition to the central competencies
PK-PD, PCK-PD, and CK-PD. For communication at educational administration
level, the competency framework is useful to sensitize facilitators to the fact that
performing their role effectively requires not only being well versed in CK, but a
multitude of other facets as well. Alternatively, the competency framework can be
helpful for quality assurance at the level of educational administration.
The need for the whole range of competencies in the frame of PD programs became
obvious when (for example) we looked at integrating technology in mathematics
classrooms (Barzel & Biehler, 2020; Thurm et al., accepted), possibly due to the
fact that PD aims relating to technology are manifold. Teachers must familiarize
themselves with the latest technology and consequently rethink their tasks, teaching
routines, and practices. All these aspects also touch on underlying beliefs about
mathematics and teaching mathematics with technology (Clark-Wilson & Hoyles,
2019; Thurm & Barzel, 2020).
Competency Framework for the Qualification of Facilitators … 333

Covering all these areas requires facilitators to have not only mathematical compe-
tencies at classroom level but also competencies at the PD level. For example,
regarding attitudes and beliefs, awareness of the latest research on teachers’ atti-
tudes and beliefs about teaching with technology is relevant to ensure facilitators are
adequately prepared to address teachers’ diverse knowledge and beliefs on the matter
in a PD program. Especially for teachers with a more traditional, instructor-centered
teaching approach, teaching with technology often means a greater challenge and
loss of control than for those teachers who are more used to managing more open-
ended approaches (Simonsen & Dick, 1997; Zbiek & Hollebrands, 2008, p. 291).
Therefore, research results highlighting the importance of fostering self-efficacy to
be able to teach mathematics with technology are not at all surprising (Thurm, 2020).
Specific activities such as classroom trials are suitable as the basis for reflection-in-
action (Schön, 1983), a promising method at PD level for the implementation of new
teaching routines and innovations (cf. Arsal, 2014; Hattie, 2009; Lipowsky & Rzejak,
2015; Thurm, 2020). This has been identified as an especially important element in
PD concerning technology in mathematics (Thurm, 2020). Besides general design
principles for effective PD (Barzel & Selter, 2015), all these aspects demand highly
developed moderation skills (PK-PD) to deal with disruptive situations in PD, self-
regulation to organize the different fields of requirements, and strong professional
ethics to ensure they always consider teachers in their thinking. The fluidity of all
these facets in the competency framework is essential for facilitators to achieve their
aims when enabling teachers to integrate technology into their everyday classrooms.
The success of PD from the facilitator to the student outcomes could not be
identified in various research studies and have not been the subject of investigation.
What can be assumed, however, is that the levels of success of PD as shown in Fig. 1
can be extended upwards and can lead to a change in student outcomes if facilitators
train teachers adequately.
The presented competency framework offers a starting point for making the
competency level of facilitators measurable. In a further step, instruments need
to be developed to measure competencies. The competency framework could be
a good way to map and check which competencies are addressed in a qualification
program. For example, there are already approaches to designing PD for mathematics
education with technology to foster teacher and facilitator noticing (see Thurm et al.,
accepted), which could be researched in more detail regarding implementation, where
the interplay of competencies could also be considered.
It has been shown that this field of research, “mathematics teacher training and
experience” (Type J), is still relatively young area of mathematics didactics, and it can
be assumed that research in this area will continue to sharpen. Already in the various
mathematics conferences, as described above, there are more and more workshop
groups discussing this topic. In different countries with differing structures, the need
for quality standards for facilitators is still present and qualification programs must
be specifically developed and implemented to ensure the nationwide success of PD
programs. Our findings show that facilitators are a central factor in such success and
that their own training must therefore not be neglected, as they play a crucial role in
the PD process for mathematics teachers.
334 J. Peters-Dasdemir et al.

References

Arsal, Z. (2014). Microteaching and pre-service teachers’ sense of self-efficacy in teaching. Euro-
pean Journal of Teacher Education, 37(4), 453–464. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2014.
912627
Ball, D., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it
special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389–407. https://doi.org/10.1177/002248710832
4554
Bandura, A. (1999). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Freeman. https://doi.org/10.1891/0889-
8391.13.2.158
Bardy, T., Holzäpfel, L., & Leuders, T. (2021). Adaptive tasks as a differentiation strategy in
the mathematics classroom: Features from research and teachers’ views. Mathematics Teacher
Education & Development, 23(3), 26–53.
Barzel, B., & Biehler, R. (2020). Theory-based design of professional development for upper
secondary teachers—focusing on the content-specific use of digital tools. In S. Zehetmeier, D.
Potari, & M. Ribeiro (Eds.), Professional development and knowledge of mathematics teachers
(pp. 163–192). Taylor & Francis, Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003008460-10
Barzel, B., & Selter, C. (2015). Die DZLM-Gestaltungsprinzipien für Fortbildungen. Journal Für
Mathematik-Didaktik, 36(2), 259–284. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13138-015-0076-y
Baumert, J., & Kunter, M. (2013). The COACTIV model of teachers’ professional competence. In
M. Kunter, J. Baumert, W. Blum, U. Klusmann, S. Krauss, & M. Neubrand (Eds.), Cognitive
activation in the mathematics classroom and professional competence of teachers. Results from
the COACTIV project (pp. 25–48). Springer.
Bernhardsson, N., & Lattke, S. (2011). Core competencies of adult learning facilitators in Europe.
Findings from a transnational Delphi Survey conducted by the project “Qualified to Teach”.
Bernhardsson, N., & Lattke, S. (2012). Kernkompetenzen von Lehrenden in der Weiterbildung.
Impulse eines europäischen Forschungsprojektes für Politik und Praxis. In I. Sgier, & S. Lattke
(Eds.), Professionalisierungsstrategien der Erwachsenenbildung in Europa. Entwicklungen und
Ergebnisse aus Forschungsprojekten (pp. 109–125). W. Bertelsmann Verlag. https://doi.org/10.
3278/6004279w
Beswick, K., & Chapman, O. (2015). Mathematics teacher educators’ knowledge for teaching. In
S. Cho (Eds.), The Proceedings of the 12th International Congress on Mathematical Education
(pp. 629–632). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12688-3_74
Beswick, K., & Chapman, O. (2020). International handbook of mathematics teacher education:
Volume 4. The mathematics teacher educator as a developing professional (2nd ed).
Beswick, K., & Goos, M. (2018). Mathematics teacher educator knowledge: What do we know and
where to from here? Journal Mathematics Teacher Education, 21(5), 417–427. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10857-018-9416-4
Blömeke, S., Gustafsson, J., & Shavelson, R. J. (2015). Beyond dichotomies. Competence viewed
as a continuum. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 223(1), 3–13.
Borko, H., Koellner, K., & Jacobs, J. (2011). Meeting the challenges of scale: The importance of
preparing professional development leaders. Teachers College Record. Available from http://
www.tcrecord.org
Borko, H., Koellner, K., & Jacobs, J. (2014). Examining novice teacher leaders’ facilitation of
mathematics professional development. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 33, 149–167.
Bromme, R. (1992). Der Lehrer als Experte. Zur Psychologie des professionellen Wissens. Huber.
Bromme, R., & Rambow, R. (2001). Experten-Laien-Kommunikation als Gegenstand der Exper-
tiseforschung: Für eine Erweiterung des psychologischen Bildes vom Experten. In R K.
Silbereisen, & M. Reitzle (Eds.), Psychologie 2000.—Bericht über den 42. Kongress der
Deutschen Gesellschaft für Psychologie in Jena (pp. 541–550). Lengerich.
Brown, C. A., & Borko, H. (1992). Becoming a mathematics teacher. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.),
Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning: A project of the National Council
of Teachers of Mathematics (pp. 209–239). Macmillan Publishing Co Inc.
Competency Framework for the Qualification of Facilitators … 335

Carroll, C., & Mumme, J. (2007). Learning to lead mathematics professional development. Corwin
Press.
Clark-Wilson, A., & Hoyles, C. (2019). A research-informed web-based professional development
toolkit to support technology-enhanced mathematics teaching at scale. Educational Studies in
Mathematics, 102(3), 343–359.
Darling-Hammond, L., Hyler, M. E., & Gardner, M. (2017). Effective teacher professional
development. Palo Alto. Learning Policy Institute.
Depaepe, F., Verschaffel, L., & Kelchtermans, G. (2013). Pedagogical content knowledge: A system-
atic review of the way in which the concept has pervaded mathematics educational research.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 34, 12–25.
Dreher, A., Lindmeier, A., Feltes, P., Wang, T. Y., & Hsieh, F. J. (2021). Do cultural norms influence
how teacher noticing is studied in different cultural contexts? A focus on expert norms of
responding to students’ mathematical thinking. ZDM–Mathematics Education, 53(1), 165–179.
Dreher, U., Holzäpfel, L., Leuders, T., & Stahnke, R. (2018). Problemlösen lehren lernen—
Effekte einer Lehrerfortbildung auf die prozessbezogenen mathematischen Kompetenzen von
Schülerinnen und Schülern. Journal Für Mathematik-Didaktik, 39(2), 227–256.
Ebers, P. (2020). Development of video cases regarding technology use for professional development
programs. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Technology in Mathematics
Teaching—ICTMT 14: Essen, Germany, 22nd to 25th of July 2019, 287–288. https://nbn-resolv
ing.org/urn:nbn:de:hbz:464-20191121-173501-0
Even, R. (1999). The development of teacher leaders and inservice teacher educators. Journal of
Mathematics Teacher Education, 2, 3–24.
Even, R. (2005). Integrating knowledge and practice manor in the development of providers of
professional development for teachers. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 8(4), 343–
357.
Even, R., Robinson, N., & Carmeli, M. (2003). The work of providers of professional development
for teachers of mathematics: Two case studies of experienced practitioners. International Journal
of Science and Mathematics Education, 1, 227–249. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:IJMA.000001
6850.25593.49
Goos, M., & Beswick, K. (2021). The learning and development of mathematics teacher educators.
Research in mathematics education. Springer.
Grigutsch, S., Raatz, U., & Törner, G. (1998). Einstellungen gegenüber Mathematik bei Mathe-
matiklehrern. Journal Für Mathematik-Didaktik, 19(1), 3–45.
Guskey, T. R. (2002). Does it make a difference? Evaluating Professional Development. Educational
Leadership, 59(6), 45–51.
Hattie, J. A. C. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to
achievement. Routledge.
Hauk, S., Jackson, B., & Tsay, J. J. (2017). Those who teach the teachers: Knowledge growth
in teaching for mathematics teacher educators. In A. Weinberg, C. Rasmussen, J. Rabin,
M. Wawro, & S. Brown (Eds.), Proceedings of the 20th Annual Conference on Research in
Undergraduate Mathematics Education (pp. 428–439). San Diego, CA.
Higgins, J. P. T., & Green, S. (2008). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions.
Wiley.
Jacobs, J., Seago, N., & Koellner, K. (2017). Preparing facilitators to use and adapt mathematics
professional development materials productively. International Journal of STEM Education, 4,
30. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-017-0089-9
Jaworski, B. (2008). Development of the mathematics teacher educator and its relation to teaching
development. In B. Jaworski & T. Woods (Eds.), The mathematics teacher educator as a
developing professional (The International Handbook of Mathematics Teacher Education), 4
(pp. 335–361). Sense Publishers.
Klieme, E., Hartig, J., & Rauch, D. (2008). The concepts of competence in educational contexts. In
D. Leutner, E. Klieme, & J. Hartig (Eds.), Assessment of competencies in educational contexts.
State of the art and future prospects (pp. 3–22). Hogrefe Publishing.
336 J. Peters-Dasdemir et al.

Koster, B., Brekelmans, M., Korthagen, F., & Wubbels, T. (2005). Quality requirements for teacher
educators. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(2), 157–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.
2004.12.004
König, J., & Blömeke, S. (2009). Pädagogisches Wissen von angehenden Lehrkräften: Erfas-
sung und Struktur von Ergebnissen der fachübergreifenden Lehrerausbildung. Zeitschrift Für
Erziehungswissenschaft, 12(3), 499–527.
Kunter, M., Baumert, J., Blum, W., Klusmann, U., Krauss, S., & Neubrand, M. (2013). Cognitive
activation in the mathematics classroom and professional competence of teachers: Results from
the COACTIV project. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5149-5
Lattke, S., & Zhu, H. (2010). Competencies of teachers and trainers in adult education—Europe
and China. In R. Egetenmeyer & E. Nuissl (Eds.), Teachers and trainers in adult and lifelong
learning. Asian and European perspectives (pp. 95–104). Frankfurt a. M., Peter Lang.
Lencer, S., & Strauch, A. (2016). Das GRETA-Kompetenzmodell für Lehrende in der Erwachsenen-
und Weiterbildung.
Lesseig, K., Elliott, R., Kazemi, E., Kelley-Petersen, M., Campbell, M., Mumme, J., & Carroll, C.
(2016). Leader noticing of facilitation in videocases of mathematics professional development.
Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 20, 591–619.
Linder, S. (2011). The facilitator’s role in elementary mathematics professional development.
Mathematics Teacher Education and Development, 13(2), 44–66.
Lipowsky, F. (2014). Theoretische Perspektiven und empirische Befunde zur Wirksamkeit von
Lehrerfort- und -weiterbildung. In E. Terhart, H. Bennewitz, & M. Rothland (Eds.), Handbuch
der Forschung zum Lehrerberuf (2) (pp. 511–541). Waxmann.
Lipowsky, F., & Rzejak, D. (2015). Key features of effective professional development programmes
for teachers. RicercAzione, 7(2), 27–51.
Lunenberg, M., Dengerink, J., & Korthagen, F. (2014). The professional teacher educator: Roles,
behavior, and professional development of teacher educators. Springer Science & Business
Media.
Manizade, A., Mellone, M., Makonye, J. P., Ribeiro, M., & Jakobsen, A. (2019). International
perspectives on evolution of research on teaching mathematics. In M. Graven, H. Venkat, A.
Essien & P. Vale (Eds.), Proceedings of the 43rd Conference of the International Group for the
Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, pp. 179–180). PME.
Mayring, P. (1990). Einführung in die qualitative Sozialforschung. PVU Psychologie Verlags Union
Beltz.
Medley, D. M. (1987). Evolution of research on teaching. In M. Dunkin (Ed.), The international
encyclopedia of teaching and teacher education (pp. 105–113). Pergamon.
Perks, P., & Prestage, S. (2008). Tools for learning about teaching and learning. In B. Jaworski & T.
Wood (Eds.), The international handbook of mathematics teacher education: The mathematics
teacher educator as a developing professional, 4 (pp. 265–280). Sense Publishers.
Peter-Koop, A. (2005). Fermi problems in primary mathematics classrooms. Australian Primary
Mathematics Classroom, 10(1), 4–8.
Peters-Dasdemir, J., Holzäpfel, L., Barzel, B., & Leuders, T. (2021). Professionalization of facil-
itators in mathematics education: A competency framework. In M. Inprasitha, N. Changsri, &
N. Boonsena (Eds.), Proceedings of the 44th Conference of the International Group for the
Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 3, pp. 471–480). PME.
Prediger, S. (2019). Investigating and promoting teachers’ expertise for language-responsive math-
ematics teaching. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 31(4), 367–392. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s13394-019-00258-1
Prediger, S., Roesken-Winter, B., & Leuders, T. (2019). Which research can support PD facilitators?
Research strategies in the three-tetrahedron model for content-related PD research. Journal for
Mathematics Teacher Education, 22(4), 407–425.
Putnam, R. T., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say
about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29(1), 4–15.
Competency Framework for the Qualification of Facilitators … 337

Rossman, M. H., & Bunning, R. L. (1978). Knowledge and skills for the adult educator: A Delphi
study. Adult Education, 28(3), 139–155.
Rösken-Winter, B., Hoyles, C., & Blömeke, S. (2015). Evidence-based CPD: Scaling up sustainable
interventions. ZDM Mathematics Education, 47(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-015-
0682-7
Rott, B. (2020). Teachers’ behaviors, epistemological beliefs, and their interplay in lessons on the
topic of problem solving. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 18(5),
903–924.
Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner. Basic Books.
Strauch, A. & Lencer, S. (2017). GRETA—a competence model for teachers in continuing
training. EPALE. https://ec.europa.eu/epale/en/blog/greta-competence-model-teachers-contin
uing-training
Shagrir, L. (2013). Teacher educators and the practical component in teacher education. Journal of
Education and Practice, 4(27), 172–185.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational
Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.
Simonsen, L. M., & Dick, T. P. (1997). Teachers’ perceptions of the impact of graphing calculators
in the mathematics classroom. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching,
16(2), 239–368.
Smith, K. (2005). Teacher educators’ expertise: What do novice teachers and teacher educators say?
Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(2), 177–192.
Sztajn, P. (2011). Standards for reporting mathematics professional development in research studies.
Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 42, 220–236.
Sztajn, P., Borko, H., & Smith, T. M. (2017). Research on mathematics professional development. In
Cai, J. (Ed.), Compendium for research in mathematics education (pp. 793–823). The National
Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Thurm, D. (2020). Digitale Werkzeuge im Mathematikunterricht integrieren. Zur Rolle von
Lehrerüberzeugungen und der Wirksamkeit von Fortbildungen. Springer Spektrum.
Thurm, D., & Barzel, B. (2020). Effects of a professional development program for teaching math-
ematics with technology on teachers’ beliefs, self-efficacy and practices. ZDM Mathematics
Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-020-01158-6
Thurm, D., Ebers, P., & Barzel, B. (accepted). Designing professional development for teaching
mathematics with technology: A multi-level approach to foster teacher and facilitator noticing.
In A. Clark-Wilson, O. Robutti, N. Sinclair (Eds.), The mathematics teacher in the digital era
(2nd ed). Springer.
Timperley, H., Wilson, A., Barrar, H., & Fung, I. (2007). Teacher professional learning and
development: Best evidence synthesis iteration. Ministry of Education.
Tzur, R. (2001). Becoming a mathematics teacher-educator: Conceptualizing the terrain through
self-reflective analysis. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 4, 259–283.
van Es, E. A., & Sherin, M. G. (2010). The influence of video clubs on teachers’ thinking and
practice. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 13, 155–176.
van Es, E. A., Tunney, J., Goldsmith, L. T., & Seago, N. (2014). A framework for the facilitation
of teachers’ analysis of video. Journal of Teacher Education, 65(4), 340–356.
von Glasersfeld, E. (1998) Radikaler Konstruktivismus. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp.
Wahlgren, B. (2016). Adult educators’ core competences. International Review of Education, 62(3),
343–353.
Weinert, F. E. (2001). A concept of competence: A conceptual clarification. In D.S. Rychen, & L.H.
Salganik (Eds.), Defining and selecting key competencies (pp. 45–65). Hogrefe & Huber.
Whittemore, R., & Knafl, K. (2005). The integrative review: Updated methodology. Journal of
Advanced Nursing, 52(5), 546–553.
Wilhelm, N., Zwetzschler, L., Selter, C., & Barzel, B. (2019). Vertiefung, Erweiterung und
Verbindung von Wissensbereichen im Kontext der Planung einer Fortbildungsveranstaltung zum
338 J. Peters-Dasdemir et al.

Thema Rechenschwierigkeiten. Journal Für Mathematik-Didaktik, 40(2), 227–253. https://doi.

org/10.1007/s13138-019-00143-1
Zaslavsky, O. (2008). Meeting the challenges of mathematics teacher education through design and
use of tasks that facilitate teacher learning. In B. Jaworski & T. Woods (Eds.), The mathematics
teacher educator as a developing professional (The International Handbook of Mathematics
Teacher Education), 4 (pp. 93–114). Sense publishers.
Zaslavsky, O., & Leikin, R. (2004). Professional development of mathematics teacher educators:
Grows through practice. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 7, 5–32.
Zbiek, R. & Hollebrands, K. (2008). A research informed view of the process of incorporating
mathematics technology into classroom practice by in-service and preservice teachers. In M.
Heid & G. Blume (Eds.), Research on technology and the teaching and learning of mathematics
(Vol. 1, pp. 287–344). Information Age.
Zhang, M., Lundeberg, M., & Eberhardt, J. (2011). Strategic facilitation of problem-based discussion
for teacher professional development. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20(3), 342–394.

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate
credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and
indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative
Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by
statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder.
Continuing Evolution of Research
on Teaching and Learning: Exploring
Emerging Methods for Unpacking
Research on Teachers, Teaching,
and Learning

Chandra Hawley Orrill , Zarina Gearty , and Kun Wang

1 Introduction

In 1987, Medley offered an explanation of the “present state of the art of research in
teaching” (p. 105). By doing so, he outlined the categories of variables that could be
studied and provided strong guidance for high-quality research on these variables.
His guidance suggested that research should seek to find out why teaching quality
varies widely and to do that, one must have a conceptualization of what good teaching
is, an instrument that is valid for distinguishing good teaching from poor teaching,
and a plan for collecting accurate data and for analyzing that data. While aspects
of research on the relationship between all of the variables that shape the complex
act of teaching students in a formal learning environment have remained unchanged
since 1987, much has changed in educational research including the emergence of
new methodologies and the increasing presence of technology both as a tool for
teaching and learning and as a tool for research, making research on the connections
between and among the variables both richer and more flexible than Medley originally
suggested.

C. H. Orrill (B)
Kaput Center for Research and Innovation in STEM Education, University of Massachusetts
Dartmouth, 506 Langley St, Fall River, MA 02720, USA
e-mail: [email protected]
Z. Gearty
Kaput Center for Research and Innovation in STEM Education, University of Massachusetts
Dartmouth, 3 Rumford Road, Norton, MA 02766, USA
e-mail: [email protected]
K. Wang
Kaput Center for Research and Innovation in STEM Education, University of Massachusetts
Dartmouth, 120 Johnson Road, Winchester, MA 01890, USA
e-mail: [email protected]

© The Author(s) 2023 339

A. Manizade et al. (eds.), The Evolution of Research on Teaching Mathematics,
Mathematics Education in the Digital Era 22,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-31193-2_12
340 C. H. Orrill et al.

In this chapter, our goal is to provide some clear examples of the ways in which
the field of mathematics education has been able to pursue the interactions put forth
by Medley (1987) thanks to the emergence of new theories, research methods, and
technologies. We discuss some of the critical ways in which the research landscape
has changed since the original article was published. First, we look at methodolo-
gies that have become more widespread since Medley introduced his framework.
Second, we explore some examples of research methods that offer new ways of
thinking about research questions related to teaching and learning in formal environ-
ments. These methods are important because they have opened opportunities to look
across the variables in ways that were unavailable to researchers until recently. We
finish by considering the opportunities that have been created by technology. These
have changed the ways we collect data and the data we collect. We close by briefly
discussing how the changes discussed in this chapter specifically relate to presage-
process–product research (Medley, 1987). Our goal in this chapter is not to present
a comprehensive review of the literature, rather, we seek to highlight both where the
field is now in terms of research methods and tools as well as to provide examples of
the ways in which Medley’s framework is being pursued in newer research. We have
chosen to rely on Fig. 3 in Chap. 1 (Manizade et al., 2023) rather than the original
Medley model for the purposes of our discussion, except where noted.

2 Changing Methodologies

Since Medley’s framework was originally proposed, the field has seen the emergence
of new research methodologies (i.e., scientific frameworks), methods (i.e., specific
approaches), and tools (i.e., instruments) that allow innovative lenses with which
to make sense of the multi-faceted enterprise that is teaching and learning. In this
chapter, we offer brief overviews of just a few of the methods currently available
for answering questions related to the presage-process–product model. These tools
sometimes allow us ways to look at connections between more than two variable cate-
gories (e.g., cultural-historical activity theory) or allow us to conceive of research as
a web of interconnected studies all serving to develop a larger theory (e.g., Design-
Based Research). Below, we talk about the emergence of Qualitative and Mixed
Methods methodologies as well as emerging psychometric models, then we intro-
duce several methods that provide new ways of thinking about the interconnected
nature of the variables for teaching and learning. These include teaching experiments,
Design-Based Research, cultural-historical activity theory (CHAT), and quantitative
ethnography.
Continuing Evolution of Research on Teaching and Learning: Exploring … 341

3 Qualitative and Mixed Methods Research Methodologies

In 1987, qualitative research was not often used in education. While there were
certainly some examples of qualitative research emerging (e.g., Erlwanger, 1973),
those studies were not as widely accepted as quantitative studies. However, with
the shifts in ontology and increased acceptance of new methods, the field of math-
ematics education research became more open to—and, indeed, primarily focused
on—qualitative research. The reason is simple: quantitative research methodologies
are particularly appropriate for a model of teaching and learning that relies on transfer
of knowledge from the expert to the novice. As we moved toward theories of learning
that were more grounded in constructivism, socio-cultural theories, and critical theo-
ries, new questions were being asked. As an array of new learning theories emerged,
the definitions of teaching and learning became more diverse and even questions
could be pursued. Rather than asking if teachers who took teaching methods courses
in mathematics or science are more effective than those who did not, researchers
began wondering in what ways particular backgrounds might shape learning expe-
riences (Type E—teacher’s competencies, knowledge and skills—and Type F—pre-
existing teacher characteristics) and their interaction on Type A (student learning
outcome) variables (e.g., Manizade et al., 2023; Medley, 1987)) and how teachers
conceive of making content learnable for children (Type D variables interacting with
Type B and A variables (e.g., Manizade et al., 2023; Medley, 1987)). Further, with the
emergence of new theories of learning, the definitions of what constitutes learning,
and, thus, how learning is measured, also changed. Consider, for example, Wenger’s
theory of situated cognition (Wenger, 1998). Within this theory, “learning” is defined
as a change in participation, because learning is viewed as becoming a member of a
community of practice. Thus, as one learns, one becomes a fully-integrated member
of the community of practice. If participation is the goal, a written assessment of
content knowledge is no longer an appropriate instrument for measuring learning
and new approaches need to be developed. Thus, it is consistent with the rise of the
cognitive, socio-cultural, and critical theories that qualitative research would become
a critical tool for research.
Once qualitative methodologies were established as a norm within the field, it was
natural for some researchers to use qualitative and quantitative methods together to
better understand a phenomenon. Thus, mixed methods approaches have been used
by some researchers to understand the interactions inherent in the learning envi-
ronment. Grounded in pragmatism (Johnson et al., 2007), mixed methods research
is a methodology that combines qualitative and quantitative methods to produce
“defensible and usable research findings” (p. 129). For example, a researcher may
conduct a survey (quantitative), then conduct interviews with a subset of partici-
pants (qualitative) to more deeply understand the findings of the survey (Creswell,
2014). For example, in one recent study (Starrett et al., 2021), researchers used
surveys and interviews with teachers and students to understand how teacher’s prox-
imity to their school impacted their use of place-based education, thus using mixed
342 C. H. Orrill et al.

methods to connect Type I (external context) variables to Type D (pre- and post-
active mathematics teacher activities), Type C (interactive teacher activities), and
Type B (student learning activities). Another approach to mixed methods analysis is
to use the various analyses to dig into specific aspects of the data. For example, an
approach the first author of this chapter has used (e.g., Izsák et al., 2010; Orrill &
Cohen, 2016), included mixture Rasch analysis of an assessment of teacher’s math
knowledge. Our goals was to identify specific mathematics tasks that teachers found
difficult or with which different groups of teachers had different experience. From
those data, we were able to identify specific items on which to focus in the qualitative
analysis of the interviews. Using this approach, we were able to not only see how
teachers performed on the assessment, but also to generate assertions about why they
performed in these ways, thus providing us with additional information for designing
effective instruction. These methods allowed us to more thoroughly understanding
Type E variables.
For understanding the ways in which teachers, their experiences, and their actions
intersect with student learning, access to a wide array of methodologies is crucial.
While quantitative research is still used, studies using qualitative and mixed methods
approaches are as accepted in most venues as quantitative research. The critical factor
in high-quality research is not the methodologies and methods used, but rather the
alignment of the methods and methodologies to the research questions.

4 Continuing to Develop Quantitatively: Emerging

Psychometric Models

Methods for conducting quantitative research have also continued to develop since
1987. While quantitative research has remained theoretically grounded in positivism
and still adheres to the methodological frameworks that were in place in the 1980s,
quantitative research has benefitted tremendously from increased access to computers
and the emergence of new models that has been possible because of computers. Now
that nearly everyone has access to extremely powerful computing technology, quanti-
tative analysis can be more robust and more accessible than ever. Particularly impor-
tant for presage-process–product research are the myriad statistical and psychometric
models that have emerged in the past few decades. In this section, we briefly introduce
four such models that have played a role in our own research on teacher knowledge
and student learning: Item Response Theory (IRT), mixture Rasch Models, Diag-
nostic Classification Models, and Topic Models. We have selected these four models
because each provides researchers with different information about learning. Further,
we included IRT because of its widespread use. Each of the four offers a way to better
connect the variables highlighted by Medley. We do not, however, intend this as an
exhaustive list.
Item Response Theory (Baker, 2001; Baker & Kim, 2004) is probably the most
influential psychometric model in widespread use as it has largely replaced classic test
Continuing Evolution of Research on Teaching and Learning: Exploring … 343

theory for scoring standardized tests. Rather than simply assigning a score indicating
how many items are correct or incorrect, IRT provides various kinds of information.
First, IRT provides a score that expresses a participant’s performance in terms of
the number of standard deviations above or below the mean of participant scores.
The second piece of data provided by IRT is information regarding the difficulty of
an item, where difficulty is reported as the probability that someone scoring at the
identified difficulty level would have a 50% chance of answering the item correctly.
IRT provides researchers with information that allows them to consider not just
whether “learning” has occurred, but where there may be deficits in aspects of content
knowledge as well as a relative weighting of participant’s performances. Because
of the information that it can return, IRT is currently a critical component in the
development of learning trajectories (e.g., Clements et al., 2011; Confrey et al.,
2017), which sit at the intersection of student learning (Type A), teacher planning
(Type D), and teacher knowledge of students (Types G & H).
Building from IRT, mixture Rasch models (Izsák & Templin, 2016; Rost, 1990)
look for latent trends in the patterns of responses among participants to determine
whether all the participants should be placed along the same continuum or whether
there are groups within the data that performed in ways different from others. This
approach has been used to identify patterns of reasoning among teachers. These
patterns highlight that performance on an assessment can be tied to patterns in
teacher’s reasoning about the content (e.g., Izsák et al., 2010; Orrill & Cohen, 2016).
The data can also be used to capture a different kind of “learning”. Rather than
focusing only on whether participants have improved their scores on an assessment,
researchers can also determine whether participants have changed latent classes. Such
change would indicate a fundamental shift in the ways the participants are reasoning
about the mathematics items on the assessment (Izsák et al., 2010). While mixture
Rasch has primarily been used for in-depth consideration of Type E variables, we
assert that it could be used as a lens for understanding the relationship between Type
E and Types C and D (how teachers plan and implement instruction). It could also
be readily used to look at connections between Type A and Type C and D variables
if an assessment were given to students and correlated to observations of classroom
practice.
Another emerging family of models is Diagnostic Classification Models (DCMs;
Bradshaw et al., 2014; Izsák & Templin, 2016; Rupp et al., 2010). DCMs require an
a priori defining of the specific attributes each item of an assessment measures (e.g.,
Tatsuoka et al., 2016). From that mapping, analysis is done on participant’s perfor-
mance, and results are reported as the probability that the participant has mastered
each individual attribute. For example, in Bradshaw et al. (2014), the authors identi-
fied four attributes being measured by the assessment of fractions: referent unit under-
standing, partitioning and iterating, appropriateness, and multiplicative comparison.
The attribute inventories that are returned in place of traditional test scores can provide
insights into specific aspects of understanding demonstrated by a given sample, thus
providing data that can shape the instructional experiences for participants. As with
mixture Rasch models, DCMs provide an opportunity to connect teacher or student
344 C. H. Orrill et al.

understanding of mathematics (Type A or E) to the activity in the classroom (Type

B or C).
One final emergent psychometric model is Topic Modeling (e.g., Blei, 2012).
Topic Models allow a statistical analysis of qualitative data to show a change in
patterns of language usage. Topic models rely on looking for particular words in
natural text or natural speech to see their patterns of co-occurrence. From those
patterns, groupings are created that separate participants. For example, in Kim
et al. (2017), the researchers found three main themes in their analysis of student’s
responses on a science assessment. The first theme featured answers that included
appropriate technical terms for middle grades science students (e.g., change, variable,
dependent). The second theme was discipline-specific terms (e.g., energy, popula-
tion, kinetic). The third theme focused on everyday language (e.g., put, stronger, big,
think). Across four assessments, the participating middle school students shifted
from using the everyday language topic to the other two topics (Linking Type B
to Type C variables). These results suggested that students were learning about the
discipline. Topic Modeling is particularly important for measuring learning through
a socio-cultural lens.
New psychometric models do not fundamentally change the design and limita-
tions of quantitative research. Thus, they have some limitations outlined by Medley
in terms of looking at relationships between the variables. However, the new models
allow measurement of different kinds of learning (e.g., change in participation or in
natural language use, rather than acquisition of knowledge), and they open oppor-
tunities for mixed methods approaches such as those described in the discussion
of mixed methods above. So, even within the realm of quantitative research, there
are more tools available to support asking questions in new ways and looking at
relationships through different theoretical lenses than was possible in 1987.

5 Emerging Research Approaches

In this section, we introduce four of the approaches to research that have changed the
ways in which we can answer questions about teaching and learning in formal (and
informal) contexts. As with the discussion above, we do not assert that these are the
only approaches appropriate for research in the presage-process–product framework.
Rather, these are tools that have been used, or are emerging in use, in mathematics
education and the learning sciences to answer research questions related to the vari-
ables in Medley’s framework and the connections between them. Certainly, there are
many other approaches that could also be used for this purpose. Below, we discuss:
Teacher Experiments, Design-Based Research, Cultural-Historical Activity Theory
(CHAT), and Quantitative Ethnography. Teaching experiments are featured because
of their prominence in mathematics education research over the past three decades,
while the other approaches were selected because they offer robust and diverse path-
ways for making sense of the complexity of learning environments through their
analytical lenses or through iterative implementation. For each, we describe what
Continuing Evolution of Research on Teaching and Learning: Exploring … 345

it is, some benefits and limitations for the approach, and some examples of studies
done with the approach.

6 Teaching Experiments

6.1 What is It?

Teaching experiments stem from Piaget’s clinical interviews (Steffe & Thompson,
2000) and have roots in Russian education research (e.g., Davydov, 1975). Teaching
experiments are fundamentally constructivist and have been used with a wide variety
of constructivist perspectives, ranging from radical constructivism to social construc-
tivism (Cobb, 2000). In a teaching experiment, the researcher serves in the role of
a teacher and conducts a series of teaching episodes, usually working with a small
group of students or one individual (Cobb & Steffe, 1983). The key goal is to develop
a “living model of student’s mathematics” (Steffe & Thompson, 2000, p. 284), testing
and revising instructional activities designed to support student learning (McClain,
2002).
Teaching experiments go beyond the scope of a clinical interview by aiming to
help the researcher understand the change and progress of a student’s mind rather
than just the current state of the mind. The teacher-researcher constructs a conjecture
about student’s mathematical knowledge, then tests the conjecture with teaching
episodes designed to move the student’s understanding forward, reformulating the
conjecture after each episode (Cobb & Steffe, 1983; Steffe & Thompson, 2000).
Initial hypotheses can be abandoned based on student’s responses as it is vital that
the teacher-researcher allows the student’s contributions to guide the trajectory of
the teaching episode.
Typically, a teaching experiment consists of the teacher-researcher, the student(s),
and an observer. The role of the observer is to witness and document student’s reac-
tion and behavior. The teacher-researcher, constantly interacting with the students
and instantaneously reacting to the students, may not be able to capture all relevant
observations (Cobb, 2000). The teacher-researcher engages the students in instruc-
tional tasks or activities to observe and promote mathematical learning and reasoning
by posing tasks and asking follow-up questions (Steffe & Thompson, 2000). The data
that is collected is qualitative and meant to record the models of student’s mathe-
matical understanding. The teacher-researcher uses this data to revise conjectures as
teaching episodes progress and to revise the activities in the episodes. Ultimately,
a model of student thinking about the specific content or topic is generated by the
researcher, with a variety of qualitative data to support the model (Cobb & Steffe,
1983). From the perspective of the framework of research on teaching mathematics
adapted from Medley (Manizade et al., 2023), teacher experiments allow conjec-
tures to be made about how student mathematics learning outcomes (Type A) are
shaped by the interactive mathematics teacher activities (Type C) that are pre-active
346 C. H. Orrill et al.

activities (Type D) from considering student’s engagement in previous mathematics

learning activities (Type B). In a sense, while the outcome of the teaching experi-
ment is a theory about student’s learning, the experiment itself is an iteration of the
relationships of Type A, B, C, and D variables conducted by a person with compe-
tency, knowledge, and skill (Type E) in the mathematics, in student learning, and in
designing instructional interventions.

6.2 Benefits and Limitations

One clear benefit of teaching experiments is the insight they provide about how to
support a student or small group of students to move forward in their understanding
of specific concepts. A unique feature of teaching experiments is that the researcher
is directly involved with the teaching. Therefore, the researcher should have teaching
experience and the ability to interact and engage with students (Steffe & Thompson,
2000). The goal is to elicit and support thinking during these interactions; teacher-
researchers should be cognizant of how their actions and language are perceived by
students (Tallman & Weber, 2015).
Teaching experiments are powerful tools for understanding learning, however,
they are also very challenging. One clear challenge of this method, particularly for
inexperienced researchers, is that data collection and data analysis are simultaneous
during the series of episodes (Tallman & Weber, 2015). Additionally, to demonstrate
the evolution of the conjectures and model building, the researcher-teacher needs to
maintain on-going documentation of the reasoning for decisions and the interpreta-
tion of student’s thinking (McClain, 2002). Self-reflexivity becomes a key assump-
tion, where the researcher-teacher acknowledges that he/she is an active participant
of the student’s constructions (Steffe & Thompson, 2000; Tallman & Weber, 2015).
A common data analysis method after the series of teaching experiments is retro-
spective analysis, changing and revising the hypothesized model (Cobb & Steffe,
1983).

6.3 Examples

Many researchers used teaching experiments as exploratory tools, usually as part of

larger projects. Simon and colleagues (2018) conducted a teaching experiment with
a single student as part of the Measurement Approach to Rational Number (MARN)
Project. Their goal was to understand how instruction could promote student’s
construction of the concept of multiplication with whole number and fractions, and to
develop a hypothetical learning trajectory based on their analysis. The participant was
a fifth-grade student, Kylie, that the research group had been working with for two
years, conducting various clinical interviews and teaching experiments. One of the
teaching experiments involved the use of a computer application called Java Bars as
Continuing Evolution of Research on Teaching and Learning: Exploring … 347

the instructional tool. Simon served as the teacher-researcher and posed several multi-
plication tasks designed to explore Kylie’s changing conceptions about the meaning
of the multiplier. The research group initially used the concept of generalizing assim-
ilation, as defined by Piaget (1952) as the theoretical base for their hypothetical
learning trajectory. They hypothesized that the progression of their instructional
tasks would stimulate changes in the assimilatory structure of the student. However,
during the initial teaching episodes, the researchers were not seeing any evidence of
conceptual change and modified the teaching tasks. Using retrospective analysis of
the data collected, Simon and colleagues revised their hypothetical learning trajectory
conjecture to rather be stimulated by reflective abstraction, also a construct defined by
Piaget (1952). When reporting their findings, the authors included a detailed descrip-
tion of the progression and rationale of the learning trajectory. The research group
went on to conduct more teaching experiments with the revised instructional tasks
and hypothetical learning trajectory (Simon et al., 2018). This research is focused
on the interaction of student mathematics learning activities and student mathemat-
ical outcomes (Type B and Type A)—that is, how does an instructional intervention
affect learning. Because it was a teaching experiment, though, it extended to Type
C, interactive mathematics teacher activities, because one of the outcomes of this
work was a hypothetical learning trajectory which could be used to guide other
teachers for supporting student learning. Finally, consistent with the Framework of
research on teaching mathematics as shown in Fig. 3 of Manizade and colleagues
(Manizade et al., 2023), Type G research (individual student characteristics, abilities,
and personal qualities) is also tacitly happening as the teacher-researcher is consis-
tently assessing the student’s abilities and understandings to make the instructional
decisions that lead to particular learning activities.
Teaching experiments can also be done with larger groups of students. A study
conducted with 299 undergraduate calculus students by Wagner and colleagues
(2017) consisted of eight teaching episodes which were designed to study the change
in student’s ability to generate examples for the purpose of understanding novel
concepts. The researchers formulated a hypothesized learning sequence and devel-
oped an instructional sequence of tasks and questions. The learning progression
was broken down into intended student’s awareness and behavior on specific skills
and views. Over the course of eight teaching episodes, the teacher-researcher intro-
duced the tasks, which progressed from more rigid to more open-ended to allow
students to show their views and ability to generate examples. Data analysis was
done using emergent codes from the participant’s words and phrases from the reflec-
tions and written tasks. The evidence showed a progression of positive changes in
the student’s views of generating examples. The researchers revised their proposed
learning sequence for the third iteration of the teaching experiment, where new
students were chosen who had not yet learned calculus material, to test their revisions.
As with the Simon et al. (2018) example, this research approach follows a Type
C-B-A flow, moving from considering interactive mathematics teacher activities to
student mathematics learning activities to student mathematics learning outcomes.
The researcher plays the role of a teacher, so data can be gathered on Type C, inter-
active mathematics teacher activities. Second, the research group designs a set of
348 C. H. Orrill et al.

activities based on data from Type G (individual students characteristics, abilities,

and personal qualities) and Type A (student learning outcomes) to simulate student
learning experiences that could occur in the classroom, allowing the study of Type B
(student mathematics learning activities) variables. Finally, the researchers analyze
data and make assertions on how the activities impact student learning. Both groups
used iterative design to develop a learning theory, ultimately laying out a trajectory
of activities for teacher to implement and student to experience (Type C and Type
B). Simon et al. (2018) implicitly also study the individual student Kylie, providing
details about her abilities and personal qualities (Type G). In summary, teaching
experiments are an extension of clinical interviews and align to constructivist learning
theories. The researcher becomes a teacher in this methodology where he/she formu-
lates, tests, and revises a hypothesis of a model for a change in student thinking as a
response to some instructional sequence (Cobb, 2000; Steffe & Thompson, 2000).

7 Design-Based Research

7.1 What is It?

Design-Based Research (DBR) approaches originated from a desire to pursue

research questions that cannot be answered in a laboratory setting (e.g., Brown,
1992; Collins, 1992). Underlying the development of DBR was a desire to develop
an approach that overcame the issues in attempting to apply results from educa-
tion laboratory studies into actual classrooms (Cobb et al., 2003; McKenney &
Reeves, 2013). Over time, Brown’s and Collin’s notions of “design experiments”
matured into an approach known by many names, that we refer to as Design-Based
Research (DBR; Design-Based Research Collective (DBRC), 2003). DBR focuses
on the development and refinement of theory along with the development and refine-
ment of innovations that embody that theory (e.g., Barab & Squire, 2004; Cobb et al.,
2003; DBRC, 2003; McKenney & Reeves, 2013). DBR is an approach to research
that relies on a trajectory of inter-connected studies conducted, often over several
years, rather than a single study (Cobb et al., 2003). It is inherently grounded in
partnerships between researchers and practitioners.
A unique feature of DBR is the dual goal of generating a theory and developing and
refining a particular intervention that embodies that theory (McKenney & Reeves,
2013; Sandoval, 2014). Researchers focus on both problematizing the context and
on using theories to generate usable knowledge (DBRC, 2003). The development of
such theories is a key component of DBR (Cobb et al., 2003). Through the iterative
processes, conjectures are made, tested in the natural setting, revised based on the
outcome, and tested again. The theory becomes emergent through this process and
is refined at the end of the project (Barab & Squire, 2004). Because of this focus
on developing theory and innovation together, DBR projects tend to include serious
consideration of student learning outcomes (Type A), student mathematics learning
Continuing Evolution of Research on Teaching and Learning: Exploring … 349

activities (Type B), interactive mathematics teacher activities (Type C) and pre or
post-active mathematics teacher activities (Type D). Many also include consideration
of teacher competencies, knowledge, and skills (Type E); external context variables
(Type I); and teacher development and experiences (Type J).
DBR projects usually span several years. The reason for this is twofold. First,
DBR focuses on iterative in design (Cobb et al., 2003; DBRC, 2003), which involves
multiple implementations, data collection and analysis cycles. Second, to understand
an innovation and the theory it embodies in a way that moves toward generalizable
knowledge, different grain sizes must be considered. Studies may focus on a single
tool with a few students, then that tool used in a classroom, then that tool used in the
context of the delivery of a piece of curriculum, etc. Because the studies focus on
a series of related questions of different grain sizes, they often benefit from mixed
methods approaches across the lifespan of the research (DBRC, 2003). Rather than
having confined control variables, multiple dependent variables such as classroom
environment and learning outcomes are examined to generate a deep understanding
of the issues and the effect of the intervention (Cobb et al., 2003).
In DBR, researchers partner with various stakeholders to achieve the goals of
refining theory and refining the intervention. Interventions can be educational prod-
ucts, policies, or programs (McKenney & Reeves, 2013). Examples of stakeholders
are teachers, school leaders, coaches, and subject matter experts. These participants
become an integral part of the development and implementation of the design, sharing
their expertise to collaboratively work through the project (DBRC, 2003). Much of
the work is conducted in a natural authentic setting, such as schools and classrooms;
the context is problematized and studied as a vital part of understanding the learning
and teaching that occurs (Barab & Squire, 2004).
The overall structure of DBR is flexible and iterative, but also systematic. It is
a sequence of approaches rather than just one approach (Barab & Squire, 2004).
Several models of approaches have been offered by researchers (e.g., Eljersbo et al.,
2008; McKenney & Reeves, 2012; Reeves, 2011). Most of these models include the
initial phase of exploring and analyzing a problem, followed by the construction
of a design and then reflection and evaluation. Since the entire process is iterative
and usually non-linear, most researchers using DBR work back and forth through
those phases. Theories are developed and tested throughout the process until enough
evidence and data is gathered for a mature theory and usable knowledge. Usable
knowledge can be declarative knowledge, such as describing a certain phenomenon
or prescriptive knowledge, such as ways to facilitate learning with a certain interven-
tion (McKenney & Reeves, 2019). In the initial phase, researchers study a setting and
develop testable conjectures about how to address an educational problem or how to
influence a change in students learning (Cobb et al., 2003). Data analysis becomes
an ongoing process as both researchers and practitioners aim to deepen their under-
standing of phenomenon that occur in the natural setting (Barab & Squire, 2004). This
collective partnership and iterative design process can be seen as unique features of
DBR whose purpose is to close the gap between educational research and classroom
practice and to further theoretical knowledge that can influence change in settings
facing similar problems (DBRC, 2003; McKenney & Reeves, 2019). The DBR
350 C. H. Orrill et al.

approach has been applied in various sectors of education such as learning sciences,
curriculum development, instructional design and teacher professional development
(See special issues of journals such as Educational Researcher (2003, 31(1)), Journal
of the Learning Science (2004, 13(1)) and Educational Psychologist (2004, 39(4)).

7.2 Benefits and Limitations

One of the key benefits of DBR is its ability to inform the development of a usable
intervention while also yielding a generalizable theory. This two-faceted benefit
ensures that both the immediate outcome of the project (the intervention) has educa-
tional merit while also ensuring that there is something beyond a single application
of the theory that can support teaching and learning. This ensures that the theory can
continue to inform practice beyond the lifespan of the intervention.
Due to its multi-faceted design, DBR can be a challenging approach even for
experienced researchers. The role of the researcher is less defined and more fluid; she
can be the designer and the implementor, which can introduce threats to validity and
objectivity (Barab & Squire, 2004). Furthermore, the researcher needs to anticipate
and communicate means of support for the various groups of people involved in the
project, who often can have different opinions and perspectives on educational issues
(Cobb et al., 2003). Time and personal commitment are devoted to maintaining close
and respectful relationship with partnerships (Cobb et al., 2003). Another source of
difficulty arises from the various sources of data and the extended period of collection
time (DBRC, 2003). Various techniques for data collection and analysis are often
required along with an appropriate balance between rich data and a surplus of data
to ensure validity (McKenney & Reeves, 2013) and often retrospective analysis is
needed for theory development (Cobb et al., 2003). Despite these limitations and
challenges, researchers have found DBR to be useful for a wide range of studies. A
few such studies are highlighted in the next section.

7.3 Examples

Barab and colleagues (e.g., Barab et al., 2010) combined DBR and socially respon-
sible design to create an intervention that would help students develop their iden-
tity both as individuals and members of their community along being educated to
be knowledgeable citizen of the world. The project spanned over five years and
included several iterative components, ultimately designing a video game that became
known as Quest Atlantis (QA), with teachers, students, community members and
web designers as part of the research partnership. Key to the DBR methodology, the
research group developed a theory about transformational play: that video games can
serve as effective mediums for deep and sustained learning by providing engagement
not possible in the classroom (Barab et al., 2010). This theory has also been used
Continuing Evolution of Research on Teaching and Learning: Exploring … 351

by other researchers (e.g., de Sousa et al., 2018) as a framework to their work. One
project that grew from the theory developed by Barab and colleagues is the extension
of the Adventures of Jasper Woodbury mathematics curriculum work that has been
undertaken by Gresalfi and her colleagues (e.g., Gresalfi & Barnes, 2012). Like the
development of Quest Atlantis and the development of the original Adventure of
Jasper Woodbury series (e.g., CTGV 1992; 1994), Gresalfi has undertaken the new
work related to the Adventures of Jasper Woodbury by engaging in a DBR approach
that looks at the relationship of student mathematics learning activities (Type B) and
student mathematics learning outcomes (Type A), but also incorporates variables of
Types C (interactive mathematics teacher activities) and G (individual student charac-
teristics, abilities, and personal qualities). Her group designed the Boone’s Meador
mission as an activity that provides insight into Type B variables (student mathe-
matics learning activities). In Boone’s Meadow, students are tasked with making
calculations and decisions regarding how to reach a destination in order to save an
endangered eagle. The game measures student learning outcomes based on student’s
responses and decisions made throughout the activity, shedding insight into Type A
variables (student mathematics learning outcomes). The game includes feedback that
is meant to reflect the actions of a teacher, thus including Type C variables (interactive
mathematics teacher activities), as well as how that feedback affects the activity of the
game (Type B—student learning activities) and student learning (Type A—student
learning outcomes). Gresalfi and Barnes (2012) did two iterations of DBR to design
and explore the effect of consequential feedback, which is feedback that is embedded
in context and requires students to evaluate their mathematical reasoning based on
the outcome of their decisions. The two rounds of implementations spanned across
two years; data sources included videotapes of discussions and student work. Several
rounds of data analysis were done using both a priori and emergent codes. The team
saw an increase in the use of mathematical justification and critical engagement when
feedback was embedded in context and given prior to the end of the game.
An extension of DBR that arose in the early 2010s is Design-Based Implemen-
tation research (DBIR), in which implementation becomes the vital focus of theory
development and analysis (Penuel et al., 2011). DBIR often includes the combination
of learning sciences research and policy research. One such example of DBIR is the
work of Cobb and colleagues (e.g., Cobb et al., 2013), who partnered with four urban
schools to improve the quality of mathematics instruction with an 8-year project titled
Middle School Mathematics and the Instructional Setting of Teaching (MIST). The
focus of improving mathematical instruction was broken down into increasing the
learning of conceptual understanding, justifying solutions, and explicit connection
between multiple representations. The researchers believed that a reorganization of
teacher’s instructional practice was necessary for these improvements to occur.
The research partnership consisted of school and district leaders, math coaches,
teachers, and researchers. The iterative design process consisted of yearly cycles
of data collection, analysis and feedback: they documented district’s improvement
strategies, collected and analyzed data to assess the implementation of the strate-
gies, and recommended revisions of strategies for the following year. Additionally,
a secondary level of focus was on gathering data to test and revise conjectures about
352 C. H. Orrill et al.

supports and accountability measures that the research group had generated from
literature. Examples of data collection methods include audio-recorded interviews,
district organizational schedules, evaluation forms, online surveys, classroom obser-
vations, and student achievement data. Cobb’s team (Cobb et al., 2003) analyzed
their recommendations for each district, looking patterns and similarities to find
potential generality. After the third year of data collection, retrospective analysis
was conducted to provide evidence for conjectures about major components of their
emerging theory of action for instructional improvement in mathematics.
As part of the theory development, the researchers designed, tested and modified
conjectures about instructional improvement, more specifically on methods of both
supporting and holding teachers accountable for reorganization of practices. They
developed an interpretative framework that captured four general supports that the
districts used in the improvement strategies: new positions, learning events, orga-
nizational routines and tools. The research on the ways that mathematical instruc-
tion improved map to Medley’s Type E variables, focusing on teacher competency,
knowledge, and skills. The researchers also attended to the ways in which a change
in teacher’s instructional practice, including variable D, pre and post-active math-
ematics teacher activities, and variable C, interactive mathematics teacher activi-
ties, was tied to mathematics teacher’s competence, knowledge, and skills (Type E).
Further, the MIST research team was able to provide recommendations for the district
on how to support teachers. The four recommendation areas focused on variables
of Type I (external context variables) and J (mathematics teacher development and
experience). Therefore, MIST was able to study the relationship of variables of Type
E (teacher’s competence, knowledge and skills), D (pre and post-active mathematics
teacher activities), and C (interactive mathematics teacher activities) by surveying
and observing teachers. Recommendations are also focused on variables Type I
(external context variables) and J (mathematics teacher training and experience) as
the research team partnered with the school leaders to influence those categories
outside of teacher control. MIST has continued to work with schools as partnerships
in implementing strategies to improve math instruction and teacher practices (see
Cobb et al., 2018 for more detail).

8 Cultural Historical Activity Theory

8.1 What is It?

Cultural-Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) is a theoretical framework for

conducting sociocultural research. CHAT supports the analysis of human interac-
tion while considering how an individual or group of individuals and their interac-
tions with the environment affect their activities (Kuutti, 1996; Cole & Engeström,
1993; Engeström, 1993). The basic idea of CHAT is that humans should not be sepa-
rated from their participation in various activities; therefore, rather than focusing on
Continuing Evolution of Research on Teaching and Learning: Exploring … 353

the individual as the unit of analysis, CHAT instead focuses on the activity in which
people participate (Cole & Engeström, 1993; Engeström, 2004). Thus, the unit of
analysis includes both the setting and individuals. The activity system refers to a
collective concept—it is object-oriented, designed to think about the phenomenon in
terms of the inner relations of activity and collaborative relationship between people
(Roth, 2012). For the purposes of this chapter, we are focusing solely on the psycho-
logical aspects of CHAT and not on economic or materialist aspects. We assert that
is most productive for this chapter’s focus.
CHAT was initiated and developed by Russian theorists who saw behaviorism and
analytical psychology lacking in its ability to describe cultural realities. The pedigree
of CHAT can be traced back to dialectical materialism, and then to Lev Vygotsky who
founded the first-generation of activity theory in the 1920s, centering it around his
core idea: cultural mediation that is graphically expressed as a triangle with subject,
object, and mediating artifact/tool comprising the vertices (Cole, 1998). The basic
elements could be described as:
• Subject—The individual or subgroup involved in the activity.
• Object—The problem space or recipient of action to which the activity is directed
to be molded or transformed in reaching the outcome that is sought.
• Mediating Artifacts/Tools—Internal mental signs and external physical objects
that facilitate and support thinking processes and regulate interaction between
the individual and the world. The artifact is “an aspect of the material world that
has been modified over the history of its incorporation into goal-directed human
action” (Cole, 1996, p.117)
Beyond the prevailing behaviorist theories about the stimulus–response associ-
ation at that time, Vygotsky’s mediation triangle, as a semiotic process between
subject, mediating artifact, and the object of an activity, was a revolutionary way
individual make meaning of the world (Cole, 1996; Cole & Engeström, 1993;
Yamagata-Lynch, 2007).
The first-generation theory was critiqued, because the unit of analysis still focused
on individuals. To overcome it, Alexei Leont’ev (1981), Vygotsky’s colleague
and disciple, along with his colleagues, created a second generation of CHAT,
which took into account inter-relationships between the individual and the commu-
nity, history, context, and interaction of the situation and activity. According
to Leont’ev (1974): “activity is…a system possessing structure, inner transforma-
tions, conversations, and development” (p. 10). Thus, the consequences of events
and activities that occur during the activity can qualitatively change the participants,
the participant’s participation purpose and motivation, the social environment of the
activity, and the activity itself (Rogoff, 2008; Rozin, 2004; Yamagata-Lynch, 2010).
According to Engeström (2004), Leont’ev never graphically expanded Vygotsky’s
original model to illustrate a collective activity system. In addition, Leont’ev and his
colleagues did not adequately address the methodological challenges for capturing,
analyzing, and presenting activity-based data. To address these shortcomings,
354 C. H. Orrill et al.

Fig. 1 Expanded
mediational triangle
(EMT) (Engeström & Cole,
1993)

Engeström created the third generation of CHAT, offering a foundation for under-
standing and designing learning as a transformation of human activities and orga-
nizations. Engeström and his colleagues developed CHAT as an analytical frame-
work by introducing a descriptive model of activity, which can be used in anal-
yses of complex qualitative data. Compared to other sociocultural learning theo-
ries, Engeström’s theory of expansive learning puts the primacy “on communi-
ties as learners, on transformation and creation of culture, on horizontal movement
and hybridization, and on the formation of theoretical concepts” (Engeström, 2010,
p.2). Cole and Engeström (1993) further detailed the representation of modeling
human activity as a system form in the diagram of expanded mediational triangle,
shown as Fig. 1. This is the triangle that typifies CHAT research.
The triangle provides an organizer to support researchers in mapping complex
human interactions that take place in collective settings. The uppermost sub-triangle
is identical to Vygotsky’s basic structure of mediated action. In addition to the basic
components of Subject, Tools and Object presented in the basic first-generation
triangle, the expanded mediational model also includes the following three elements:
• Rules-norms, regulations, convention and gnorms, regulations, convention and
guidelines that afford or constrain action and interaction within an activity system.
• Community-multiple individuals and subgroups involved in an activity.
• Division of Labor-distribution of work and responsibilities between members of
the community.
The Rules, Community, and Division of Labor in the bottom portion of the
triangle model add the sociohistorical collective nature of mediation that was not
addressed by Vygotsky (Engeström, 1999a, 1999b). The outcome is the results or
consequences that the subject finds once the activity is completed (Engeström, 1993,
1999a). Engeström (1999a) explained that the relationship between components of
an activity system is two-way as people not only use instruments, but also renew
them, they not only use rules, but also reformulate them.
The interactions among the components of the triangle model highlight tensions
that are inherent in human activities; researchers find tensions in activity systems
when elements from one or more components pull participants away from achieving
Continuing Evolution of Research on Teaching and Learning: Exploring … 355

the purpose of the activity thus cause changes in activities, so tensions may either
promote or hinder human activities. (Cole & Engeström, 1993; Engeström, 1993,
2004; Yamagata-Lynch, 2003). We argue that from the perspective of Medley’s
(1987) variables, CHAT is appropriate for looking at relationships between any subset
of the variables, depending on the data to be collected. Because CHAT was developed
to consider complex systems, it is particularly suited to the task Medley was concep-
tualizing in the development of the presage-product-process perspective (Medley,
1987).

8.2 Benefits and Limitations

The primary benefit of CHAT is its inherent ability to make sense of a complex
system in a way that accounts for the actors and mediators at work in that system
(Yamagata-Lynch, 2010). As exemplified in the examples below, CHAT provides a
means for making sense of external context variables and the effects they have on
instructional activities for teachers and students. This is important if the field wants
to extend beyond Mendeley’s (1987) original assertion that only two adjacent levels
of variables can be considered at one time.
The limitations of CHAT are important considerations. First, it is not appropriate
for considering human thinking, as it relies on observable activity (Yamagata-Lynch,
2010). This has implications for the kinds of growth that can be considered, how
knowledge is characterized, and other elements of consideration that can only be
observed by proxy. Further, the triangle model, while supporting sense-making about
human activity systems, also oversimplifies those systems (Yamagata-Lynch, 2003,
2010). That is, complex human interactions are summarized to the point that they
are “…not as rich and complex as real experiences” (Yamagata-Lynch, 2010, p. 33).
Finally, CHAT is complicated to learn. This is because it requires the researcher
to be proficient in qualitative methods, to understand and honor the complexity of
collecting trustworthy data, and the ability to bring all of that together within a very
specific theory (Yamagata-Lynch, 2010).

8.3 Examples

One of the challenges of STEM education is to integrate activities, content, and

tools in a meaningful in-class activity. Using CHAT models as a basis for analyzing
learning, teaching, and in-class interactions between different subjects calls for the
transformation of authentic scientific/mathematics practices into classroom activity
systems. Here we provide two examples that have relied on Engeström’s theorizing
of CHAT. We also invite the reader to look at the work of Schmittau, who used
cultural-historical theory as put forward by Vygotsky to make sense of student’s
mathematical learning (e.g., Schmittau, 2004, 2005, 2011).
356 C. H. Orrill et al.

CHAT has become an important lens in mathematics education research because it

has “power to deal with complexity in educational systems” (Jaworski & Potari 2009,
p. 222). To build on early research with use of activity theory in mathematics
teaching–learning, as well as with a focus on the classroom tasks and their related
macro-social setting, Jaworski and Potari (2009) considered teaching as activity in
their study in the 10th grade classroom of a UK secondary school where students in
this grade group are considered “lower achievers”. They used CHAT to consider
the role of the social framework within which classroom teaching is situated.
They had two primary goals. The first was to understand the relationship between
teacher-student interactions and the ways in which cognition is evident in classroom
dialogue. The second was to analyze the relationships between classroom interac-
tion and cognition within the broader cultural context in which learning occurs. They
employed triangles from EMT to characterize the “subject” to be any teacher or pupil
learning in this setting, each with their goal or object for their activity.
Specifically, Jaworski and Potari (2009) analyzed teacher-student interactions
through classroom dialogue, which they viewed as a micro-analysis. In an episode
offered by the authors, the teacher, Sam, had planned a didactical inquiry including
in-class activities and relevant resources. In the implementation of this plan, Sam met
with some “tensions” (p. 229). For example, students who had not done their home-
work completely derailed Sam’s lesson plan. Jaworski and Potari suggested expla-
nations behind the homework issue. They talked about the task that teacher assigned
to students: from a teacher’s perspective, the activity seemed “logico-mathematical”
and reasonable in “didactical communities”; however, for student peer and family
communities, it is “strange and unreasonable”.
The representation of the application of CHAT to allow analysis from both
teacher’s and student’s perspective. For example, through their analysis, Jaworski and
Potari (2009) determined: teacher’s object could be “understanding of basic statistical
terms and associated concepts,” while pupil’s object would be “classroom survival”;
teacher’s rules could be “teacher/student authority structures,” while pupil’s rules are
“homework expectations within the school”; and the outcomes for teachers are “Non
achievement of object due to pupils not taking the required responsibility, tension in
the classroom”, for pupils are “survival by ignoring terms of homework, contravening
rules and contributing to classroom tension” (p. 231). By illustrating the descriptive
power of CHAT for making sense of the observable activities in mathematics class-
rooms, the researchers framed teacher’s mathematics teaching as inconsistent with
their socio-cultural histories. Further, they found that the teaching did not match non-
dominant student’s learning. This highlighted, for the researchers, the lack of oppor-
tunities for mathematics teachers to challenge privilege-oriented activities. Without
these opportunities, many well-intentioned mathematics teachers may unconsciously
continue to perceive, explain, and respond to the classroom activities and specific
learners through the dominant discourse system, which triggers the equality that they
originally desired to abolish. (Jaworski & Potari, 2009).
When we place this study in Manizade et al.’s (2023) adaptation of Medley’s
(1987) framework, we can see the role of external context variables (Type I), where
the teacher’s preparation of instructional materials (e.g., homework designed for
Continuing Evolution of Research on Teaching and Learning: Exploring … 357

students), school rules about homework, and student’s parent’s supportive attitudes
toward homework are all factors that contribute to student’s responses to home-
work. In Sam’s example above, his preparation for class belongs to Type D (math-
ematics teacher’s competencies, knowledge, and skills), including his requirement
for students to do pre-work before class, and his design of in-class activities based
on student’s pre-work. The relationship of variables of Type I (external context vari-
ables) to Type D (pre- and post-active teacher activities) show up as tensions between
tool and community in EMT framework. Then, in the analysis of the student’s
and teacher’s perspectives, we can see interactions between variables of Type C
(interactive teacher activities) and Type B (student learning activities), but unlike
other research in which the influence is only considered in one direction (e.g., from
Type C to Type B), CHAT allowed the researchers to understand the relationship in
both directions—that is, the student’s perspectives on the learning activities and the
teacher’s perspectives on the student’s characteristics, abilities, and personal qualities
(Type G) through the lens of their interaction with the learning activities. In summary,
this example of mathematics teaching–learning interaction in the CHAT framework
shows the power of this new method for addressing the interactions between and
among the presage-process–product variables in Medley’s framework.
In a separate study, Black et al. (2010) offered new insights into student’s identity
development by exploring an implicit mediation: they drew on Leont’ev’s approach
to gain an understanding of “self” related to mathematics. Mediation has a complex
and abstract nature, studying an unintentional and less obvious object, like iden-
tity development or mental functioning, could be implicit. Driven by the interest
in student’s perception of themselves in relation to future aspirations, particularly
their mathematical identity shifts, Black et al. (2010) conducted post-observation
interviews with Mary and Lee (aged 16–17 years), two students studying advanced-
subsidiary level (AS level) mathematics in England, to explore the relationship
between learner’s identity and mathematics. Black and colleagues (Black et al.,
2010) adopted the methodological tool “leading activity” adopted from Leont’ev,
which framed their understanding that activities become leading and can trigger a
new activity when new motives are generated that surpass the original motive. In
this work, the researchers found that satisfying mathematics-learning experiences
implicitly mediated a “leading identity” that affected student’s career choice, for
example, in Mary’s case, her identity also represented as her motive for studying
mathematics is ‘vocational (get a good job)’; however, in Lee’s case, his focus on
study as an activity is mediated by both his identity shifting and motive for attending
a university. As such, Black et al. (2010) built on CHAT theories by presenting a
relationship between self-identity and one’s motive to engage in activity.
Considering the Black et al. paper (2010) from the perspective of Medley’s frame-
work, we can see the interaction of variables of Type G (individual student charac-
teristics, abilities, and personal qualities) with Type A (student learning outcomes).
In Mary’s case, her engineering project experience as a leading activity significantly
drove her to her future potentiality. Meanwhile, her self-awareness of the needs as
“I like hands-on stuff” with some other positive aspects in her personality contribute
to her motivation to become an engineer. In contrast, Lee did not value mathematics
358 C. H. Orrill et al.

as much as Mary did, so his purpose for studying mathematics and engagement
with the subject was less meaningful than Mary’s (Black et al., 2010). This analysis
highlights how Type G variables (individual student characteristics, abilities, and
personal qualities) may impact learning outcomes.

9 Quantitative Ethnography

9.1 What is It?

Quantitative ethnography (QE) is an emerging approach to research that attempts to

bring quantitative and qualitative analysis of data into the same conceptual frame-
work (Shaffer, 2018a, 2018b). That is, QE draws from the tools, perspectives, and
approaches of both qualitative traditions and quantitative traditions to create a mixed
methods approach that is philosophically consistent with both. This is a research
approach that builds from the emergence of Big Data, which has allowed the collec-
tion of data that can be simultaneously as rich as traditional ethnographic data while
being collected in quantities previously reserved for only the largest studies (Shaffer,
2017, 2018a; Wooldridge et al., 2018). While many approaches to working with big
data have focused on statistical analysis, QE offers a different approach.
QE has been developed grounded in the belief that learning is an interpersonal
activity. Learning is conceived of as making meaning of the world in a way that is
consistent with how a particular group makes meaning of the world (Shaffer, 2018a).
That is, learning is about induction into a community of practice (e.g., Lave & Wenger,
1991; Wenger, 1998) and, thus, it is about learning the Discourse of that community or
culture. Discourse, in this case, refers to Gee’s (2014) notions of “Big D” Discourse,
which is any culture’s way of being, including people’s ways of talking, listening,
interacting, believing, valuing, and feeling. In this case “small d” discourse becomes
the observable behaviors through which researchers can gain insight into Discourse,
as Discourse cannot be readily observed. “Small d” discourse is what people actually
say and do. Thus, when we use QE to assess and understand learning, we are looking
for the ways in which participants express their changes as they are inducted into a
community of practice. This focus on induction as the outcome of learning makes QE
particularly appropriate for considering student learning outcomes (Type A) in light
of the instructional environment variables including student activities, interactive
teacher activities, and pre and post-active teacher activities (Types B, C, and D) while
considering many contextual variables, including Type H (internal context variables),
Type I (external context variables) and Type J (mathematics teacher development and
experience).
In quantitative ethnography, the research process is distinctly and necessarily
mixed methods (Wooldridge et al., 2018). The data collected are rich in nature,
just as they would be in traditional ethnography. They are collected using rigorous
qualitative methods and may include traditional qualitative data such as observations
Continuing Evolution of Research on Teaching and Learning: Exploring … 359

and interviews, or newer forms of data collection such as data collected by the
computer as students work together in a virtual environment. Such data could include
clickstream data as well as full transcripts of interactions. The analysis of the data is
where we start to see the mixed methods nature of the approaches. For example, in
epistemic network analysis (ENA; Shaffer et al., 2009, 2016; Shaffer & Ruiz, 2017;
Shaffer, 2018b), the data are coded using frameworks from discourse analysis (Gee,
2014), which structures analysis by breaking data into segments that are typically a
single utterance and joining those segments into logical chunks called stanzas. Then,
ENA draws from traditional qualitative research, particularly grounded theory (e.g.,
Charmaz, 2014) to code data using approaches such as those used in grounded theory
or inductive analysis (e.g., Maxwell, 2013) to create a coding scheme which is then
applied to every segment. Once this is done, ENA draws from social network analysis
(e.g., Robins, 2015) to mathematically create a visual display of the interactions
between codes. The visual display (e.g., Fig. 2), shows the prevalence of single code
(represented by a node) through the size of the node, and it shows the strength of the
connections between nodes through line thickness. In this way, the visual shows those
ideas (codes) that co-occurred in a single statement, which is a proxy measure for the
codes having some kind of connection to each other for the person speaking. From this
visual, additional statistical analysis, such as t-tests to determine whether particular
groups are significantly different, or additional qualitative analysis, such as looking
at all of the instances in the transcripts captured by particular node connections can
be pursued.
As an example, we present two ENA maps from the first author’s dataset in Fig. 2.
This data was collected as part of a larger study focused on how middle school
mathematics teachers understand proportional reasoning. The two teachers featured
here (Autumn and Patricia—all names are pseudonyms) are representatives of the
larger pool of 32 teachers. Each teacher responded to a number of items related to

Fig. 2 Two teacher’s ENA plots showing the knowledge resources they used for reasoning about
proportional situations
360 C. H. Orrill et al.

proportions that were designed to help us understand how they reason about propor-
tional situations. Part of the data was collected using a face-to-face clinical interview
(Ginsburg, 1997) and part was collected using a think-aloud protocol mailed to the
participants for which they used a Livescribe pen that captured their talking and
their writing to create a record of their thinking. The coding scheme was developed
using a grounded theory approach (Weiland et al., 2020). The figure shows the ENA
mapping of our analysis of Autumn and Patricia’s responses to the items. In these
maps, each node shows a particular mathematical understanding that was included
in their response, and the lines connecting the nodes show where they discussed
those mathematical ideas in the same utterance. For example, in Autumn’s map, we
can see that Comparing Quantities, Scaling Up and Down, and Covary were the
most commonly used knowledge resources because those nodes are largest. Further,
we can see that she often talked about Covary and Scaling together and she talked
about Scaling and Comparing Quantities together frequently. In contrast, we can
see that Patricia relied more on Ratio as a Multiplicative Comparison and Scaling
Up and Down. However, she did not demonstrate strong connections between the
knowledge resources that were as frequent as Autumn demonstrated. By using ENA,
we can see different patterns among teacher’s data, which helps us understand what
knowledge they access while solving problems and where there may be opportunities
for professional learning. While this may appear to be only focused on variable Type
E (mathematics teacher’s competencies, knowledge, and skills), we would argue that
it is also capitalizing on Type C (interactive mathematics teacher activities) and Type
D (pre and post-active mathematics teacher activities) because we have found that
situating conversations of teacher knowledge in the context of the decisions teachers
make about students and instruction provides additional insights into the teacher’s
knowledge of the content as it relates to their teaching. Thus, doing this kind of
research relies on the interaction between Types C, D, and E to understand teacher
knowledge in context.

9.2 Benefits and Limitations

Quantitative ethnography is unique in its approach to using large amounts of data to

create thick, rich accounts of the situation. From the perspective of Medley’s (1987)
framework, this method allows us to look explicitly at the interactions within a single
element or to look at interactions across elements depending on the framing of the
research questions. In fact, using epistemic frame theory (Shaffer, 2004, 2006, 2009,
2018b), which is one set of axioms that can form the basis for the framing of the
study and the analysis of data, one would specifically consider how the elements
of learning or teaching are situated within the culture of the classroom over time.
Learning would only be conceived of as interpersonal, meaning that the interactions
between teachers and students would be one site in which one would look for changes
in the nature of discourse. QE allows the collection of large amounts of rich data that
can be analyzed in ways that capitalize on both statistics and qualitative approaches.
Continuing Evolution of Research on Teaching and Learning: Exploring … 361

Despite its origins as an assessment tool for learning in simulation environments,

QE has evolved to be useful for other kinds of analyses, such as the analysis of teacher
knowledge shown above. Thus, while it is grounded in a clear theory of learning, the
methods can be used in other ways. This is consistent with other methods as well,
including grounded theory.
Depending on the research question and focus for coding, there are tools that
can help with the initial coding of data for QE. If the data being analyzed can be
coded by the computer, that can save considerable time as coding a large body of
data can be very slow. Studies that adhere more closely to the ideas of measuring
discourse as a means for understanding Discourse, for example, could include coding
of keywords and concepts that could be captured through computerized coding. In
contrast, work like that done by the first author cannot benefit from computerized
coding, because interviewees do not necessarily use consistent language to express
certain understandings and because some keywords are used in a variety of ways
ranging from ways that indicate strong understanding to ways that do not. Thus, for
some research, QE can be very time intensive, while for other research it is less so.

9.3 Examples

Much of the initial work with ENA that has led to the development of QE was focused
on learning games designed to help learners assimilate into the community of prac-
tice relevant to the game. For example, Nephrotex (e.g., Arastopoor et al., 2012)
and RescuShell are two simulations that provide engineering students with virtual
internships during their first year of an engineering program. In each, students are
presented with a design problem that they work to solve. In one recent study of
these environments (Chester et al., 2015), the researchers wanted to know what
students learn from a course based entirely on working in these two simulations.
They collected data from 50 students across the semester. Data collected included
pre and post-surveys built into each simulation as well as all of the student’s chats,
emails, notebook entries, and work products entered into the systems throughout
the semester. Data were analyzed using an engineering epistemic frame that had
codes in the categories of knowledge, skills, identity, values, and epistemology. The
researchers were able to analyze these data using ENA to measure student’s develop-
ment within the engineering epistemic framework. From the analysis, they learned
that participating in two virtual internships was more effective than participating in
just one. While participation in one simulation led to connection making between
skills and knowledge, participation in a second simulation led to additional connec-
tions with knowledge of the client and epistemic aspects of engineering, which the
authors assert are important aspects of thinking like an engineer. They also found that
students were more satisfied with the course at the end of the second simulation than
at the end of the first, though student satisfaction was predominantly positive for both.
From the perspective of the framework of research on teaching mathematics adapted
from Medley (Manizade et al., 2023), this is research focused on Type A variable
362 C. H. Orrill et al.

(student mathematics learning outcomes). But, it uses Type B (student learning activ-
ities) and Type E (teacher’s competencies, knowledge, and skills) variables to explore
the student learning. Specifically, the researchers used student’s evidence from their
activities (Type B) to determine the learning outcomes (Type A); and the measure of
those learning outcomes was based on how similar the student’s connection-making
had become to the instructor’s (Type E). Because moving students to think in ways
that are consistent with the instructor is the explicit goal of these simulations, the
planning (Type D—pre- and post-active mathematics teacher activities) and interac-
tive mathematics teacher activities (Type C) are developed as explicit stepping stones
connecting teacher knowledge to student knowledge.
While popular in the learning sciences, QE is only beginning to emerge in math-
ematics education. One example of a mathematics education implementation of QE
is from pilot work completed by the first author and her colleagues (e.g., Burke et al.,
2012; Orrill & Shaffer, 2012). That research focused on the knowledge resources
in-service middle school mathematics teachers exhibited as they reasoned about a
number of mathematics tasks. In this work, Knowledge in Pieces (e.g., diSessa,
2018) was used as a conceptual framework to drive the identification of fine-grained
understandings being used by the teachers. The focus on this work was determining
whether there are differences among the relative connectedness of the knowledge
resources for the teachers. The hypothesis being that teachers who exhibit more
connections between and among their knowledge resources may be better situated to
engage with a wider range of student ideas. The work showed that there were unique
patterns of knowledge resource used among the teachers and suggested that areas
worthy of further research included consideration of teacher’s classroom experience
(e.g., the development of pedagogical content knowledge) and the relative strength
of teacher’s mathematics knowledge. As noted above, this line of research embeds
teacher’s competencies, knowledge, and skills (Type E) in the work that teachers do,
which is interactive, pre-active, and post-active mathematics teacher activity (Type
D and Type C) to understand how it impacts student’s opportunities to learn.

10 Technology for Research

As we alluded to in the discussion of quantitative methods, technology has revolu-

tionized aspects of the research enterprise. It has changed the kinds of data we can
collect, which changes the kinds of questions we can ask. Suddenly, we can access
new data through tracking devices (e.g., Lee et al., 2015), uncover thinking in news
ways by collecting data using different tools (e.g., Hickman, 2015), and engage in
mathematical thinking in different ways as technology allows us to interact in more
tangible ways this those ideas (e.g., Hegedus & Roschelle, 2013). While a compre-
hensive review of the ways in which technology has shaped presage-process–product
research is beyond the scope of this chapter, we offer three examples of the ways
in which technology has fundamentally shaped the research that can be done. We
first look at eye tracking, which allows the capture of data previously unavailable
Continuing Evolution of Research on Teaching and Learning: Exploring … 363

to researchers, thus being appropriate for questions about the interactions between
student learning outcomes and learning activities (Types A and B) with the interac-
tive mathematics teacher activities (Type C). Then, we discuss the use of dynamic
geometry software as one tool that is useful for better understanding how people
reason about geometric situations as it allows the researcher and participant to move
away from discussing a single example, to instead potentially focusing on an entire
class of examples. This allows us to consider the interplay of variable Types A,
B, C, and D, but even more, it allows us to ask different questions about student
learning outcomes (Type A) and teacher’s competency, knowledge, and skills (Type
E) than we can ask without dynamic environments. We end with a discussion of 360°
video, which opens opportunities for both teaching and researching teaching, and
has supported researchers in adding in important ways to the literature on teacher
noticing. As with CHAT, 360° video opens an array of possibilities for the researcher
to examine all the variables acting together to create the learning environment.

11 Eye Tracking

11.1 What is It?

Eye-tracking technology has made it possible to track and record the eye movement
of people looking at screens or paper, which provides data focused on what the person
is attending to on the screen. Eye tracking was initially used primarily in reading
research but has been gaining popularity in the field of mathematics, particularly
being used to analyze multimedia learning processes. Multimedia learning can be
referred to as creating mental models from resources that contain both verbal, both
spoken and written, and pictorial representations, such as graphs, animations, or
tables (Mayer, 2005). Eye trackers can either be attached to a computer monitor or to
a head mount wore by the participant. In a recent review of 161 eye tracking studies
in mathematics education research (Strohmaier et al., 2020), almost all of the studies
used a computer monitor attachment. The data provided from eye trackers is usually
in the form of coordinates, which are then categorized into groups of events using
automated or manual algorithms (Strohmaier et al., 2020). The information gained
from eye tracking can be used, for example, to improve the design of instructional
material or answer questions about the differences between novice and experts. Eye
tracking provides insight into the relationship between variables of Type B (student
learning activities) and Type A (student learning outcomes). More specifically, it
allows researchers to better understand which aspects of the screen (instructional
activity) students focus on as they complete their work. Assertions can be made
about the design of the activity and how it influences student learning. Implicitly,
researchers can study individual student characteristics, abilities, and personal qual-
ities (Type G) and internal context variables (Type H) such as patterns in where
student attention is given.
364 C. H. Orrill et al.

11.2 Benefits and Limitations

Eye tracking has allowed researchers to gain insight into visual attention, which
is often done too quickly and even subconsciously for participants to register and
report on; researchers now have access to data that is not observable to people. This
technology provides objective and numerical data that can be used both in qualitative
and quantitative research; this unique information on what is being attended to, for
how long, and in what order can be used in numerous ways to answer questions that
were unable to be addresses previously (van Gog & Scheiter, 2010).
With any use of technology comes limitations. There can be data loss, particularly
in very young or old participants; about 10% of data can be blinks and saccades,
which provide no valuable information. Additionally, accuracy of the eye tracking
device can be hindered with head-mounted devices (Strohmaier et al., 2020). It is
noteworthy for researchers to be aware that eye tracking only reports data on what
the participant is attending to; there is no data on that can give any explanation as to
why the participant is looking at certain places. Therefore, researchers must rely on
making inferences about any cognitive processes underlying the movement.

11.3 Examples

Eye tracking can be used to provide data for numerous research purposes. For
example, it can be used to study how participants split their attention when presented
with texts and diagrams. For example, Andra et al. (2015) investigated difference
between how students look at formulas and graphs of linear equations, thus linking
variables of Type A to Type C, with implicit attention to Type B. The review
mentioned previously (Strohmaier et al., 2020) found that a majority of the mathe-
matics studies covered the topic of numbers and arithmetic, studying, for example,
how participants represent and process numbers, calculations, and equations. The
topic of geometry, particularly shapes and form, was another common topic for
researchers to investigate (See Strohmaier et al., 2020 and the special issue of
Learning and Instruction (2010, 20(2) for mathematics examples).

12 Dynamic Geometry Software

12.1 What is It?

To enhance twenty-first century student’s learning process and academic perfor-

mance, a pioneering technology development, dynamic geometry software (DGS)
has become a main feature that acknowledges the idea of ‘interpretative flexibility’
(Ruthven, 2018). By borrowing the idea of creating dynamic rather than static
Continuing Evolution of Research on Teaching and Learning: Exploring … 365

graphics from contemporary drawing software, it is possible to drag the objects such
as points, line segments, or circles of the graphics while retaining the defined proper-
ties, and the dynamic feature can be reflected in some “transformation” manipulation,
such as translations, reflections, rotations, and dilations, with the help of mouse or
tracker-ball on a laptop. DGS has been regularly used worldwide for teaching and
learning geometry, with software like GeoGebra, Geometer’s SketchPad, and Cabri
Géomètre being common in many mathematics classrooms. More and more, it is
being used to uncover understandings about mathematics concepts in ways that attend
to transformations, thus allowing the researcher and participant to have something
visual to discuss as they consider the mathematical ideas. DGS can be used to better
understand student learning outcomes (Type A) as well as the interaction between
Type B (student mathematics learning activities) and Type A variables. Research on
teacher knowledge, such as that discussed below, can also focus on Type E (mathe-
matics teacher’s competencies, knowledge, and skills) and, if a researcher wanted to
understand the ways in which DGS can be used to promote learning, a design that
connects variable Types E (teacher competency, knowledge and skills), D (pre and
post-active teacher activities), C (interactive teacher activities), B (student learning
activities), and A (student learning outcomes) could be developed.

12.2 Benefits and Limitations

In Geometry class, DGS could support children’s learning transition from “because
it looks correct” or “because it works in these situations” to robust mathematical
understanding of the geometric situation (Jones, 2000). To be specific, applying
DGS can provide opportunities for students to find patterns in abstract geomet-
rical graphics, so they can conceptualize mathematical ideas, such as invariance, or
perceive mathematics rules, such as the relationship of the leg lengths in triangles,
with less vagueness. For example, purposive manipulation like dragging along a
circle can help make a defined property—the unchanging measure of an angle of
circumference—comprehensible and convincing to students. Despite the benefit of
visualization and facilitation, teachers hold different perspectives on the efficiency
issue of students using software in class. In some situations, only teachers use soft-
ware for in-class presenting because they concern that students would invest in-class
time to get familiar with software operation (Ruthven, 2018).
As a research tool, DGS opens new ways to engage teachers and students in
explaining how they understand geometric concepts. Rather than being limited to
describing a phenomenon based on a drawing on paper, the interviewer and inter-
viewee can engage in showing each other what they mean. This opens a pathway for
richer understanding of participant’s knowledge.
366 C. H. Orrill et al.

12.3 Examples

Martinovic and Manizade (2020) explored teacher’s thinking through the use of DGS
by examination of both the teacher’s written work and GeoGebra sketches from 23
in-service secondary school teachers in the USA. How these teachers visualized
and verified the trapezoid area formula conjectures in GeoGebra is quantitatively
as well as qualitatively analyzed as “empirical proofs” (p. 3) of their strategies and
connection to teaching. From the qualitative analysis, the authors identified four
distinct strategies: eyeballing, measurement, constructions, and written statements,
and they found that the teachers used a combination of these four strategies. They
also found out teacher’s “misconceptions” (p. 16) that were magnified in the process
of using technology, and some operation failure of that some teachers may treat
DGS as a paint software. Overall, this study contributes on the teacher’s strategies
of visualizing and verifying the trapezoid area formula conjectures, also widen the
scope of potential research on teacher’s knowledge in the context of geometry class.
This study focused on Type E (teacher competencies, knowledge, and skills), with
implications for improving and modifying Type J (mathematics teacher development
and experiences).
Nagar (2019 ; Nagar et al., 2022) found four categories of invariance that teachers
were able to identify by engaging them with a series of four DGE protocols. He
found that teachers did not discuss invariance at all without prompting, but when
prompted, they were able to use the DGE to highlight important aspects of the
geometry. This was particularly interesting given the notoriously difficult task of
uncovering invariance in other work (e.g., Laborde, 2005). Consistent with Nagar’s
speculations that this work will inform how we teach students to better understand
geometry, we would consider it research focused on variable Type E (mathematics
teacher competencies, knowledge, and skills) with implications for variable Types
D (pre- and post-active teacher activities), C (interactive teacher activities), and B
(student learning activities).

12.4 360° Video and Other Full-Room Video Capture

12.4.1 What is it?

The emergence of affordable video tools and better computer programs for control-
ling video has opened opportunities for research classrooms to be built that are
designed for researchers to capture the entire experience of the classroom. These
rooms can include multiple video cameras and multiple microphones. Sometimes,
they include a control room from which a researcher can control the data collection.
The goal of these rooms is to capture as much data as possible in real time.
At the same time as these teaching and research labs are emerging, new technolo-
gies are making it possible to collect full-room video in other ways, too. For example,
Continuing Evolution of Research on Teaching and Learning: Exploring … 367

some researchers are using video cameras that are designed to capture 360° views
rather than just the normal framing of video. Other researchers are using tools that
allow you to control a tablet computer to follow a speaker and record that person
as they teach or present. This can allow remote data collection as well as collection
of data using a number of devices in a single setting. Similarly, some researchers
have used wearable video cameras, such as GoPros, to see what each participant in
a study can see (e.g., Sherin et al., 2008). Like CHAT, this kind of research is rich in
the research opportunities it opens. We would argue that any variables, except Type
F (pre-existing mathematics teacher characteristics) and Type I (external context
variables) could be studied using this technology depending on the design of the
study.

12.5 Benefits and Limitations

While the benefits of capturing classroom activity this way are myriad, it is not
true that the data is unbiased. As with any data, there is always bias in video data
because a human has made a set of decisions based on a set of criteria for data being
collected in the space (e.g., Hall, 2000). However, these whole-room approaches
to video capture allow something closer to unbiased capture of the experience to
happen. While dedicated video suites remain relatively rare because they require
dedicated space, the other options (e.g., 360° cameras, GoPros, etc.) are relatively
inexpensive and easy to set up in a variety of settings. Clearly, capturing the volume
of data made available through this application requires careful attention to research
design to ensure that the studies resulting from high volumes of data are doable.

12.6 Examples

In one line of research, the 360° video technology is being used to create the research
stimuli. Preservice teachers are asked to watch 360° videos of children learning
mathematics as part of lessons on teacher noticing (e.g., Kosko et al., 2020; Zolfaghari
et al., 2020). The research has focused both on what the preservice teachers notice in
the 360° video versus traditional video views as well as how to promote preservice
teacher’s noticing of student’s strategies. Findings in the Kosko et al. (2020) showed
that preservice teachers who used the 360° videos were more successful in noticing
both reform-oriented and content-specific aspects of the instruction than those who
relied on traditional video views. This research considers the connection between
Type B (student learning activities) and Type E (teacher’s competencies, knowledge,
and skills) variables by looking at them through the teacher interactive, pre-active,
and post-active activities (Types D and C) that were implemented.
In another line of research related to video technologies is research focused on
determining the most effective uses of the technology for a variety of teaching,
368 C. H. Orrill et al.

learning, and research purposes. For example, van der Kleij and colleagues (2019)
undertook a study in Australia to explore the feasibility of using GoPro cameras
with iPads to capture student–teacher interactions. Their findings showed that the
two technologies used together can be useful and that teachers are able to engage
in teacher noticing activities while viewing the videos created with these devices.
This was similar to the findings of Sherin et al. a decade earlier (2008), though they
only considered wearable cameras and not the addition of the iPad tablets. As with
the research above, this study is considering students learning activities (Type B)
by watching the planned instruction (Type D—pre-active teacher activities) as it is
enacted (Type C—interactive teacher activities).

13 Presage-Process–Product Research in the 21st Century

While this chapter cannot possibly provide an exhaustive discussion of the ways in
which research has evolved since the Medley (1987) framework was introduced, we
have attempted to offer insights into changes that have shaped the ways in which
we think about research, learning, and teaching as well to provide some examples of
approaches to research that simply were not available in 1987. Despite the develop-
ment in methods and tools, it still holds that one cannot study the interactions of the
variables without considering the mediating factors (which, often, are other variables
from Medley’s framework). His assertion that we need to have a clear conception
of good teaching, valid instruments, and appropriate data is still at the heart of good
research. Perhaps more than in 1987, modern researchers recognize that teaching is
multifaceted and there is no single definition of “good teaching”; thus the onus is on
the researcher to define the construct and clearly convey the purpose of the research
(e.g., Orrill & Cohen, 2016).
Looking back, we can see the emergence of new methods and theories that attend
far more to contextual variables and rich details than those commonly in use in 1987.
Rather than trying to find particular variables that explain learning or teaching, the
field is now more concerned with context and complexity. The research methods and
theories that are in use and emerging now reflect that shift. In part, technology is to
be thanked for this change as it has made data collection and analysis much easier
than it was in 1987.
The advantage of our current research landscape lies in the ways we can chal-
lenge Medley’s (1987) assertion that “research designed to correlate nonadjacent
points is not worth doing” (p. 111). With the tools and approaches we now have
available, current researchers have opportunities to think about the relationships
between Medley’s variables in ways that are more robustly interconnected and less
hierarchical. For example, QE and CHAT are both explicitly focused on finding the
connections between and among elements within and between the variables. CHAT,
particularly, is interested in how teaching, learning, and instruction interact with each
other. Similarly, DBR is expressly focused on including the context of the research
as part of the consideration of what happened.
Continuing Evolution of Research on Teaching and Learning: Exploring … 369

At the same time, we challenge Medley’s assertion about the necessity of looking
only at adjacent variables, as we can now examine the relationships between and
among variables in ways Medley could not have imagined. QE, for example, with its
ability to draw on large datasets to yield thick, rich description can help us understand
connections between the adjacent variables. Instead of being limited to understanding
whether Type B student learning activities (Manizade et al., 2023) shape student’s
Type A learning outcomes, we can now look across large groups of students to find
out how those activities shaped learning, how particular groups of students (Type
G—individual student characteristics, abilities, and personal qualities and Type H—
interactive context variables) interacted with those activities and what was learned,
and the influence on individual and group learning outcomes. Teaching experiments
offer one model for diving deeply into student outcomes and their relationship to
student learning activities by focusing explicitly on student characteristics.
As with QE, DBR also allows us to conduct research on multiple pairs of adjacent
variables simultaneously. The unique characteristic of partnering with a variable of
professionals allows for each group to provide insight and perspective that can be
used to study multiple variables. By partnering with teachers, each DBR project indi-
rectly provides informal development experiences (Type J) that can influence teacher
competency, knowledge, and skills (Type E). The initial phase of DBR projects
includes exploring and understanding a project in natural context (McKenney &
Reeves, 2013), which gives researchers the opportunity to examine internal context
variables (Type H) through interviews and questionnaires to better design student
mathematics learning activities (Type B).
The examples of DBR studies described in the previous section were able to study
multiple pairs of variables. The goal of MIST was to improve interactive mathematics
teacher activities (Type C). The research group studied external context variables of
the support systems (Type I—external context variables) and teacher pre-active and
post-active activities (Type D). They made recommendations for changes in the
support system to influence these practices (Type C). Additionally, they observed
interactive teacher activities (Type C) to understand how the changes in support
impacted what happened in the classroom (student mathematics learning activities,
Type B, and student learning outcomes, Type A). They spent several years on inves-
tigating variables of individual student characteristics (Type G) and internal context
(Type H) variables. The knowledge of these variables directly affected the design
of QA, a student learning activity (Type B). Then, the group collected data on the
relationship between this activity and learning outcomes.
As shown throughout this chapter, there are explicit and implicit connections
between the variables of interest to any research effort focused on the relationship
between teaching and learning. When these connections are not explicitly attended
to in the research design, the result is research that yields inconclusive or confounded
findings. For example, large scale studies of professional development, in an effort
to yield clear relationships between teacher development and experience (Type J)
and student learning outcomes (Type A) rely on data of Type E (teacher competence,
knowledge, and skills) and Type A (student learning outcomes) only without consid-
eration of the steps in between that mediate the effectiveness of the PD (e.g., Wayne
370 C. H. Orrill et al.

et al., 2008, 2011). It is for this reason that conclusive findings from PD are often
elusive (Yoon et al., 2007) or very broad, such as those offered by Garet et al. (2011).
Attending to only measures of teacher knowledge and student knowledge can also
lead to the appearance that professional development had no significant impact on
student learning, when the actual relationship is more complicated than those data
would suggest (e.g., Garet et al., 2011). This lack of attention to the “in-between”
variables is understandable given the immense complexity of understanding not only
whether PD impacted student learning (cf., Banilower et al., 2006, 2007). However,
exploring the relationships in-between Type E (teacher’s mathematics competencies
knowledge and skills) and Type A (student learning outcomes) is critical for under-
standing how, when, and under what conditions teacher professional development
can lead to better student learning. The kinds of methods and technologies discussed
in this chapter open opportunities for thinking about these connections in new ways.
Our parting observation is that we believe the presage-process–product framework
remains a relevant way to conceptualize research. In this chapter, we have attempted
to highlight the ways in which the research field has changed over the three decades
since Medley offered his framework. We assert that the evolution of research method-
ologies, research methods, and available technologies has fundamentally changed the
landscape in ways that allow the inclusion of multiple variables, rather than limiting
them only to adjacent relationships and has allowed more careful consideration of
connections and relationships between and among the variables than was possible
with quantitative methods and classic test theory.

Acknowledgements Aspects of the work reported here was supported by the National Science
Foundation under grants DRL-1054170 and DRL 1813760. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions
or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily
reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

References

Andra, C., Lindstrom, P., Arzarello, F., Holmqvist, K., Robutti, O., & Sabena, C. (2015). Reading
mathematics representations: An eye-tracking study. International Journal of Science and
Mathematics Education, 13, 237–259.
Arastoopour, G., Chesler, N. C., D’Angelo, C. M., Opgenorth, J. W., Reardan, C. B., Haggerty,
N. P., Lepak, C., & Shaffer, D. W. (2012). Nephrotex: Measuring first year student’s ways
of professional thinking in a virtual internship [Paper presentation]. American Society for
Engineering Education Annual Conference, San Antonio, TX. Paper No. AC 2012–3103.
Baker, F. R. (2001). The basics of item response theory (2nd ed). ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment
and Evaluation. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED458219.pdf
Baker, F. B., & Kim, S. H. (2004). Item response theory: Parameter estimation techniques (2nd
ed.). New York, NY: Marcel Dekker.
Banilower, E. R., Boyd, S. E., Pasley, J. D., & Weiss, I. R. (2006). Lessons from a decade of
mathematics and science reform: A capstone report for the local systemic change through
teacher enhancement initiative. Horizon Research, Inc. http://www.pdmathsci.net/reports/cap
stone.pdf
Continuing Evolution of Research on Teaching and Learning: Exploring … 371

Banilower, E. R., Heck, D. J., & Weiss, I. R. (2007). Can professional development make the
vision of the Standards a reality? The impact of the national science foundation’s local systemic
change through teacher enhancement initiative. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(3),
375–395. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20145
Barab, S., & Squire, K. (2004). Design-based research: Putting a stake in the ground. Journal of
the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 1–14.
Barab, S., Gresalfi, M., & Ingram-Goble, A. (2010). Transformational play: Using games to position
person, content and context. Educational Researcher, 39(7), 525–536.
Barab, S., Scott, B., Siyahhan, S., Goldstone, R., Ingram-Goble, A., Zuiker, S. J., & Warren, S.
(2009). Transformational play as a curricular scaffold: Using videogames to support science
education. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18(4), 305.
Barab, S., Thomas, M., Dodge, T., Carteaux, R., & Tuzun, H. (2005). Making learning fun: Quest
Atlantis, a game without guns. ETR&D, 53(1), 86–107.
Black, L., Williams, J., Hernandez-Martinez, P., Davis, P., Pampaka, M., & Wake, G. (2010).
Developing a ‘leading identity’: The relationship between student’s mathematical identities and
their career and higher education aspirations. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 73(1), 55–72.
Blei, D. M. (2012). Probabilistic topic models. Communications of the ACM, 55, 77–84.
Bradshaw, L., Izsák, A., Templin, J., & Jacobson, E. (2014). Diagnosing teachers’ understandings of
rational numbers: Building a multidimensional test with the diagnostic classification framework.
Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 33(1), 2–14.
Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating
complex interventions in classroom settings. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141–178.
Brushlinskii, A. V. (2004). The activity approach and psychology. Journal of Russian and East
European Psychology, 42(2), 69–81.
Burke, J. P., Orrill, C. H., & Shaffer, D. W. (2012). Epistemic network analysis for exploring connect-
edness in teacher knowledge. In L. R. Van Zoest, J.-J. Lo, & J. L. Kratky (Eds.), Proceedings of
the Thirty-Fourth Annual Meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for
the Psychology of Mathematics Education: Navigating Transitions Along Continuums (pp. 559).
Western Michigan University.
Clements, D. H., Sarama, J., Spitler, M. E., Lange, A. A., & Wolfe, C. B. (2011). Mathematics
learned by young children in an intervention based on learning trajectories: A large-sclae cluster
randomized trial. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 42(2), 127–166. https://doi.
org/10.5951/jresematheduc.42.2.0127
Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Sage Publications Ltd.
Chester, N. C., Ruis, A. R., Collier, W., Swiecki, Z., Arastoopour, G., & Shaffer, D. W. (2015).
A novel paradigm for engineering education: Virtual internships with individualized mentoring
and assessment of engineering thinking. Journal of Biomechanical Engineering, 137(2):024701.
Cobb, P. (2000). Conducting teaching experiments in collaboration with teachers. In R. Lesh & A.
E. Kelly (Eds.), Research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 307–333). Erlbaum.
Cobb, P., & Steffe, L. (1983). The constructivist researcher as teacher and model builder. Journal
for Research in Mathematics Education, 14(2), 83–94. https://doi.org/10.2307/748576
Cobb, P., Confrey, J., DiSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in
educational research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9–13.
Cobb, P., Jackson, K., Henrick, E., & Smith, T. M. (2018). Systems for instructional improvement:
Creating coherence from the classroom to the district office. Harvard Education Press.
Cobb, P., Jackson, K., Smith, T., Sorum, M., & Henrick, E. (2013). Design research with educational
systems: Investigating and supporting improvements in the quality of mathematics teaching and
learning at scale. In B. J. Fishman, W. R. Penuel, A.R. Allen & B. H. Cheng (Eds.), Design based
implementation research: Theories, methods, and exemplars (Vol. 112, pp. 320–349). National
Society for the Study of Education Yearbook at Teachers College.
Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (CTVG). (1992). The Jasper Series as an example
of anchored instruction: Theory, program description, and assessment data. Educational
Psychologist, 27(3), 291–315.
372 C. H. Orrill et al.

Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (CTVG) (1994). From visual word problems
to learning communities: Changing conceptions of cognitive research. In K. McGilly (Ed.),
Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice. MIT Press/Bradford
Books.
Cole, M. (1998). Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline. Harvard University Press.
Cole, M., & Engeström, Y. (1993). A cultural-historical approach to distributed cognition. In G.
Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 1–
46). Cambridge University Press.
Cole, M., & Wertsch, J. V. (1996). Beyond the individual-social antinomy in discussions of Piaget
and Vygotsky. Human Development, 39(5), 250–256.
Collins, A. (1992). Toward a design science of education. In E. Scanlon & T. O’Shea (Eds.), New
directions in educational technology (pp. 15–22). Springer.
Confrey, J., Gianopulos, G., McGowan, W., Shah, M., & Belcher, M. (2017). Scaffolding learner-
centered curricular coherence using learning maps and diagnostic assessments designed around
mathematics learning trajectories. ZDM Mathematics Education, 49, 717–734. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s11858-017-0869-1
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches
(4th Ed.). Sage.
Davydov, V. V. (1975) The psychological characteristics of the “prenumerical” period of mathe-
matics instruction. In L. P. Steffe (Ed.), Soviet studies in the psychology of learning and teaching
mathematics (Vol. 7). School Mathematics Study Group.
De Sousa, F., Rasmussen, I., & Pierroux, P. (2018). Zombies and ethical theories: Exploring trans-
formational play as a framework for teaching with videogames. Learning, Culture and Social
Interaction, 19, 40–50.
Design-Based Research Collective. (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for
educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5–8.
Ejersbo, L., Engelhardt, R., Frølunde, L., Hanghøj, T., Magnussen, R., & Misfeldt, M. (2008).
Balancing Product Design and Theoretical Insight. In A. Kelly, R. Lesh & J. Baek (Eds.),
The Designer: Journal of the International Society for Design and Development in Education
(pp. 149-163). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Engeström, Y. (1993). Developmental studies of work as a testbench of activity theory: The case
of primary care medical practice. In S. Chaiklin & J. Lave (Eds.), Understanding practice:
Perspectives on activity and context (pp. 64–103). Cambridge University Press.
Engeström, Y. (1999a). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. Perspectives on
Activity Theory, 19(38), 19–30.
Engeström, Y. (1999b). Innovative learning in work teams: Analyzing cycles of knowledge creation
in practice. Perspectives on Activity Theory, 377, 404.
Engeström Y. (2001a) Making expansive decisions: An activity-theoretical study of practitioners
building collaborative medical care for children. In C. M. Allwood, & M. Selart (Eds.) Decision
making: Social and creative dimensions. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9827-
9_14
Engeström, Y. (2001b). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptual-
ization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133–156.
Engeström, Y. (2004). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental
research. Educational Researcher, 16–25.
Engeström, Y., & Sannino, A. (2010). Studies of expansive learning: Foundations, findings and
future challenges. Educational Research Review, 5(1), 1–24.
Erlwanger, S. H. (1973). Benny’s conception of rules and answers in IPI mathematics. Journal of
Children’s Mathematical Behavior, 1(2), 7–26.
Garet, M. S., Wayne, A. J., Stancavage, F., Taylor, J., Eaton, M., Walters, K., Song, M., Brown,
S., Hurlburt, S., Zhu, P., Sepanik, S., Doolittle, F., & Warerm E. (2011). Middle school mathe-
matics professional development impact study: Findings after the second year of implementation
Continuing Evolution of Research on Teaching and Learning: Exploring … 373

(NCEE 2011–4024). U.S. Department of Education. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20114024/ind

ex.asp
Gee, J. P. (2014). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method (4th ed.). Routledge.
Ginsburg, H. P. (1997). In Entering the child’s mind: The clinical interview in psychological research
and practice. Cambridge University Press.
Gresalfi, M., & Barnes, J. (2012). Consequential feedback as a means of supporting student engage-
ment and understanding. In J. van Aalst, K. Thompson, M. J. Jacobson & P. Reimann (Eds.), The
future of learning: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference of the Learning Sciences
(pp. 403–410). International Society of the Learning Sciences.
GSI Teaching & Resource Center (n.d.). Overview of learning theories. Retrieved September
20, 2020, from https://gsi.berkeley.edu/gsi-guide-contents/learning-theory-research/learning-
overview/
Hall, R. (2000). Videorecording as theory. In A. E. Kelly & R. A. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of research
design in mathematics and science education (pp. 647–664). Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hegedus, S. J., & Roschelle, J. (2013). The SimCalc vision and contributions. Springer.
Hickman, M. (2015). Engaging students with pre-recorded ‘live’ reflections on problem-solving
with Livescribe pens. Research in Mathematics Education, 15(2), 195–196. https://doi.org/10.
1080/14794802.2013.797738
Izsák, A., Orrill, C. H., Cohen, A., & Brown, R. E. (2010). Measuring middle grades teacher’s
understanding of rational numbers with the mixture Rasch model. Elementary School Journal,
110(3), 279–300.
Izsák, A., & Templin, J. (2016). Coordinating conceptualizations of mathematical knowledge with
psychometric models: Opportunities and challenges. In A. Izsák, J. T. Remillard, & J. Templin
(Eds.), Psychometric methods in mathematics education: Opportunities, challenges, and inter-
disciplinary collaborations. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education Monograph, Vol.
15 (pp. 5–30). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Jaworski, B., & Potari, D. (2009). Bridging the macro-and micro-divide: Using an activity theory
model to capture sociocultural complexity in mathematics teaching and its development.
Educational Studies in Mathematics, 72(2), 219–236.
Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A., J., & Turner, L. A. (2007). Toward a definition of mixed methods
research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 112-133. https://doi.org/10.1177/155868
9806298224
Jones, K. (2000). Providing a foundation for deductive reasoning: Student’s interpretations when
using dynamic geometry software and their evolving mathematical explanations. Educational
Studies in Mathematics, 44(1), 55–85.
Kim, S., Kwak, M., Cardozo-Gaibisso, L., Buxton, C., & Cohen, A.S. (2017). Statistical and quali-
tative analyses of students’ answers to a constructed response test of science inquiry knowledge.
Journal of Writing Analytics, 1, 82–102.
Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2005). What happens when teachers design educational technology?
The development of technological pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Educational
Computing Research, 32(2), 131–152. https://doi.org/10.2190/0EW7-01WB-BKHL-QDYV
Kosko, K. W., Ferdig, R. E., & Zolfaghari, M. (2020). Preservice teacher’s professional noticing
when viewing standard and 360 video. Journal of Teacher Education, 72, 84-297. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0022487120939544
Kozulin, A. (1996). Vygotsky in context. In A. Kouzlin (Ed.), Thought and language (pp. 6–56).
The MIT Press.
Kuutti, K. (1996). Activity theory as a potential framework for human-computer interaction research.
In B. Nardi (Ed.), Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human-computer interaction
(pp. 17–44). MIT Press.
Laborde, C. (2005). Robust and soft constructions: Two sides of the use of dynamic geometry
environments. In S.-C. Chu, H.-C. Lew, & W.-C. Yang (Eds.), Proceedings of the 10th Asian
Technology Conference in Mathematics (pp. 22–35). Retrieved from http://epatcm.any2any.us/
EP/EP2005/2005P279/fullpaper.pdf
374 C. H. Orrill et al.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge
University Press.
Lee, V. R., Drake, J., & Williamson, K. (2015). Let’s get physical: K-12 students using wearable
devices to obtain and learn about data from physical activities. Tech Trends, 59(4), 46–53.
Leont’ev, A. N. (1974). The problem of activity in psychology. Soviet Psychology, 13(2), 4–33.
Leont’ev, A. N. (1981). Problems of the development of the mind. Progress.
Manizade, A. G., Buchholtz, N., & Beswick, K. (2023). The evolution of research on teaching math-
ematics: International perspectives in the digital era: Introduction. In A. G. Manizade, N. Buch-
holtz, & K. Beswick (Eds.,), The evolution of research on teaching mathematics: International
perspectives in the digital era. Springer.
Martinovic, D., & Manizade, A. G. (2020). Teachers using GeoGebra to visualize and verify conjec-
tures about trapezoids. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education,
20(3), 485–503.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). In Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd Ed.). Sage.
Mayer, R. E. (2005). Introduction to multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge
handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 1–18). Cambridge University Press.
McClain, K. (2002). A methodology of classroom teaching experiments. In S. Goodchild & L.
English (Eds.), Researching mathematics classrooms: A critical examination of methodology
(pp. 91–118). Library of Congress.
McKenney, S., & Reeves, T. (2012). Conducting educational design research: What it is, how we
do it, and why. Routledge.
McKenney, S., & Reeves, T. C. (2013). Educational design research. In Handbook of research on
educational communications and technology (pp. 131–140). Springer.
McKenney, S., & Reeves, T. C. (2019). Conducting educational design research. Routledge.
Medley, D. M. (1987). Evolution of research on teaching. In M. M. Dunkin (Ed.), The international
encyclopedia of teaching and teacher education (pp. 105–113). Pergamon.
Nagar, G. G. (2019). Conceptualization of and reasoning about mathematical structures: Vari-
ance and invariance in a dynamic geometry environment. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation].
University of Massachusetts Dartmouth.
Nagar, G. G., Hegedus, S. J., & Orrill, C. H. (2022). High school teacher’s discernment of invariant
properties in a dynamic geometry environment. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 111(1),
127–145. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-022-10144-6
Niess, M. L. (2005). Preparing teachers to teach science and mathematics with technology: Devel-
oping a technology pedagogical content knowledge. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21,
509–523. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2005.03.006
Orrill, C. H., & Cohen, A. (2016). Purpose and conceptualization: Examining assessment devel-
opment questions through analysis of measures of teacher knowledge. In A. Izsák, J. T. Remil-
lard, & J. Templin (Eds.), Psychometric methods in mathematics education: Opportunities, chal-
lenges, and interdisciplinary collaborations (pp. 139–153). Journal for Research in Mathematics
Education Monograph Series No. 15. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Orrill, C. H., & Shaffer, D. W. (2012). Exploring connectedness: Applying ENA to teacher knowl-
edge. In J. van Aalst, K. Thompson, M. J. Jacobson, & P. Reimann (Eds.), The Future of Learning:
Proceedings of the 10th International Conference of the Learning Science (ICLS 2012)—Volume
1, Full papers. (Vol. 1, pp. 175–179). International Society of the Learning Sciences.
Penuel, W. R., Fishman, B. J., Haugan Cheng, B., & Sabelli, N. (2011). Organizing research
and development at the intersection of learning, implementation, and design. Educational
Researcher, 40(7), 331–337.
Piaget, J., & Cook, M. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children (Vol. 8, No. 5, pp. 18).
International Universities Press.
Reeves, T. C. (2011). Can educational research be both rigorous and relevant? In Educational
handbook of design research methods in education (pp. 149–163).
Robins, G. L., (2015). Doing social network research: Network-based research design for social
scientists. Sage.
Continuing Evolution of Research on Teaching and Learning: Exploring … 375

Rogoff, B. (2008). Observing sociocultural activity on three planes: Participatory appropriation,

guided participation, and apprenticeship. In K. Hall, P. Murphy & J. Soler (Eds.), Pedagogy and
practice: Culture and identities (pp. 58- 74). Sage.
Rost, J. (1990). Rasch models in latent classes: An integration of two approaches to item analysis.
Applied Psychological Measurement, 14(3), 271–282. https://doi.org/10.1177/014662169001
400305
Roth, W. M. (2012). Societal mediation of mathematical cognition and learning. Orbis Scholae,
6(2), 7–22.
Rozin, V. M. (2004). Value foundations of conceptions of activity in psychology and contemporary
methodology. Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 42(3), 72–89.
Rupp, A. A., Templin, J., & Henson, R. A. (2010). Diagnostic measurement: Theory, methods, and
applications. New York, NY: Guilford.
Ruthven, K. (2018). Constructing dynamic geometry: Insights from a study of teaching practices in
English schools. In G. Kaiser, H. Forgasz, M. Graven, A. Kuzniak, E. Simmt, & B. Xu (Eds.),
Invited Lectures from the 13th International Congress on Mathematical Education (pp. 521–
540). Springer.
Sandoval, W. (2014). Conjecture mapping: An approach to systematic educational design research.
Journal of the Learning Sciences, 231, 18–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2013.778204
Schmittau, J. (2004). Vygotskian theory and mathematics education: Resolving the conceptual-
procedual dichotomy. European Journal of Psychology in Education, 19, 19–43.
Schmittau, J. (2005). The development of algebraic thinking. Zentralblatt für Didaktik der
Mathematik, 37, 16–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02655893
Schmittau, J. (2011). The role of theoretical analysis in developing algebraic thinking: A Vygotskian
perspective. In J. Cai & E. Knuth (Eds.), Early algebraization: A global dialogue from multiple
perspectives (pp. 71–85). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02655893
Shaffer, D. W. (2004). Epistemic frames and islands of expertise: Learning from infu-
sion experiences. In Proceedings from the 6th International Conference of the Learning
Sciences (ICLS2004): Embracing diversity in the learning sciences (pp. 473–480). Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Shaffer, D. W. (2006). Epistemic frames for epistemic games. Computers and Education, 46(3),
223–234.
Shaffer, D. W. (2009). Wage the kennel: Games, frames, and the problem of assessment. In
R. Ferdig (Ed.), Handbook of research on effective electronic gaming in education (Vol. 2,
pp. 577–592). IGI Global.
Shaffer, D. W. (2017). Quantitative ethnography. Cathcart Press.
Shaffer, D. W. (2018a). Big data for thick description of deep learning. In K. Millis, D. Long,
J. Magliano, & K. Weimer (Eds.), Deep comprehension: Multi-disciplinary approaches to
understanding, enhancing, and measuring comprehension (pp. 262–275). Routledge/Taylor
Francis.
Shaffer, D. W. (2018b). Epistemic network analysis: Understanding learning by using big data
for thick description. In F. Fischer, C. E. Hmelo-Silver, S. R. Goldman, & P. Reimann (Eds.),
International handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 520–531). Routledge.
Shaffer, D. W., & Ruis, A. R. (2017). Epistemic network analysis: A worked example of theory-
based learning analytics. In C. Lang, G. Siemens, A. Wise, & D. Grasevic (Eds.), Handbook of
learning analytics (pp. 175–187). Society for Learning Analytics Research.
Shaffer, D. W., Collier, W., & Ruis, A. R. (2016). A tutorial on epistemic network analysis:
Analyzing the structure of connections in cognitive, social, and interaction data. Journal of
Learning Analytics, 3(3), 9–45. https://doi.org/10.18608/jla.2016.33.3
Shaffer, D. W., Hatfield, D., Svarovsky, G. N., Nash, P., Nulty, A., Bagley, E., Frank, K., Rupp, A.
A., & Mislevy, R. (2009). Epistemic network analysis: A prototype for 21st century assessment
of learning. International Journal of Learning and Media, 1(2), 33–53.
Sherin, M. G., Russ, R. S., Sherin, B. L., & Colestack, A. (2008). Professional vision in action: An
exploratory study. Issues in Teacher Education, 17(2), 27–46.
376 C. H. Orrill et al.

Simon, M. A., Kara, M., Norton, A., & Placa, N. (2018). Fostering construction of a meaning for
multiplication that subsumes whole-number and fraction multiplication: A study of the learning
through activity research program. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 52, 151–173.
Starrett, A., Yow, J., Lotter, C., Irvin, M. J., & Adams, P. (2021). Teachers connecting with rural
students and places: A mixed methods analysis. Teaching and Teacher Education, 97:103231.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2020.103231
Steffe, L. P. (1983). The teaching experiment in a constructivist research program. In M. Zweng, T.
Green, J. Kilpatrick, H. Pollack, & M. Suydam (Eds.), Proceedings of the fourth International
Congress on Mathematical Education (pp. 469–471). Birkhauser.
Steffe, L. P., & Thompson, P. W. (2000). Teaching experiment methodology: Underlying principles
and essential elements. In R. Lesh & A. E. Kelly (Eds.), Research design in mathematics and
science education (pp. 267–307). Erlbaum.
Strohmaier, A., MacKay, K., Obersteiner, A., & Reiss, K. (2020). Eye-tracking methodology
in mathematics education research: A systematic literature review. Educational Studies in
Mathematics, 104, 147–200.
Tallman, M. A., & Weber, E. (2015). Toward a framework for attending to reflexivity in the context
of conducting teaching experiments. In T. G. Bartell, K. N. Bieda, R. T. Putnam, K. Bradfield, &
H. Dominguez (Eds.), Proceedings of the 37thannual meeting of the North American Chapter
of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 1298–1305). East
Lansing, MI: Michigan State University.
Tatsuoka, C., Clements, D. H., Sarama, J., Izsák, A., Orrill, C. H., de la Torre, J., … Tatsuoka, K. K.
(2016). Developing workable attributes for psychometric models based on the Q-matrix. In A.
Izsák, J. T. Remillard, & J. Templin (Eds.), Psychometric methods in mathematics education:
Opportunities, challenges, and interdisciplinary collaborations. Journal for Research in Math-
ematics Education Monograph, Vol. 15 (pp. 73–96). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers
of Mathematics.
van der Kleij, F., Adie, L., & Cumming, J. (2019). Feasibility and value of using a GoPro camera
and iPad to study teacher-student assessment feedback interactions. In B. P. Veldkemp & C.
Sluijter (Eds.), Theoretical and practical advances in computer-based educational measurement
(pp. 339–359). SpringerOpen.
van Gog, T. & Scheiter, K. (2010). Eye tracking as a tool to study and enhance multimedia learning.
Learning and Instruction, 20, 95–99.
Wagner, E., Orme, S., Turner, H., & Yopp, D. (2017). Encouraging example generation: A teaching
experiment in first-semester calculus. PRIMUS, 27(2), 212–234. https://doi.org/10.1080/105
11970.2016.1194340
Wayne, A. J., Yoon, K. S., Zhu, P., Cronen, S., & Garet, M. S. (2008). Experimenting with teacher
professional development: Motives and methods. Educational Researcher, 37(8), 469–479.
Weiland, T., Orrill, C. H., Nagar, G. G., Brown, R. E., & Burke, J. (2020). Framing a robust under-
standing of proportional reasoning for teachers. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education,
24(5), 179–202.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-019-09453-0
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge
University Press.
Wooldridge, A. R., Carayon, P., Shaffer, D. W., & Eagan, B. (2018). Quantifying the qualitative
with epistemic network analysis: A human factors case study of task-allocation communication
in a primary care team. IISE Transactions on Healthcare Systems Engineering, 8(1), 72–82.
https://doi.org/10.1080/24725579.2017.1418769
Yamagata-Lynch, L. C. (2003). Using activity theory as an analytic lens for examining technology
professional development in schools. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 10(2), 100–119.
Yamagata-Lynch, L. C. (2007). Confronting analytical dilemmas for understanding complex
human interactions in design-based research from a cultural—Historical activity theory (CHAT)
framework. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16(4), 451–484.
Yamagata-Lynch, L. C. (2010). Activity systems analysis methods: Understanding complex learning
environments. Springer Science & Business Media.
Continuing Evolution of Research on Teaching and Learning: Exploring … 377

Yoon, K. S., Duncan, T., Lee, S. W-Y., Scarloss, B., & Shapley, K. L. (2007). Reviewing the
evidence on how teacher professional development affects student achievement (REL 2007-No.
33). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National
Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory
Southwest. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs
Zolfaghari, M., Austin, C. K., Kosko, K. W., & Ferdig, R. (2020). Creating asynchronous virtual
field experiences with 360 video. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 28(2), 315–320.

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate
credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and
indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative
Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by
statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder.
Appendix

Brief, Capsule Definitions of Terms and Documents for Chap. 6

• Assessment, curriculum and evaluation, and professional standards for school
mathematics: A trilogy of documents that provided a vision for the organization
of curriculum reform in the U.S. in the 1990s (National Council of Teachers of
Mathematics [NCTM], 1989, 1991, 1995).
• Behaviors and dispositions: Identification of student experiences, such as, profi-
ciencies, processes, practices, competencies, and habits of mind (Kobett & Karp,
2020, p. 40) that demonstrate how students develop and show evidence of their
mathematical thinking.
• Cognitive technological (CT) tools: Consists of tools that support a “syner-
gistic relationship” between technical and conceptual dimensions of mathematical
activity in technological environments (Zbiek et al., 2007).
• Competencies: Frameworks for knowing and doing mathematics, such as, (1)
Denmark’s (2003) mathematical competencies that provided evidence of student’s
“mental or physical processes, activities, and behaviors” (p. 9); (2) Program for
International Student Assessment [PISA] (PISA, 2021) assessed mathematical
competencies as “an individual’s capacity to reason mathematically and to formu-
late, employ, and interpret mathematics to solve problems in a variety of real-
world contexts” (PISA, 2021); and (3) Identified in the New Zealand Curriculum
(NZC), competencies “that describe what they [students] will come to know and
do” (Ministry of Education, 2015, p. 37).
• Conceptual understanding: Student learning is defined as the “comprehension
of mathematical concepts, operations, and relationships” (National Research
Council [NRC], 2001, p. 116).
• Direct instruction (DI): Traditional, instructional methods where students watch,
listen, and take notes about problems that teachers provide procedures and work
out for students to follow and use (Kapur, 2014).

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2023 379

A. Manizade et al. (eds.), The Evolution of Research on Teaching Mathematics,
Mathematics Education in the Digital Era 22,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-31193-2
380 Appendix

• Learning goals: Focus on student “understanding” where students build knowl-

edge; “Explicitly state what students will understand about mathematics as a result
of engaging in a particular lesson” (Smith & Sherin, 2019, p. 14).
• Learning through activity [LTA]: A research model that examines how learners
actively engage in learning activities through a progressive coordination of
mathematical concepts (Simon et al., 2016, 2018).
• Mathematical sense-making: Student engagement in processes, such as problem
solving, to learn mathematics with understanding; one aspect of what it means to
know and do mathematics.
• National Governors Association Center for Best Practices [NGA] & Council of
Chief State School Officers [CCSSO]: Authors of the U.S. Common Core State
Standards for Mathematics (CCSSM), 2010.
• Organization for Economic Development (OECD) Definition and Selection
Competencies (DeSeCo) Project: Created a framework to guide the development
of PISA assessments.
• Performance goals: Focus on the end result or product of student’s engagement
in learning mathematics: “What students will be able to do as a result in engaging
in a lesson” (Smith & Sherin, 2019, p. 14).
• Principles and standards for school mathematics: Updated U.S. document that
provides a vision for curriculum reform at the beginning of the twenty-first century
(NCTM, 2000).
• Problem-solving: Defined as “the systematic study of what the process of formu-
lating and solving problems entails and the ways to structure problem-solving
approaches to learn mathematics” (Santos-Trigo, 2020, p. 687).
• Process standards: Five processes that define what mathematicians might do
and say when engaged in doing mathematics: Problem solving, communication,
representation, making connections, and reasoning and proof (NCTM, 2000).
• Productive disposition: An affective construct defined as learners having an
“habitual inclination to see mathematics as sensible, useful, and worthwhile,
coupled with a belief in diligence and one’s own efficacy” (NRC, 2001, p. 116).
• Productive failure: Student’s initial problem-solving attempts are unsuccessful
and became productive when supported with appropriate mathematics classroom
instruction (Kapur, 2014).
• Productive struggle: A student learning behavior that promotes learners making
sense of mathematics and is necessary to develop conceptual understanding
(Hiebert & Grouws, 2007); “Intellectual effort students expend to make sense of
mathematical concepts that are challenging but fall within the student’s reasoning
capabilities” (Dingman et al., 2019, p. 91)
• Proficiencies: Frameworks for student’s engagement while learning mathematics,
such as, (a) Cognitive and affective proficiencies for five strands: conceptual
understanding, procedural fluency, strategic competence, adaptive reasoning, and
productive disposition (NRC, 2001); and (b) Reasoning as one of the four profi-
ciency strands students engage in when “thinking and doing of mathematics”
(Australia Curriculum and Assessment Reporting Authority [ACARA], 2017).
Appendix 381

• Prospective elementary school teachers (PTs) and AHA! Experience: Students

engage in problem solving and experience how “a problem has just been solved,
or a new piece of mathematics has been found, and it has happened in a flash of
insight, in a moment of illumination” (Liljedahl, 2005, p. 219).
• Representational fluency: Within or outside technological environments, “The
ability to translate across representations, the ability to draw meaning about a
mathematical entity from different representations of that mathematical entity,
and the ability to generalize across different representations” (Zbiek et al., 2007,
p. 1192).
• Research for principles and standards for school mathematics: Research litera-
ture that informed the U.S. vision of school mathematics in the 1990s and 2000
(NCTM, 2003).
• Scheme: A cycle of perturbation, action, and reflection in which an individual
anticipates, acts and mentally prepares, and assesses the outcome of his or her
actions (Hackenberg, 2010; Steffe, 1994; von Glaserfeld, 1989)
• Standards for Mathematical practice (SMP): Eight mathematical competencies
identified as a national Common Core State Standards for Mathematics (CCSSM)
in the U.S., 2010.
• Student learning activities: “In the classroom… All learning depends on the
activity of the learner” (Medley, 1987, p. 105).
• Student engagement: Defined as “an interactive relationship students have with
the subject matter, as manifested in the moment through expressions of behavior
and experiences of emotion and cognitive activity, and is constructed through
opportunities to do mathematics” (Jansen, 2020, p. 273).
• Teaching for robust understanding [TRU] project: Framework of five dimen-
sions of classroom activity that supports professional development (PD) to engage
teachers in creating a classroom student learning environment that facilitates the
development of powerful thinkers (Schoenfeld & the TRU project, 2016).