Inclusive Practices in Mathematics Education

  • Rhonda FaragherEmail author
  • Janelle Hill
  • Barbara Clarke


Inclusive mathematics education acknowledges human diversity and involves supporting the diverse learning needs of all students in general mathematics classrooms. In this chapter we review Australasian research concerning the various categories of diversity using the three themes of our framework: Access to the curriculum through policies and leadership practices; Diverse approaches to learning mathematics; and Teaching approaches for inclusion. Our analysis of the literature explored commonalities in research approaches and issues across the field. Our framework deliberately avoids reviewing literature under categories of diversity which would only serve to further segregate. Our review focused on issues arising in the teaching and learning of mathematics and the policies and practices that enable those endeavours. We were unable to identify any research that indicated some groups of learners needed to be taught away from other students. Those strategies or techniques needed for some could be used to enhance the learning of all. Following our review under the three themes, we propose areas of needed research and encourage mathematics education researchers in our region to further develop this field.


Inclusive education Approaches to teaching Mathematics attainment Numeracy Educational leadership Diversity 


  1. Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER). (2013). Evaluation of the Cape York Aboriginal Australian Academy Initiative. Final report. Camberwell, VIC: ACER.Google Scholar
  2. Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA). (2009). The Australian Curriculum: Mathematics. Retrieved from
  3. Attwood, A. (March 27, 2015). Indigenous education: Noel Pearson’s Direct Instruction rolled out in remote Pilbara schools despite uncertainties, Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Retrieved from
  4. Averill, R. (2012). Caring teaching practices in multiethnic mathematics classrooms: Attending to health and well-being. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 24(2), 105–128. doi: 10.1007/s13394-011-0028-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bawa Kuyini-A, A., & Paterson, D. (2013). Principals’ expectations of teachers to implement inclusive activities and teachers’ understanding of those expectations. Special Education Perspectives, 22(2), 31–44.Google Scholar
  6. Bishop, A., & Kalegeropoulos, P. (2015). (Dis)engagement and exclusion in mathematics classrooms—Values, labelling and stereotyping. In A. Bishop, H. Tan, & T. N. Barkatsas (Eds.), Diversity in mathematics education: Towards inclusive practices (pp. 193–218). Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.Google Scholar
  7. Casey, G. (2013). Interdisciplinary literacy through social media in the mathematics classroom: An action research study. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 57(1), 60–71. doi: 10.1002/jaal.216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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). Oxon, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Clarke, B., & Faragher, R. (2015). Inclusive practices in the teaching of mathematics: Supporting the work of effective primary teachers. In M. Marshman, V. Geiger, & A. Bennison (Eds.), Proceedings of the 38th Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (pp. 173–180). Sunshine Coast, QLD: MERGA.Google Scholar
  10. Clinton, J., & Hattie, J. (2013). New Zealand students’ perceptions of parental involvement in learning and schooling. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 33(3), 324–337. doi: 10.1080/02188791.2013.786679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cologon, K. (Ed.). (2014). Inclusive education in the early years. South Melbourne, VIC: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Council of Australian Governments Human Capital Working Group. (2008). National numeracy review report. Canberra: COAG.Google Scholar
  13. Department of Education Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR). (2011). Longitudinal survey of Australian youth, 2003 cohort, Version 4.0 (Computer file). Canberra: Australian Data Archive, The Australian National University.Google Scholar
  14. Ewing, B. (2011). Direct instruction in mathematics: Issues for schools with high Indigenous enroments: A literature review. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 36(5), 64–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Faragher, R. (2014). Learning mathematics in the secondary school: Possibilities for students with Down syndrome. In R. Faragher & B. Clarke (Eds.), Educating learners with Down syndrome: Research, theory and practice with children and adolescents (pp. 174–191). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. Faragher, R. (2015). Diversity. In D. Siemon, K. Beswick, K. Brady, J. Clark, R. Faragher, & E. Warren (Eds.), Teaching mathematics: Foundations to middle years (2nd ed., pp. 142–165). South Melbourne, VIC: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. 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). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  18. Forgasz, H., & Hill, J. (2013). Factors implicated in high mathematics achievement. International Journal of Science & Mathematics Education, 11(2), 481–499. doi: 10.1007/s10763-012-9348-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Furney, A.-M., McDiarmid, C., & Bannister, B. (2014). XSEL virtual selective high school provision: Delivering academically selective secondary curriculum in regional, rural and remote NSW. Australian & International Journal of Rural Education, 24(1), 35–49.Google Scholar
  20. Gaffney, M., Bezzina, M., & Branson, C. (2014). Leading mathematics teaching. In M. Gaffney & R. Faragher (Eds.), Leading improvements in student numeracy. Camberwell, VIC: ACER.Google Scholar
  21. Gaffney, M., & Faragher, R. (2010). Sustaining improvement in numeracy: Developing pedagogical content knowledge and leadership capabilities in tandem. Mathematics Teacher Education and Development, 12(2), 72–83.Google Scholar
  22. Gaffney, M., & Faragher, R. (Eds.). (2014). Leading improvements in student numeracy. Camberwell, VIC: ACER.Google Scholar
  23. Grootenboer, P., & Sullivan, P. (2013). Remote Indigenous students’ understanding of measurement. International Journal of Science & Mathematics Education, 11(1), 169–189. doi: 10.1007/s10763-012-9383-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Handal, B., Watson, K., Petocz, P., & Maher, M. (2013). Retaining mathematics and science teachers in rural and remote schools. Australian & International Journal of Rural Education, 23(3), 13–27.Google Scholar
  25. Hobbs, L. (2013). Teaching “out-of-field” as a boundary-crossing event: Factors shaping teacher identity. International Journal of Science & Mathematics Education, 11(2), 271–297. doi: 10.1007/s10763-012-9333-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hunting, R. P., Mousley, J. A., & Perry, B. (2012). A study of rural preschool practitioners’ views on young children’s mathematical thinking. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 24(1), 39–57. doi: 10.1007/s13394-011-0030-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Institute of Education Sciences. (2007). WWC Intervention Report. Direct Instruction, DISTAR, and Language for Learning. Washington, DC: What Works Clearinghouse. Retrieved from
  28. Jorgensen, R. (2015). Mathematics lessons in remote communities: A case study of Balargo. In M. Marshman, V. Geiger, & A. Bennison (Eds.), Proceedings of the 38th Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (pp. 317–324). Sunshine Coast, QLD: MERGA.Google Scholar
  29. Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice: Mind, mathematics and culture in everyday life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lowrie, T., & Jorgensen, R. (2012). Teaching mathematics remotely: Changed practices in distance education. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 24(3), 371–383. doi: 10.1007/s13394-011-0031-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lowrie, T., & Jorgensen, R. (2014). The tyranny of remoteness: Changing and adapting pedagogical practices in distance education. International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, 7(1), 1–8. doi: 10.5172/ijpl.2012.7.1.1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Macqueen, S. E. (2013). Grouping for inequity. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 17(3), 295–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Marcone, R., & Atweh, B. (2015). A meta-research question about the lack of research in mathematics education concerning students with physical disability. In S. Mukhopadhyay & B. Greer (Eds.), Proceedings of the Eighth International Mathematics Education and Society Conference (pp. 551–558). Portland, OR: Portland State University.Google Scholar
  34. McLeod, D. B. (1992). Research on affect in mathematics education: A Reconceptualization. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 575–596). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  35. Mills, M., Monk, S., Keddie, A., Renshaw, P., Christie, P., Geelan, D., & Gowlett, C. (2014). Differentiated learning: From policy to classroom. Oxford Review of Education, 40(3), 331–348. doi: 10.1080/03054985.2014.911725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ministerial Council for Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA). (2008). Melbourne declaration on educational goals for young Australians. Melbourne: Curriculum Corporation. Retrieved from
  37. Ministry of Education. (2007). The New Zealand Curriculum. Auckland, NZ: Author. Retrieved from
  38. Ministry of Education. (1996). Te Whãriki Early Childhood Curriculum. Auckland, NZ: Author. Retrieved from
  39. Ng, L. K. (2012). Mathematics anxiety in secondary school students. In J. Dindyal, L. P. Cheng, & S. F. Ng (Eds.), Proceedings of the 35th Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (pp. 570–577). Singapore: MERGA.Google Scholar
  40. Ng, K. T., Lay, Y. F., Areepattamannil, S., Treagust, D. F., & Chandrasegaran, A. L. (2012). Relationship between affect and achievement in science and mathematics in Malaysia and Singapore. Research in Science & Technological Education, 30(3), 225–237. doi: 10.1080/02635143.2012.708655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. OECD. (2013). PISA 2012 Results: Excellence through equity: Giving every student the chance to succeed (Vol. 2). doi: 10.1787/9789264201132-en.
  42. Owens, K. (2015). Changing the teaching of mathematics for improved Indigenous education in a rural Australian city. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 18(1), 53–78. doi: 10.1007/s10857-014-9271-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Perry, L. B., & McConney, A. (2013). School socioeconomic status and student outcomes in reading and mathematics: A comparison of Australia and Canada. Australian Journal of Education, 57(2), 124–140. doi: 10.1177/0004944113485836.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Polidano, C., Hanel, B., & Buddelmeyer, H. (2013). Explaining the socio-economic status school completion gap. Education Economics, 21(3), 230–247. doi: 10.1080/09645292.2013.789482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Seah, W. T., & Andersson, A. (2015). Valuing diversity in mathematics pedagogy through the volitional nature and alignment of values. In A. Bishop, H. Tan, & T. N. Barkatsas (Eds.), Diversity in mathematics education: Towards inclusive practices (pp. 167–183). Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.Google Scholar
  46. Shank, D. B., & Cotten, S. R. (2014). Does technology empower urban youth? The relationship of technology use to self-efficacy. Computers & Education, 70, 184–193. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2013.08.018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sullivan, P. (2015a). Maximising opportunities in mathematics for all students: Addressing within school and within class differences. In A. Bishop, H. Tan, & T. N. Barkatsas (Eds.), Diversity in mathematics education: Towards inclusive practices (pp. 239–260). Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.Google Scholar
  48. Sullivan, P. (2015b). The challenge of reporting research to inform the creation of inclusive mathematics learning environments. In A. Bishop, H. Tan, & T. N. Barkatsas (Eds.), Diversity in mathematics education: Towards inclusive practices (pp. 3–16). Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.Google Scholar
  49. Thousand, J., & Villa, R. A. (2000). Inclusion. Special Services in the Schools, 15(1–2), 73–108. doi: 10.1300/J008v15n01_05.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Verzosa, D., & Mulligan, J. (2013). Learning to solve addition and subtraction word problems in English as an imported language. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 82(2), 223–244. doi: 10.1007/s10649-012-9420-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Walshaw, M., & Brown, T. (2012). Affective productions of mathematical experience. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 80(1/2), 185–199. doi: 10.1007/s10649-011-9370-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Warren, E., & Quine, J. (2013). A holistic approach to supporting the learning of young Indigenous students: One case study. Australian Journal of Indigenous Education, 42(1), 12–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Watt, H. M., Shapka, J. D., Morris, Z. A., Durik, A. M., Keating, D. P., & Eccles, J. S. (2012). Gendered motivational processes affecting high school mathematics, educational aspirations, and career plans: A comparison of samples from Australia, Canada, and the United States. Developmental Psychology, 48(6), 1594–1611. doi: 10.1037/a0027838.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Westwood, P. (2000). Numeracy and learning difficulties. Approaches to teaching and assessment. Melbourne: ACER Press.Google Scholar
  55. Yeung, A. S., Craven, R. G., & Ali, J. (2013). Self-concepts and educational outcomes of Indigenous Australian students in urban and rural school settings. School Psychology International, 34(4), 405–427. doi: 10.1177/0143034312446890.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Australian Catholic UniversityBanyoAustralia
  2. 2.Monash UniversityClaytonAustralia
  3. 3.Monash UniversityClaytonAustralia

Personalised recommendations