Abstract
In this paper, we examine whether two words, gjennomgang and genomgång, loosely translated as “going through”, represent common didactical practices in Norwegian and Swedish upper secondary mathematics classrooms. Data from semi-structured group interviews yielded students’ perceptions as a belief synthesis of many years’ experience of mathematics classrooms. Analyses indicated that Norwegian vocational students experience a directive “going through” during which teachers inform them what work they will be doing from the book or computer. The remaining students described two forms of “going through”: instructive “going throughs” whereby teachers model new procedures and problem-solving “going throughs”, in which teachers demonstrate solutions to problems that students had previously found difficult.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abelson, R. (1979). Differences between belief and knowledge systems. Cognitive Science, 3(4), 355–366. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0304_4
Abelson, R. (1986). Beliefs are like possessions. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 16(3), 223–250. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5914.1986.tb00078.x
Andrews, P. (2007). The curricular importance of mathematics: A comparison of English and Hungarian teachers’ espoused beliefs. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 39(3), 317–338. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220270600773082
Andrews, P. (2009a). Mathematics teachers’ didactic strategies: Examining the comparative potential of low inference generic descriptors. Comparative Education Review, 53(4), 559–581. https://doi.org/10.1086/603583
Andrews, P. (2009b). Comparative studies of mathematics teachers’ observable learning objectives: Validating low inference codes. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 71(2), 97–122. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-008-9165-x
Andrews, P., & Sayers, J. (2013). Comparative studies of mathematics teaching: Does the means of analysis determine the outcome? ZDM, 45(1), 133–144. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-012-0481-3
Boeije, H. (2002). A purposeful approach to the constant comparative method in the analysis of qualitative interviews. Quality and Quantity, 36(4), 391–409. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1020909529486
Brown, C., & Cooney, T. (1982). Research on teacher education: A philosophical orientation. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 15(4), 13–18.
Buchmann, M. (1987). Teaching knowledge: The lights that teachers live by. Oxford Review of Education, 13(2), 151–164. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305498870130203
Dilworth, J. (2005). The reflexive theory of perception. Behavior and Philosophy, 33, 17–40.
Ernest, P. (1989). The knowledge, beliefs and attitudes of the mathematics teacher: A model. Journal of Education for Teaching, 15(1), 13–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/0260747890150102
Fenstermacher, G. D. (1978). A philosophical consideration of recent research on teacher effectiveness. Review of Research in Education, 6(1), 157–185. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732x006001157.
Fram, S. M. (2013). The constant comparative analysis method outside of grounded theory. The Qualitative Report, 18(1), 1–25. url: http://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol18/iss1/1
Frey, J. H., & Fontana, A. (1991). The group interview in social research. The Social Science Journal, 28(2), 175–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/0362-3319(91)90003-M
Green, T. F. (1971). The activities of teaching. London: McGraw Hill.
Häggström, J. (2006). The introduction of new content: What is possible to learn? In D. Clarke, J. Emanuelsson, E. Jablonka, & I. Mok (Eds.), Making connections: Comparing mathematics classrooms around the world (pp. 185–199). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Knipping, C. (2003). Learning from comparing: A review and reflection on qualitative oriented comparisons of teaching and learning mathematics in different countries. ZDM, 35(6), 282–293. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02656692
Leinhardt, G. (2001). Instructional explanations: A commonplace for teaching and location for contrast. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 333–357). Washington: American Educational Research Association.
Nardi, E., & Steward, S. (2003). Is mathematics T.I.R.E.D? A profile of quiet disaffection in the secondary mathematics classroom. British Educational Research Journal, 29(3), 345–367. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920301852
Nespor, J. (1987). The role of beliefs in the practice of teaching. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 19(4), 317–328. https://doi.org/10.1080/0022027870190403
Op ‘t Eynde, P., De Corte, E., & Verschaffel, L. (2006). Epistemic dimensions of students’ mathematics-related belief systems. International Journal of Educational Research, 45(1–2), 57–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2006.08.004
Skott, J. (2009). Contextualising the notion of ‘belief enactment’. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 12(1), 27–46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-008-9093-9
Stigler, J. W., & Hiebert, J. (1999). The teaching gap. New York: The Free Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Andrews, P., Nosrati, M. (2018). Gjennomgang and Genomgång: Same or Different?. In: Palmér, H., Skott, J. (eds) Students' and Teachers' Values, Attitudes, Feelings and Beliefs in Mathematics Classrooms. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70244-5_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70244-5_11
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-70243-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-70244-5
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)