Advertisement

Participation and Mathematization in Introductory Algebra Classrooms: The Case of Sweden

  • Cecilia KilhamnEmail author
  • Thomas Hillman
  • Roger Säljö
Chapter

Abstract

In the Swedish classrooms of this study, teachers valued student participation and student engagement in mathematical activities. Students were consistently given opportunities to communicate and to voice their ideas. Students shared their work in the context of the whole class, which they seemed happy to do, and they were praised by the teachers for their efforts and participation. Mathematical tasks and activities offered students opportunities to discuss in small groups, to investigate using manipulatives and to engage in creative processes. However, we saw little evidence of the process of mathematizing in terms of making connections and conjectures at an algebraic level. On most occasions during these early lessons, the participants engaged in the specific and concrete work of manipulating objects and finding correct answers rather than in attempting to address the problems as instances of algebraic reasoning involving variables and equations.

References

  1. Carlgren, I., Klette, K., Mýrdal, S., Schnack, K., & Simola, H. (2006). Changes in Nordic teaching practices: From individualised teaching to the teaching of individuals. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 50(3), 301–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Carlsson, S., Liljegren, G., & Picetti, M. (2004). Matte Direkt Borgen 6B [Maths Directly The Castle]. Stockholm: Bonniers.Google Scholar
  3. Emanuelsson, J., & Sahlström, F. (2008). The price of participation: Teacher control versus student participation in classroom interaction. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 52(2), 205–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Freudenthal, H. (1968). Why to teach mathematics so as to be useful. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 1(1), 3–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Freudenthal, H. (1991). Revisiting mathematics education: China lectures. Hingham, MA: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  6. Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  7. Gresalfi, M., Martin, T., Hand, V., & Greeno, J. (2008). Constructing competence: An analysis of student participation in the activity systems of mathematics classrooms. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 70, 49–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hansson, Å. (2010). Instructional responsibility in mathematics education: Modelling classroom teaching using Swedish data. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 75(2), 171–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hansson, Å. (2011). Ansvar för matematiklärande, effekter av undervisning i det flerspråkiga klassrummet [Responsibility for mathematics learning, effects of instructional responsibility in the multilingual calssroom]. Gothenburg: ACTA Universitatis Gothenburgensis.Google Scholar
  10. Johansson, M. (2006). Teaching mathematics with textbooks. Diss., Luleå University of Technology, Luleå.Google Scholar
  11. Kazemi, E., & Stipek, D. (2001). Promoting conceptual thinking in four upper-elementary mathematics classrooms. The Elementary School Journal, 102(1), 59–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kilhamn, C., & Hillman, T. (2015). Structural and pedagogical diversity in Swedish Grade six algebra classrooms. In O. Helenius, et al. (Eds.), Development of mathematics teaching; design, scale, effects. Proceedings of the 9th Research Seminar of the Swedish Society for Research in Mathematics Education. Madif 9 i Umeå 2014. Linköping: SMDF.Google Scholar
  13. Littleton, K., & Mercer, N. (2013). Interthinking: Putting talk to work. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Mason, J., Graham, A., & Johnston-Wilder, S. (2005). Developing thinking in algebra. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  15. Mason, J., & Johnston-Wilder, S. (2004). Fundamental constructs in mathematics education. London: RoutledgeFalmer.Google Scholar
  16. Niss, M. (2003). Mathematical competencies and the learning of mathematics. The Danish KOM Project. In A. Gagatses et al. (Eds.), The 3rd Mediterranean Conference on Mathematical Education (pp. 115–124). Athens: Hellenic Mathematical Society.Google Scholar
  17. Palmér, H. (2013). To become, or not to become, a primary school mathematics teacher: A study of novice teachers’ professional identity development. Diss., Linneaus University Press, Växjö.Google Scholar
  18. Rystedt, E., Kilhamn, C., & Helenius, O. (2016). What’s there in an n? Nordic Studies in Mathematics Education, 21(1), 5–26.Google Scholar
  19. Skolverket. (2003). Lusten att lära—med fokus på matematik [The desire to learn—Focussing mathematics] (Report 221). Stockholm: Skolverket.Google Scholar
  20. Skolverket. (2011a). Curriculum for the compulsory school, preschool class and the leisure-time centre 2011. Retrieved July 20, 2012, from http://www.skolverket.se/publications
  21. Skolverket. (2011b). Laborativ matematik, konkretiserande undervisning och matematikverkstäder [Experiment-based mathematics, embodied teaching and mathematics workshops] (Report 366). Stockholm: Skolverket.Google Scholar
  22. Skolverket. (2012). Likvärdig utbildning i svensk skola: en kvantitativ analys av likvärdighet över tid [Equal education in Swedish school: A quantitative analysis of equality over time]. Stockholm: Skolverket.Google Scholar
  23. Treffers, A. (1987). Three dimensions: A model of goal and theory description in mathematics instruction—The Wiskobas Project. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Wood, T., Cobb, P., & Yackel, E. (1991). Change in teaching mathematics: A case study. American Educational Research Journal, 28(3), 587–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Yackel, E., & Cobb, P. (1996). Sociomathematical norms, argumentation, and autonomy in mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27, 458–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cecilia Kilhamn
    • 1
    Email author
  • Thomas Hillman
    • 2
  • Roger Säljö
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Pedagogical, Curricular and Professional StudiesUniversity of GothenburgGothenburgSweden
  2. 2.Department of Education, Communication and LearningUniversity of GothenburgGothenburgSweden

Personalised recommendations