Advertisement

Mathematical Learning and Its Difficulties: The Case of Nordic Countries

  • Pekka RäsänenEmail author
  • Espen Daland
  • Tone Dalvang
  • Arne Engström
  • Johan Korhonen
  • Jónína Vala Kristinsdóttir
  • Lena Lindenskov
  • Bent Lindhardt
  • Edda Oskarsdottir
  • Elin Reikerås
  • Ulf Träff
Chapter

Abstract

Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden form a group of the Nordic welfare states. Culturally, economically, and politically, these countries share historical ties with each other with a strong role of the state in social policy and education. Here, we present the main features of the current models of special needs education in mathematics in these countries. In all these countries, the primary education is free for families, and the role of the state in regulating the educational system has been strong. However, despite cultural similarities, the solutions and policies within the educational systems have developed to different directions.

Keywords

Nordic countries Special education Educational system Response-to-instruction 

References

  1. Bonesrønning, H., Iversen, J. M. V., & Pettersen, I. (2010). Kommunal skolepolitikk etter Kunnskapsløftet. Med spesielt fokus på økt bruk av spesialundervisning. Trondheim, Norway: Senter for økonomisk forskning (SØF).Google Scholar
  2. Butterworth, B. (2003). Dyscalculia screener. London: nferNelson.Google Scholar
  3. Coughlan, S. (2014). BBC News Education and Family: Brain scientists to work with schools on how to learn. January 7th, 2014. Available at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-25627739 Google Scholar
  4. Common Goals (2016). Om Fælles Mål. København: Undervisningsminiteriet. Retrieved from https://uvm.dk/folkeskolen/fag-timetal-og-overgange/faelles-maal/om-faelles-maal
  5. Daland, E., & Dalvang, T. (2009). The compass model – A possible tool for dialogue, reasoning and understanding of situations in which the learners experience difficulties in their mathematical eduaction. In K. Linnanmäki & L. Gustafsson (Eds.), Different learners – Different math? (pp. 173–180). Vasa, Finland: The Faculty of Education, Åbo Akademi University.Google Scholar
  6. Daland, E., & Dalvang, T. (2016). Matematikkompasset. Statped. Læringsressurs.Google Scholar
  7. Eurydice (2011). Key data on Education in Europe. Eurydice network. Retrieved from http://www.eurydice.org
  8. Eurydice. (2012). The European higher area in 2012. Brussels, Belgium: Eurydice.Google Scholar
  9. Finansministeriet, Undervisningsministeriet og KL. (2010). Specialundervisning i folkeskolen – veje til en bedre organisering og styring. København, Denmark: Rosendahls-Schultz Grafisk. Available at http://www.ft.dk/samling/20091/almdel/udu/bilag/244/859480/index.htm Google Scholar
  10. Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2007). A model for implementing responsiveness to intervention. Teaching Exceptional Children, 39, 14–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Stecker, P. M. (2010). The “blurring” of special education in a new continuum of general education placements and services. Exceptional Children, 76(3), 301–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Compton, D. L. (2012). The early prevention of mathematics difficulty its power and limitations. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45(3), 257–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gaber, S., Cankar, G., Umek, L. M., & Tasner, V. (2012). The danger of inadequate conceptualisation in PISA for education policy. A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 42(4), 647–663.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2012.658275 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Glover, T. A., & Vaughn, S. (2010). The promise of response to intervention – Evaluating current science and practice. New York: The Gilford Press.Google Scholar
  15. Guðjónsdóttir, H., Kristinsdóttir, J. V., & Óskarsdóttir, E. (2007). Mathematics for all: Preparing teachers to teach in inclusive classrooms. In L. Østergaard Johansen (Ed.), Mathematics teaching and inclusion. Proceedings of the 3rd Nordic research conference on special needs education in mathematics (pp. 123–136). Aalborg, Denmark: Aalborg University.Google Scholar
  16. Guðjónsdóttir, H., Kristinsdóttir, J. V., & Óskarsdóttir, E. (2009). Mathematics for all: Working with teachers. In K. Linnanmäki & L. Gustafsson (Eds.), Different learners – different math? Proceedings of the 4th Nordic research conference on special needs education in mathematics (pp. 273–284). Vasa, Finland: Åbo Akademi University.Google Scholar
  17. Guðjónsdóttir, H., Kristinsdóttir, J. V., & Óskarsdóttir, E. (2010). Teachers’ development in mathematics teaching through reflective discussions. In B. Sriraman, C. Bergsten, S. Goodchild, G. Pálsdóttir, B. D. Søndergaard, & L. Haapasalo (Eds.), The first sourcebook on Nordic research in mathematics education (pp. 487–494). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  18. Guðmundsson, E., & Arnkelsson, G. B. (1998). Talnalykill: staðal-og markbundið próf í stærðfræði 1.-7. bekkur/Einar Guðmundsson og Guðmundur B. Arnkelsson. Reykjavík, Iceland: Rannsóknastofnun uppeldis-og menntamála.Google Scholar
  19. Guðmundsson, E., Skúlason, S., & Salvarsdóttir, K. (2006). WISC-IV is: mælifræði og túlkun. Reykjavík, Iceland: Námsmatsstofnun.Google Scholar
  20. Halberda, J., Mazzocco, M., & Feigenson, L. (2008). Individual differences in nonverbal number acuity predict maths achievement. Nature, 455, 665–668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Haug, P. (2010). Approaches to empirical research on inclusive education. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research, 12(3), 199–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Haug, P. (2016). Ein likeverdig skule I framtida? Nordisk tidsskrift for pedagogikk og kritikk, 2, 64–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. He, J., & Van de Vijver, F. J. (2016). The motivation-achievement paradox in international educational achievement tests: Toward a better understanding. In The psychology of Asian learners (pp. 253–268). Singapore, Singapore: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Helliwell, J. F., Layard, R., & Sachs, J. D. (Eds.). (2013). World happiness report 2013. New York: UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network.Google Scholar
  25. KSH. (2011). Klassifikation av sjukdomar och hälsoproblem (ICD-10-SE). Stockholm: Socialstyrelsen.Google Scholar
  26. Lindenskov, L. (2012). Matematik i specialundervisning og andre særlige Foranstaltninger. København, Denmark: DPU.Google Scholar
  27. Lindenskov, L., & Weng, P. (2014). Early mathematics intervention in a Danish municipality: Theory and teachers’ reflections in the pilot project. In A. B. Fuglestad (Ed.), Special needs education in mathematics: New trends, problems and possibilities (pp. 64–74). Kristianssand, Norway: Portal.Google Scholar
  28. Mathisen, I. H., & Vedøy, G. (2012) Spesialundervisning – Drivere og dilemma: Rapport IRIS 2012/017. International Research Institute of Stavanger.Google Scholar
  29. Mennta-og menningarmálaráðuneytið. (2013). Aðalnámskrá grunnskóla: greinasvið. Reykjavík, Iceland: Mennta-og menningarmálaráðuneyti. Retrieved 03.09.2013 from http://www.menntamalaraduneyti.is/utgefid-efni/namskrar/adalnamskra-grunnskola/ Google Scholar
  30. Ministry of Education (2013). Meld. St. 20 (2012–2013). På rett vei. Kvalitet og mangfold i fellesskolen.Google Scholar
  31. Ministry of Education, Science and Culture. (2011). The Icelandic national curriculum guide for compulsory school: General section. Reykjavík, Iceland: Ministry of education, science and culture. Retrieved 03.09.2013 from http://www.menntamalaraduneyti.is/utgefid-efni/namskrar/adalnamskra-grunnskola/ Google Scholar
  32. Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., & Arora, A. (2012). PIRLS 2011 international results in reading. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College.Google Scholar
  33. NESSE (2012). Education and disability/special needs: Policies and practices in education, training and employment for students with disabilities and special educational needs in the EU, an independent report prepared for the European Commission by the NESSE network of experts. As of 30 March 2013: http://www.nesse.fr/nesse/activities/reports/activities/reports/disability-specialneeds-1
  34. Nielsen, J. (2013). Utredning i kontekst. Utredninger – i vor tid. Psykologi i Kommunen, (1), 39–48.Google Scholar
  35. OECD. (2012). Education at a Glance 2012: OECD indicators. OECD Publishing.  https://doi.org/10.1787/eag-2012-en
  36. OECD. (2013a). PISA 2012 results: What students know and can do – Student performance in mathematics, reading and science (volume I). PISA, OECD Publishing.  https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264201118-en
  37. OECD. (2013b). OECD skills outlook 2013: First results from the survey of adult skills. OECD Publishing.  https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264204256-en
  38. OECD. (2016). PISA 2015. Results in focus. OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisa-2015-results-in-focus.pdf [22.01.2018].
  39. Ostad, S. (1997). Developmental differences in addition strategies: A comparison of mathematically disabled and mathematically normal children. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 345–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Óskarsdóttir, E. (2011). Sérkennsla í stærðfræði: rannsókn á framkvæmd og skipulagi. Glæður, 21(1), 57–62.Google Scholar
  41. Parsons, S., & Bynner, J. (2005). Does numeracy matter more? National Research and Development Centre for Adult Literacy and Numeracy. Available at http://www.nrdc.org.uk/download.asp?f=2979&e=pdf
  42. Räsänen, P., & Koponen, T. (2011). Matemaattisten oppimisvaikeuksien neuropsykologisesta tutkimuksesta. NMI-Bulletin, 20(3), 39–53. [About neuropsychological research on mathematical disorders].Google Scholar
  43. Räsänen, P., & Närhi, V. (2013). Heikkojen oppijoiden koulupolku. Teoksessa J Metsämuuronen (toim.), Perusopetuksen matematiikan oppimistulosten pitkittäisarviointi vuosina 2005–2012. Koulutuksen seurantaraportit 4/2013. Helsinki, Finland: Opetushallitus. (pp. 173–224) [Pathways to poor performance in mathematics. A book chapter in the report on the longitudinal study of the National Learning Assessment of Mathematical skills, National Board of Education].Google Scholar
  44. Räsänen, P., Närhi, V., & Aunio, P. (2010). Matematiikassa heikosti suoriutuvat oppilaat perusopetuksen 6. luokan alussa. (ss. 165–203). Teoksessa EK Niemi & J Metsämuuronen (toim.) (2010). Miten matematiikan taidot kehittyvät? Matematiikan oppimistulokset peruskoulun viidennen vuosiluokan jälkeen vuonna 2008. Koulutuksen seurantaraportit 2/2010. Helsinki, Finland: Opetushallitus. [Book chapter: Students with a poor performance in mathematics at the beginning of the 6th grade, in a book on National learning outcome assessment, follow-up from third to sixth grade, National Board of Education].Google Scholar
  45. Sabel, C., Saxenian, A., Miettinen, R., Kristensen, P., & Hautamäki, J. (2011). Individualized service provision in the new welfare state. Lessons from special education in Finland. Sitra Studies 62. Helsinki, Finland: SITRA.Google Scholar
  46. SFI. (2013). Talblindhed – en forskningsoversigt. Copenhagen, Denmark: SFI.Google Scholar
  47. Skolverket. (2009). What influences educational achievement in Swedish schools? A systematic review and summary analysis. Stockholm: Skolverket.Google Scholar
  48. Sverrisson, F. A., & Skúlason, S. (2012). Skýrsla um samræmd könnunarpróf 2012. Available at http://www.namsmat.is/vefur/skyrslur/samramd_prof/skyrsl_samramd_2012/samr_2012_vefur.pdf Google Scholar
  49. The Finnish Centre for Statistics (2013). Comprehensive school pupils receiving part-time special education in the academic year 2009–2010 by primary reason for special education. Available at http://www.stat.fi/til/erop/2010/erop_2010_2011-06-09_tau_005_en.html Google Scholar
  50. Thuneberg, H., Hautamäki, J., Ahtiainen, R., Lintuvuori, M., Vainikainen, M.-P., & Hilasvuori, T. (2013). Conceptual change in adopting the nationwide special education strategy in Finland. Journal of Educational Change, 9.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-013-9213-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Tomas, M. (Ed.). (2009). Northern lights on PISA 2006. Differences and similarities in the Nordic countries. Copenhagen, Denmark: Nordic Council of Ministers. Available at http://www.norden.org/publications Google Scholar
  52. UNESCO, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation. (1994). Salamanca statement and framework for action on special needs education. Paris: UNESCOGoogle Scholar
  53. WHO. (2005). International statistical classification of diseases and related health problems (ICD-10). Geneva, Switzerland: WHO.Google Scholar
  54. World Bank. (2013). GDP per capita. Available at http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pekka Räsänen
    • 1
    Email author
  • Espen Daland
    • 2
  • Tone Dalvang
    • 2
  • Arne Engström
    • 3
  • Johan Korhonen
    • 4
  • Jónína Vala Kristinsdóttir
    • 5
  • Lena Lindenskov
    • 6
  • Bent Lindhardt
    • 7
  • Edda Oskarsdottir
    • 8
  • Elin Reikerås
    • 9
  • Ulf Träff
    • 10
  1. 1.Niilo Mäki InstituteJyväskyläFinland
  2. 2.StatpedOsloNorway
  3. 3.Department of Mathematics and Computer ScienceKarlstad UniversityKarlstadSweden
  4. 4.Faculty of Education and Welfare StudiesÅbo Akademi UniversityVaasaFinland
  5. 5.School of EducationUniversity of IcelandReykjavíkIceland
  6. 6.Department of Educational Theory and Curriculum StudiesAarhus UniversityAarhusDenmark
  7. 7.The Competence Center for Mathematics Didactics KomMatUniversity College SjællandRoskildeDenmark
  8. 8.Faculty of Education StudiesUniversity of IcelandReykjavíkIceland
  9. 9.The Reading Centre, University of StavangerStavangerNorway
  10. 10.Department of Behavioural Sciences and LearningLinköping UniversityLinköpingSweden

Personalised recommendations