| 34071. |
- Roos, Helena, 1974-, et al.
(author)
-
Kompetensens betydelse i det didaktiska mötet : en modell för analys av möjligheter att erbjuda varje elev likvärdig utbildning enlig skolans uppdrag
- 2018
-
In: Pedagogisk forskning i Sverige. - Växjö : Linnéuniversitetet. - 1401-6788 .- 2001-3345. ; 23:3-4, s. 290-307
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Skolans uppdrag är att erbjuda likvärdig utbildning till varje elev med utgångspunkt från deras varierande förutsättningar. Uppdraget, kan benämnas som det dubbla uppdraget, omfattar såväl kunskapsuppdrag som socialisationsuppdrag. I ett flertal rapporter från bl.a. Skolverket och Skolinspektionen (Skolverket, 2011, 2015; Skolinspektionen, 2014, 2016) framgår det att det finns en diskrepans mellan formuleringar i statliga styrdokument och det som sker i skolan med avseende på varje elevs möjlighet till likvärdig utbildning. Villkor för att genomföra skolans dubbla uppdrag belyses i denna artikel genom att fokusera på betydelsen av kvalitén på det didaktiska mötet i relation till varje elevs rätt till likvärdig utbildning och livslång lust att lära. Syftet med artikeln är att skapa en modell för att kunna analysera kvaliteten på det didaktiska mötet. Denna modell innehåller tre komponenter; elevers varierande förutsättningar i relation till likvärdig utbildning, professionell kompetens att genomföra innehålls-, dynamisk och deltagande inkludering samt tolkning och genomförande av skolans dubbla uppdrag. Kvaliteten på det didaktiska mötet påverkas av hur dessa tre komponenter samvarierar med varandra.
|
|
| 34072. |
- Roos, Helena, 1974-, et al.
(author)
-
Promoting basic arithmetic competence in early school years - using a response to intervention model
- 2023
-
In: Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs. - : John Wiley & Sons. - 1471-3802. ; 23:4, s. 263-388
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- This study investigated whether mathematics education based on a multi-tiered response to intervention (RTI) model can support students' arithmetic competence in primary schools in Sweden. The intent was to identify and support students at risk of failure. In this study, 113 students participated in the intervention, and 30 students participated in the control group. Both groups were followed from Grade 1 to the end of Grade 2 and compared. During the first semester in Grade 1, all students were taught basic addition and subtraction with explicit instructions in Tier 1. Those who did not respond to Tier 1 after one semester were provided support within Tier 2 during the second semester. The same was repeated in grade 2 and the students that did not respond to Tier 2 were supported within Tier 3. At the end of Grade 2, students in the intervention group performed significantly higher on the basic arithmetic competence in the number range 1-9 than the control group. No significant difference was found in a test measuring basic arithmetic competence in the number range 10-19. This study shows that using multi-tiered RTI might be sufficient to identify and support students at risk in early arithmetic competence.
|
|
| 34073. |
- Roos, Helena, 1974-
(author)
-
Repeated interviews with students – critical methodological points for research quality
- 2022
-
In: International Journal of Research and Method in Education. - : Taylor & Francis Group. - 1743-727X .- 1743-7288. ; 45:5, s. 423-436
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- This article presents a reflection on what the qualitative interview method conducted with students can provide to (mathematics) education research in terms of in-depth knowledge and what critical methodological points should be taken into consideration. Repeated interviews with the same students in relation to research quality is considered. The argument is that repeated interviews can provide in- depth knowledge and a grasp of students’ understandings. Critical points to consider when gaining in-depth knowledge are person- dependency, process ethics, connections between repeated interviews as a method and the aim, and the re-interview effect. These are important to discuss and reflect on throughout the research process, as they can function as quality criteria when producing in-depth knowledge in qualitative research with repeated interviews.
|
|
| 34074. |
|
|
| 34075. |
- Roos, Helena, 1974-, et al.
(author)
-
Strukturerad intensivundervisning i aritmetik
- 2013
-
In: Nämnaren. - Göteborg : Nationellt centrum för matematikutbildning (NCM). - 0348-2723. ; :1, s. 6-10
-
Journal article (pop. science, debate, etc.)abstract
- en undervisning som är inkluderande betraktas olikheter som tillgångar och alla elever ges möjligheter att vara aktiva. Här beskriver författarna ett examensarbete, på speciallärarprogrammet, om strukturerad intensivundervisning där utgångspunkten var att alla elever skulle arbeta i klassrummet.
|
|
| 34076. |
- Roos, Helena, 1974-
(author)
-
Students’ voices of inclusion in mathematics education
- 2023
-
In: Educational Studies in Mathematics. - : Springer. - 0013-1954 .- 1573-0816. ; 113:2, s. 229-249
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- This study foregrounds three students who are regarded by their teachers as being in special educational needs in mathematics (SEM) and these same students voicing what inclusion in mathematics education means to them. In this study, inclusion is defined as processes of participation. Discourse analysis was applied when analysing these students’ voices of inclusion in mathematics education in two inclusive mathematics classrooms, with both classes aiming to include every student in the mathematics education. The three main Discourses which were identified were the Discourse of assessment, the Discourse of being in a mathematics classroom setting, and the Discourse of accessibility in mathematics education. The analysis of the Discourses indicates that they were affected by wider sociopolitical discourses. Furthermore, when inclusion is regarded as processes of participation in mathematics education, the results indicate that participation becomes more complex. Therefore, in this process, both ideological and societal issues, as well as individual and subject-specific issues, must be considered in the educational endeavour.
|
|
| 34077. |
- Roos, Helena, 1974-
(author)
-
The governing of inclusion : Policy in Swedish school regulations and mathematics education
- 2021
-
In: Utbildning och Demokrati. - Örebro : Örebro Universitet. - 1102-6472 .- 2001-7316. ; 30:1, s. 75-95
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- In this study Swedish school regulations are investigated concerning inclusion and mathematics education. The texts are seen as socially produced written language. Discourse analysis is used focusing social interaction in the texts. The research question is, what in the regulation texts denotes and connotes inclusion, and how does this influence and govern inclusion in the case of mathematics education? Four Discourses were construed: the discourses of democracy and citizenship, of equity, of possibilities for participation and access, and of knowledge and assessment in mathematics. These Discourses make governing functions of inclusion visible. The functions are mostly ideological, and there appears to be a gap to how to actually do inclusion in the education. How this gap can be bridged needs to be considered by principals and teachers in their work for inclusion. Also, there are contradictions in the regulations. This implies that how in(ex)clusion in mathematics education is produced needs to be reconsidered by policy makers.
|
|
| 34078. |
- Roos, Helena, 1974-
(author)
-
The Influence of Assessment on Students’ Experiences of Mathematics
- 2018
-
In: Students' and Teachers' Values, Attitudes, Feelings and Beliefs in Mathematics Classrooms. - Cham : Springer. - 9783319702438 - 9783319702445 ; , s. 101-111
-
Book chapter (peer-reviewed)abstract
- The empirical material and results presented in this paper come from an ongoing ethnography-inspired study of inclusion in mathematics as seen from a student perspective. This study did not initially focus on assessment, but when investigating what influences students’ experiences of school mathematics, assessment came out as a result. The research participants are not ordinary students, but students who need some degree of special education in mathematics, either as gifted or as low-performing students. For these students, traditional assessment in mathematics does not provide any relevant feedback to support them. On the whole, assessment primarily influences either how they write solutions to tasks, but not exactly how they solve them, or else how they feel about themselves as low performers in mathematics.
|
|
| 34079. |
- Roos, Helena, 1974-
(author)
-
The meaning(s) of inclusion in mathematics in student talk : Inclusion as a topic when students talk about learning and teaching in mathematics
- 2019
-
Doctoral thesis (other academic/artistic)abstract
- This thesis contributes to research and practice within the field of special education in mathematics with more knowledge about, and an understanding of, students´ meaning(s) of inclusion in mathematics education. Three research questions guide the study: What meaning(s) is/are ascribed, and how is inclusion used, in mathematics education research? What meaning(s) do the students ascribe to inclusion in mathematics learning and teaching? And what frames students´ meaning(s) of inclusion in mathematics learning and teaching?The first part of this study began with a systematic literature review on the notion of inclusion in mathematics education research, and the search resulted in 1,296 research studies. Of these, 76 studies were retained after the criteria for time span and peer-reviewed research were applied and 19 duplicates had been removed. The second part of the study involves a case study of three students and their meaning(s) of inclusion in mathematics education. The selected school was a lower secondary school in an urban area of Sweden. The school had set out to work inclusively, meaning their aims were to include all students in the ordinary classroom teaching in every subject and to incorporate special education into the ordinary teaching with no fixed special education groups. Three students were chosen for this part of the study: one in Grade 7 and two in Grade 8. Edward, one of the students in Grade 8, was chosen because he was thought to be a student in access to mathematics education. The other two students were chosen because they were thought to be struggling to gain access to mathematics education: Veronica in Grade 7 and Ronaldo in Grade 8 (the same class as Edward). In this study, the object of the study is the meaning(s) of inclusion in student talk. This study is an instrumental and collective case (Stake, 1995), as it involves several students’ meaning(s) aimed at developing a more general understanding of inclusion in mathematics education. The case is also an information-rich case (Patton, 2002), with contributions from students in mathematics education at an inclusive school. Applying Flyvbjerg’s (2006; 2011) notions, one can also call this kind of selection “information-oriented”, and the case is an extreme one – a choice made in order to get “a best case scenario”. An extreme case is a case used to “obtain information on unusual cases which can be especially problematic or especially good in a more closely defined sense” (Flyvbjerg, 2011, p. 307). The data in this study consists of both observations and interviews conducted during the spring semester 2016. The observations took place in a Grade 7 and Grade 8 classroom at the same school where the interviewed students were enrolled. At least one mathematics lesson each month for each class was observed, and student interviews followed each observation. The observations were used to provide a context for the interviews and to support the analysis. In this study, discourse analysis (DA) as described by Gee (2014a; 2014b) was chosen as both the theoretical frame and as an analytical tool because of its explanatory view on discourse, with description foregrounded. With the help of DA, this study describes both the meaning(s) and the use of the notion of inclusion in mathematics education research. It also describes students’ meaning(s) of inclusion in mathematics education as well as framing issues in student talk of inclusion in mathematics education. From Gee´s point of view, DA encompasses all forms of interaction, both spoken and written, and he provides a toolkit for analysing such interaction by posing questions to the text. Gee distinguishes two theoretical notions, big and small discourses, henceforth referred to as Discourse (D) and discourse (d). Discourse represents a wider context, both social and political, and is constructed upon ways of saying, doing, and being: “If you put language, action, interaction, values, beliefs, symbols, objects, tools, and places together in such a way that other recognize you as a particular type of who (identity) engaged in a particular type of what (activity), here and now, then you have pulled of a Discourse” (Gee, 2014 a, p. 52, Gee’s italics). When looking at discourse (with a small d), it focuses on language in use – the “stretches of language” we can see in the conversations we investigate (Gee, 2014a, 2014b), meaning the relations between words and sentences and how these relations visualize the themes within the conversations. These small discourses can inform on how the language is used, what typical words and themes are visible, and how the speakers or writers design the language. According to Gee (2015), big Discourse sets a larger context for the analysis of small discourse. The results of the first part of the study answer to the research question, What meaning(s) is ascribed, and how is inclusion used in mathematics education research? They show that research on inclusion in mathematics education use the term inclusion when both referring to an ideology and a way of teaching, although these two uses are usually treated separately and independently of each other. The results of the second part of the study answer to the following research questions: What meaning(s) do the students ascribe to inclusion in mathematics learning and teaching? And what frames students´ meaning(s) of inclusion in mathematics learning and teaching? These questions show how meaning(s) of inclusion in student talk can be described by three overarching Discourses: the Discourse of mathematics classroom setting, of assessment, and of accessibility in mathematics education. Within these Discourses, smaller discourses make issues of meanings of inclusion for the students visible in terms of: testing, grades, tasks, the importance of the teacher, (not) being valued, the dislike of mathematics, the classroom organization, and being in a small group. This study shows the complexities and challenges of teaching mathematics, all while simultaneously handling students’ diversity and promoting the mathematical development of each student. To enhance students’ participation and access demands that the teacher knows her or his students, is flexible, has a pedagogical stance and tactfulness, and is knowledgeable in mathematics and mathematics education. It also demands that the teacher is able to take a critical stance and resist the prevailing discourse of assessment that can sometimes overshadow the mathematics education, and in a sense, almost become mathematics for the students. Furthermore, this study also shows how complex and challenging it is to be a mathematics student: they are required to relate to, understand, and participate in many Discourses existing at the same time in a single mathematics classroom. These Discourses interrelate and are embedded in power relations between students and teachers and institutions. This demands that the students are alert and able to use various symbols and objects as well as recognize patterns, and then act accordingly. Hence, to be able to fully participate, you have to be able to talk the talk and walk the walk (Gee, 2014a). This means that not only do you have to use the language correctly, but also you have to act properly at the right time and place.
|
|
| 34080. |
|
|
