Enhancing Engagement in Algebra: Didactical Strategies Implemented and Discussed by Teachers

References

• Ainley, M. (2001). Interest in learning and classroom interactions. In D. Clarke (Ed.), Perspectives on practice and meaning in mathematics and science classrooms (Vol. 25, pp. 105–130). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
   Google Scholar
• Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(3), 261–271. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.84.3.261
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Azevedo, F.S., diSessa, A.A., & Sherin, B.L. (2012). An evolving framework for describing student engagement in classroom activities. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 31(2), 270–289. doi:10.1016/j.jmathb.2011.12.003
   Google Scholar
• Bell, A. (1996). Problem-solving approaches to algebra: Two aspects. In N. Bednarz, C. Kieran, & L. Lee (Eds.), Approaches to algebra. Dortrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
   Google Scholar
• Blumenfeld, P.C. (1992). Classroom learning and motivation: Clarifying and expanding goal theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(3), 272–281. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.84.3.272
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boaler, J. (1999). Participation, knowledge and beliefs: A community perspective on mathematics learning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 40(3), 259–281. doi:10.1023/A:1003880012282
   Google Scholar
• Boaler, J. (2000). Mathematics from another world: Traditional communities and the alienation of learners. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 18(4), 379–397. doi:10.1016/S0732-31230000026-2
   Google Scholar
• Brousseau, G. (1997). Theory of didactical situations in mathematics. Dortrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, L., Lawrence, M., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Cooper, T., & Warren, E. (2011). Years 2 to 6 students’ ability to generalise: Models, representations and theory for teaching and learning. In J. Cai, & E. Knuth (Eds.), Early algebraization: A global dialogue from multiple perspectives (pp. 187–214). Heidelberg: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Corno, L., & Mandinach, E. (1983). The role of cognitive engagement in classroom learning and motivation. Educational Psychologist, 18, 88–100. doi:10.1080/00461528309529266
   Google Scholar
• Forsberg, E. (Ed.). (2007). Curriculum theory revisited. Uppsala, Sweden: Uppsala University.
   Google Scholar
• Graham, A., Johnston-Wilder, S., & Mason, J. (2005). Developing thinking in algebra. London: SAGE.
   Google Scholar
• Hansson, Å. (2010). Instructional responsibility in mathematics education: Modelling classroom teaching using Swedish data. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 75(2), 171–189. doi:10.1007/s10649-010-9249-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hargreaves, A. (1986). Two cultures of schooling: The case of middle schools (1st ed.). Brighton, UK: Falmer Press.
   Google Scholar
• Helme, S., & Clarke, D. (2001). Identifying cognitive engagement in the mathematics classroom. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 13(2), 133–153. doi:10.1007/BF03217103
   Google Scholar
• Helme, S., & Clarke, D. (2002). Cognitive engagement in the mathematics classroom. In D. Clarke (Ed.), Perspectives on practice and meaning in mathematics and science classrooms (Vol. 25, pp. 131–153). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
   Google Scholar
• Hersant, M., & Perrin-Glorian, M. (2005). Characterization of an ordinary teaching practice with the help of the theory of didactic situations. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 59(1), 113–151. doi:10.1007/s10649-005-2183-z
   Google Scholar
• Hill, H.C., Blunk, M.L., Charalambous, C.Y., Lewis, J.M., Phelps, G.C., Sleep, L., & Ball, D.L. (2008). Mathematical knowledge for teaching and the mathematical quality of instruction: an exploratory study. Cognition and Instruction, 26(4), 430–511. doi:10.1007/s10857-008-9072-I
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holmqvist, M., & Wennås Brante, E. (2011). What is discerned in teachers’ expressions about planning: Similarities and differences between teachers from Hong Kong and Sweden. Kong Education Inquiry, 2(3), 497–514.
   Google Scholar
• Johansson, M. (2006). Teaching mathematics with textbooks: A classroom and curricular perspective. Luleå, Sweden: University of Technology.
   Google Scholar
• Kilhamn, C., & Röj-Lindberg, A. (2013). Seeking hidden dimensions of algebra teaching through video analysis. In B. Grevholm, P. S. Hundeland, K. Juter, K. Kislenko & P.-E. Persson (Eds.), Nordic research in mathematics education, past, present and future (pp. 299–328). Oslo: Cappelen Damm.
   Google Scholar
• Kong, Q.-P., Wong, N.-Y., & Lam, C.-C. (2003). Student engagement in mathematics: Development of instrument and validation of construct. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 15(1), 4–21. doi:10.1007/BF03217366
   Google Scholar
• Mason, J., Graham, A., & Johnston-Wilder, S. (2005). Developing thinking in algebra. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Mason, J. (2008). Making use of children's power to produce algebraic thinking. In J. Kaput, D. Carraher, & M. Blanton (Eds.), Algebra in the early grades (pp. 57–94). New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Miyakawa, T., & Winsløw, C. (2009). Didactical designs for students’ proportional reasoning: An “open approach” lesson and a “fundamental situation”. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 72(2), 199–218. doi:10.1007/s10649-009-9188-y
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Movshovitz-Hadar, N. (1988). School mathematics theorems: An endless source of surprise. For the Learning of Mathematics, 8(3), 34–40.
   Google Scholar
• Morgan, D.L. (1996). Focus groups as qualitative research. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Nyman, R. (forthcoming). Indicators of student engagement during introductory algebra: Teachers’ observations of their instructional practices. International Journal for teaching and Learning Mathematics.
   Google Scholar
• Palmér, H. (2013). To become, or not to become, a primary school mathematics teacher: A study of novice teachers’ professional identity development. Växjö, Sweden: Linneaus University.
   Google Scholar
• Radford, L. (2006). Algebraic thinking and the generelisation of patterns: A semiotic perspective. In S. Alatorre, J.L. Cortina, M. Sáiz, & A. Méndez (Eds). Proceedings of the 28th annual meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, pp. 2–21). Mérida, México: Universidad Pedagógica Nacional.
   Google Scholar
• Samuelsson, J. (2011). Development of self-regulated learning skills in mathematics in lower-secondary school in Sweden. Nordic Studies in Mathematics Education, 16(3), 25–42. Retrieved from http://ncm.gu.se/node/5880.
   Google Scholar
• Schoenfeld, A H. (1992). Learning to think mathematically: Problem solving, metacognition, and sense-making in mathematics. In D. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook for research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 334–370). New York, NY: McMillian.
   Google Scholar
• Shernoff, D.J., Csikszentmihalyi, M., Shneider, B., & Shernoff, E.S. (2003). Student engagement in highschool classrooms from the perspective of flow theory. School Psychology Quarterly, 18(2), 158–176. doi:10.1521/scpq.18.2.158.21860
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Skolverket. (2011). Curriculum for the compulsory school, preschool class and the leisure-time centre 2011. Stockholm: Ordförrådet AB.
   Google Scholar
• Strømskag Måsøval, H. (2011). Factors constraining students’ establishment of the algebraic generality in shape patterns. Kristiansand, Norway: University of Agder.
   Google Scholar