Toward equity in quality in mathematics education

Toward Equity in Quality in Mathematics Education

Volumn , Issue , 2009, Pages 1-177

  Jurdak, Murad ^a  

^a AMERICAN UNIVERSITY OF BEIRUT   (Lebanon)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84891380804     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4419-0558-1     Document Type: Book

References (127)

1. Bourdieu, P., Passcron, J. C., & De Saint Martin. (1994). In Bourdieu, P., Passcron, J. C., & de Saint Martin (Eds.), Academic discourse: Linguistic misunderstanding and professional power (pp. 35-79). Stanford: Stanford University Press.
2. Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit Oy.
3. Griffiths, V. (1953). An experiment in education. London: Longmans.
4. Leont'ev, A. N. (1981). The problem of activity in psychology. In Wertsch (Ed.), The concept of activity in Soviet psychology (pp. 37-71). New York: M. E. Sharpe, Armonk.
5. Jurdak, M. E. (1973). The effects of emphasising mathematics structural properties in teaching and of reflective intelligence on four selected criteria. Madison, WI: The Wisconsin R & Development Center for Cognitive Learning.
6. Jurdak, M. E. (1977). Structural and linguistics variables in selected inference patterns for bilinguals in grades six to ten. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 8, 225-238.
7. Jurdak, M. E., & Jacobsen, E. (1981). The evolution of mathematics curricula in the Arab States. In R. Morris (Ed.), Studies in mathematics education: Vol. 2 (pp. 133-147). Paris: UNESCO.
8. Jurdak, M. E., & Mutlak, I. (1982). The facilitating effect of structured games in mathematics. International Journal of Mathematics Education in Science and Technology, 13, 335-340.
9. Jurdak, M. E. (1985). The role of sequence and context in structurally-related problems. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 16, 515-524.
10. Jurdak, M. E. (1989). Religion and language as culture carriers and barriers in mathematics education. In C. Kietel (Ed.), Mathematics, Education and Society (Science and Technology Education, Document Series No. 35), pp. 12-14, Paris: UNESCO.
11. Jurdak, M. E. (1994). Mathematics education in the global village. In D. Robitaille, D. Wheeler, & C. Kieran (Eds.), Selected lectures from the 7th International Congress on Mathematical Education (pp. 199-210). Quebec: Laval University.
12. Jurdak, M., & Shahin, I. (1999). An ethnographic study of the computational strategies of a group of young street vendors in Beirut. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 40, 155-172.
13. Jurdak, M. (2001). Contrasting problem-solving in school and workplace. In Pehkonen, E. (Ed.), Problem solving around the world (pp. 97-102). Turku: University of Turku.
14. Jurdak, M., & Shahin, I. (2001). Problem solving activity in the workplace and the school: The case of constructing solids. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 47, 297-315.
15. Jurdak, M. (2006a). Contrasting perspectives and performance of high school students on problem solving in real world, situated, and school contexts. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 63, 283-301.
16. Jurdak, M. (2006b). Impact of student, teacher, school factors on achievement in mathematics and science based on TIMSS 2003 Arab Countries Data. Beirut: UNESCO Regional Office in Beirut (limited distribution)
17. Begle, E. (1970). Introduction. In E. Begle (Ed.), Mathematics education: The sixty-ninth yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (NSSE) (pp. 1-4). Chicago, IL: NSSE.
18. Board on Mathematical Sciences and Mathematical Sciences Education Board. (1989). Everybody counts: A report to the nation on the future of mathematics education. Washington, DC: National Research Council
19. Bruner, J. (1960). The process of education. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Chicago, IL: NSSE.
20. Committee of Inquiry into the Teaching of Mathematics in Schools. (1982). The cockcroftrreport: Mathematics counts. http://www.dg. dial. pipex.com/documents/docs1/cockcroft.shtml
21. Delores, J. et al. (1996). Learning: The treasure within, report of the International Commission on Education for the twenty-first century. http://www.unesco.org/delors/delors e.pdf
22. Faure, E. et al. (1972). Learning to be: The world of education of today and tomorrow. Report by the International Commission on the Development of Education. Paris: Unesco.
23. Fulvia Furinghetti and Livia Giacardi. History of ICMI. http://www.icmihistory. unito. it/congress. php
24. Gates, P. (2006). The place of equity and social justice in the history of PME. In A. Guitierres & P. Boero (Eds.), Handbook of research on the psychology of mathematics education: Past, present, and future (pp. 367-402). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
25. Hanna, G. (Ed.). (1996). Towards gender equity in mathematics education - ICMI study. Boston, MA: Kluwer
26. Leung, K. et al. (2006). Mathematics education in different cultural traditions - A comparative study of East Asia and the west, ICMI study. Boston, MA: Springer
27. Morris, R. (1981). Studies in mathematics education, Volume 2. Paris: UNESCO.
28. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. http://standardstrial. nctm.org/document/chapter2/index.htm
29. National Society for the Study of Education (NSSE). (1951). The teaching of arithmetic. Chicago, IL: NSSE.
30. National Society for the Study of Education. (NSSE). (1970). Mathematics education: The Sixty-ninth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (NSSE). Chicago, IL: NSSE.
31. Niss, M. (1996). Goals of mathematics teaching. In A. J. Bishop et al. (Eds), International handbook of mathematics education (pp. 11-47). Boston, MA: Kluwer.
32. Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA). (1999). National curriculum: Values, aims and purposes key stages 1 and 2. http://curriculum. qca.org. uk/keystages-1-and-2/Values-aims-and-purposes/index.aspx
33. Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA). (2007). National curriculum: Values, aims and purposes key stages 3 and 4. http://curriculum. qca.org. uk/keystages-3-and-4/aims/index.aspx
34. UNESCO. (1969). School mathematics in the Arab countries, UNESCO mathematics project for the Arab States (SC/WS/201). Paris: UNESCO.
35. UNESCO. (1966). UNESCO pilot project for the Improvement of mathematics teaching in the Arab States (WS/1266/101/AVS/DST). Paris: UNESCO.
36. UNESCO. (1990). World Conference on Education for All. Jomtien, Thailand, 5-9 March, 1990. http://www.unesco.org/education/efa/ed for all/background/jomtien declaration.shtml
37. UNESCO. (2000). The Dakar framework for action: Education for all - meeting our collective commitments. World Education Forum, Dakar, Senegal, 26-28 April. http://www.unesco.org/education/efa/ed for all/dakfram eng.shtml
38. UNESCO. (2004). Education for all: The quality imperative. Paris: UNESCO.
39. United Nations. (1948). Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 26. http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
40. United Nations. (1966a). International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cpr.html
41. United Nations. (1966b). International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). http://www.unhchr. ch/html/menu3/b/a cescr.htm
42. United Nations. (2000). Millennium Declaration. http://www.un.org/ millenniumgoals
43. Wilder R. (1970). Historical background of innovations in mathematics curricula. In E. Begle (Ed.), Mathematics education: The Sixty-ninth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (NSSE), 7-22. Chicago, IL: NSSE.
44. Atweh, B., Forgas, H., & Nebres, B. (Eds.). (2001). Socio-cultural research on mathematics education-An international perspective. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
45. Berne, R., & L. Stiefel. (1984). The measurement of equity in school finance: Conceptual, methodological, and empirical dimensions. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
46. Burton, L. (Ed.). (2003). Which way social justice in mathematics education? Westport: Praeger Publishers.
47. Christiansen, I. (2007). Some tensions in mathematics education for democracy. The Montana Mathematics Enthusiast, http://www.montanamath.org/TMME Monograph 1, 49-62.
48. Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit Oy.
49. Engeström, Y. (1999). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen, & R.-L. Punamaki (Eds.), Perspctives on activity theory (pp. 19-38), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
50. Hanushek, E., & Luque, J. (2003). Efficiency and equity in schools around the world. Economics Education Review, 22, 481-502.
51. Jurdak, M., & Shahin, I. (1999). An ethnographic study of the computational strategies of a group of young street vendors in Beirut. Educational Studies in Mathematics Education, 40, 155-172.
52. Jurdak, M. (2006). Impact of student, teacher, school factors on achievement in mathematics and science based on TIMSS 2003 Arab Countries Data. Beirut: UNESCO Regional Office in Beirut (130 pages), (limited distribution).
53. Leont'ev, A. N. (1981). The problem of activity in psychology. In Wertsch (Ed.), The concept of activity in Soviet psychology (pp. 37-71). New York: M. E. Sharpe, Armonk.
54. Noyes, A. (2007). Mathematical marginalisation and meritocracy: Inequity in an English classroom. The Montana Mathematics Enthusiast, Monograph 1, 35-48 http://www.montanamath.org/TMME
55. Paavola, S., Lipponen, L., & Hakkarainen, K. (2004). Models of innovative knowledge communities and three metaphors of learning. Review of Educational Research, 74, 557-576.
56. PISA. (2005). School factors related to quality and equity: Results from PISA 2000. Paris: OECD Publishing.
57. Secada, W., Fennema, E., & Byrd-Adajian, L. (1995). New directions for equity in mathematics education. New York: Cambridge University Press.
58. Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors of learning and the dangers of choosing one. Educational Researcher, 27, 4-13
59. Sriraman, B. (2007). On the origins of social justice: Darwin, Freire, Marx and Vivekananda. The Montana Mathematics Enthusiast, Monograph 1, 1-6 http://www.montanamath.org/TMME
60. UNESCO. (2005). Education for all-the quality imperative, summary. Paris: UN-ESCO
61. Valero, P., & Zeverbergen, R. (Eds.). (2004). Researching the socio-political dimensions of mathematics education: Issues of power in theory and methodology. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
62. Zinchenko V. P., & Gordon V. M. (1981). Methodological problems in analyzing activity, In Wertsch (Ed.), The concept of activity in Soviet psychology (pp. 37-71). NY: M. E. Sharpe, Armonk.
63. Adler, J. (2001). Resourcing practice and equity: A dual challenge for mathematics education. In B. Atweh, H. Forgasz, & B. Nebres (Eds.), Sociocultural research on mathematics education: An international Perspective (pp. 185-200). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
64. Baker, D., & Street, B. (2000). Math as social explanation for 'underachievement' in numeracy. In T. Nakahara & M. Koyama (Eds.), Proceedings of the 24th PME International Conference, 2, 49-56.
65. Bartholomew, H. (2004). Equity and empowerment in mathematics: Some tensions from the secondary classroom. In I. Putt et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of MERGA 27: Mathematics education for the third millennium, 1, 71-78.
66. Barwell, R. (2001). Investigating mathematical interactions in a multilingual primary school: Finding a way of working. In M. van den Heuvel-Panhuizen (Ed.), Proceedings of the 25th PME International Conference, 2, 97-104.
67. Boaler, J. (1997). Setting, social class, and the survival of the quickest. British Educational Research Journal, 23, 575-595.
68. Boaler, J. (2002). Learning from teaching: Exploring the relationship between reform curriculum and equity. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 33, 239-258.
69. Bourdieu, P., Passcron, J. C., & De Saint Martin. (1994). In Bourdieu, P., Passcron, J. C., & de Saint Martin (Eds.), Academic discourse: Linguistic misunderstanding and professional power (pp. 35-79). Stanford: Standford University Press.
70. Burris, C., Heubert, J., & Levin, H. (2006). Accelerating mathematics achievement using heterogeneous grouping. American Educational Research Journal, 43, 105-136.
71. Cobb, P., & Hodge, L., (2002). A relational perspective on issues of cultural diversity and equity as they play out in the mathematics classroom. Mathematical. Thinking and Learning, 4, 249-284.
72. D'Ambrosio, U. (1985). Ethnomathematics and its place in the history of pedagogy of mathematics. For the Learning of Mathematics, 5, 44-48.
73. Forgasz, H. (2003). Equity, and beliefs about the efficacy of computers for mathematics learning. In N. A. Pateman, B. J. Dougherty, & J. T. Zilliox (Eds.), Proceedings of the 27th PME International Conference, 2, 381-388.
74. Forgasz, H. (2004). Equity and computers for mathematics learning: access and attitudes. In M. J. Hoines & A. B. Fuglestad (Eds.), Proceedings of the 28th PME International Conference, 2, 399-406.
75. Forgasz, H. (2006). Teachers, equity, and computers for secondary mathematics learning. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 9, 437-469.
76. Frempong, G. (2005). Exploring excellence and equity within Canadian mathematics classrooms. In Chick, L. & Vincent, L. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 29th PME International Conference, 2, 237-244.
77. Gerdes, P. (1988). On culture, geometrical thinking and mathematics education. Educational Studies in Mathematics Education, 19, 137-162.
78. Gorgorio, N., & Planas, N. (2001). Teaching mathematics in multilingual classrooms. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 47, 7-33.
79. Gutierrez, R. (2008). A 'gap-gazing' fetish in mathematics education? Problematizing research on the achievement gap. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 34, 37-73.
80. Gutstein, E. (2003). Teaching and learning mathematics for social justice. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 39, 357-364.
81. Gutstein, E. (2007). Multiple language use and mathematics: Politicizing the discussion. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 64, 243-246.
82. Jurdak, M., & Shahin, I. (1999). An ethnographic study of the computational strategies of a group of young street vendors in Beirut. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 40, 155-172.
83. Jurdak, M. E. (1989). Religion and language as culture carriers and barriers in mathematics education. In C. Kietel (Ed.), Mathematics, education and society (Science and Technology Education, Document Series No. 35) (pp. 12-14). Paris: UNESCO.
84. Kahn, M. (2005). A class act-mathematics as a filter of equity in South Africa. Perspectives in Education, 23, 139-148.
85. Khisty, L., & Chval, K. (2002). Pedagogic discourse and equity in mathematics: When teachers talk matters. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 14, 154-168.
86. Kutscher, B., & Linchevski, L. (2000). Moving between mixed-ability and sameability settings: Impact upon learners. In T. Nakahara & M. Koyama (Eds.), Proceedings of the 24th PME International Conference, 3, 199-206.
87. Leder, G. (2004). Mathematics, gender, and equity issues-another perspective. In B. Clarke et al. (Eds.), International overboard! The complexities perspectives on learning and teaching mathematics (pp. 253-266). Goteborg: Goteborg University.
88. Lerman, S. (2003). Developing theories of mathematics education research: The PME story. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 51, 23-40.
89. Ma, X. (2008). Gender differences in mathematics achievement: Evidence from latest regional and international student assessments. Paper presented at the 11th International Congress on Mathematical Education, Monterrey, Mexico.
90. Ma, X., & Kishor, N. (1997). Attitude towards self, social factors, and achievement in mathematics: A meta-analysis review. Educational Psychology Review, 9, 89-120.
91. Ma, X., & Klinger, D. (2000). Hierarchical linear modelling of student and school effects on academic achievement. Canadian Journal of Education, 25, 41-55.
92. Marks, G. (2006). Are between-and within-school differences in student performance largely due to socioeconomic background? Evidence from 30 countries. Educational Research, 48, 21-40.
93. Mathews, L. (2003). Babies overboard! The complexities of incorporating culturally relevant teaching into mathematics instruction. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 53, 61-82.
94. Mcgraw, R., Lubienski, S., & Strutchens, M. (2006). A closer look at gender in NAEP mathematics achievement and affect data: Intersections with achievement, race/ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 37, 129-150.
95. Mills, R. (1998). Grouping students for instruction in middle schools. ERIC Digest. ERIC: ED419631.
96. Pianta, R. et al. (2008). Classroom effects on children's achievement trajectory in elementary school. American Educational Research Journal, 45, 365-397.
97. Povey, H., & Boylan, M. (1998). Working class students and the culture of mathematics classroom in the UK. In A. Olive & K. Newstead (Eds.), Proceedings of the 22nd PME International Conference, 4, 9-16.
98. Pozzi, S., Noss, R., & Hoyles, C. (1998). Tools in practice, mathematics in use. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 36, 105-122.
99. Roscigno, V., & Ainsworth-Parnell, J. (1999). Race, cultural capital, and educational resources: Persistent inequalities and achievement returns. Sociology of Education, 72, 158-178.
100. Seah, W. T. (2004). Shifting the lens of inquiry into the socialisation of mathematics teachers: Nature of value differences. In I. Putt, R. Faragher & M. McLean (Eds.), Proceedings of the 27th Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, 2, 501-508. Townsville: James Cook University.
101. Setati, M., & Adler, J. (2001). Between languages and discourses: Language practices in primary multilingual mathematics classrooms in South Africa. Educational Studies in Mathematics Education, 43, 243-269.
102. Setati, M. (2003). Language use in multilingual mathematics classes in South Africa. In N. A. Pateman, B. J. Dougherty, & J. T. Zilliox (Eds.), Proceedings of the 27th PME International Conference, 4, 151-158.
103. Stevenson, H., Lee, S., & Stigler, J. (1986). Mathematics achievement of Chinese, Japanese, and American Children. Science, 231, 693-699.
104. Stillman, G., & Balatti, J. (2001). Contribution of ethnomathematics to mainstream mathematics classroom practice. In B. Atweh, H. Forgasz, & B. Nebres (Eds.), Sociocultural research on mathematics education: An international perspective (pp. 313-328). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
105. Sullivan, P., Tobias, S., & Mcdonough. (2006). Perhaps the decision of some students to engage in learning mathematics in school is deliberate. Educational Studies in Mathematics Education, 62, 81-99.
106. TIMSS (2000). Gender differences in achievement: IEA's Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS). Boston, MA: Boston College.
107. Vale, C., Leder, G., & Forgasz, H. (2003). Equity, mathematics learning and technology. In N. A. Pateman, B. J. Dougherty, & J. T. Zilliox (Eds.), Proceedings of the 27th PME International Conference, 1, 137-165.
108. Vithal, R., & Skovsmose, O. (1997). The end of innocence: A critique of 'ethnomathematics'. Educational Studies in Mathematics Education, 34, 131-158.
109. Watson, A., & De Geest, E. (2005). Principled teaching for deep progress: Improving mathematical learning beyond methods and materials. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 58, 209-234.
110. White, L. (1959). The evolution of culture. New York: McGraw-Hill.
111. Wilurg, K. (2003). Technology and the new meaning of educational equity.
112. Zevenbergen, R. (2001). Mathematics, Social class and linguistic capital: An analysis of mathematics classroom interactions. In B. Atweh, H. Forgasz, & B. Nebres, Sociocultural research on mathematics education: An international perspective (pp. 201-215). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
113. Astiz, M. et al. (2002). Slouching towards decentralization: Consequences of globalization for curricular control in national education systems. Comparative Education Review, 46, 66-88.
114. Bankov, K. et al. (2006). Assessing between-school variation in educational resources and mathematics and science achievement in Bulgaria. Prospects: Quarterly Review of Comparative Education, 36, 447-473.
115. Darling-Hammond, L. et al. (2003). Building instructional quality: "inside-out" and "outside-in" perspectives on San Diego's school reform. Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy: A research report. ERIC document (ED499088).
116. Desmond, C. (2002). The politics of privatization and decentralization in global school reform: The value of equity claims for neoliberalism at the World Bank and in El Salvador, ERIC document no. ED468518.
117. Hook W., Bishop W., & Hook, J. (2007). A quality math curriculum in support of effective teaching for elementary schools. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 65, 125-148.
118. Jurdak, M. E. (1989). Religion and language as culture carriers and barriers in mathematics education. In C. Kietel (Ed.), Mathematics, education and society (science and technology education, Document Series No. 35) (pp. 12-14). Paris: UNESCO.
119. Marks, G. (2006). Are between-and within-school differences in student performance largely due to socioeconomic background? Evidence from 30 countries. Educational Research, 48, 21-40.
120. Ma, X., & Klinger, D. (2000). Hierarchical linear modelling of student and school effects on academic achievement. Canadian Journal of Education, 25, 41-55.
121. Opdenakkar, J. et al. (2002). The effects of schools and classes on mathematics achievement. School Effectiveness & School Improvement, 13, 399-427.
122. PISA. (2005). School factors related to quality and equity: Results from PISA 2000. OECD Publishing.
123. Chrostowski, S. (2004). Developing the TIMSS 2003 background questionnaires. In M. O. Martin, I. V. S. Mullis, & S. J. Chrostowski (Eds.), TIMSS 2003 technical report. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.
124. Martin, O. (2005b). TIMSS 2003 user guide for the international databasesupplement 1. Boston: Boston College.
125. Martin, O. (2005c). TIMSS 2003 User guide for the international databasesupplement 3. Boston, MA: Boston College.
126. Engeström, Y. (1999). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen, & R.-L. Punamaki (Eds.), Perspctives on activity theory (pp. 19-38). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
127. UNESCO. (2000). The Dakar Framework for Action: Education for All - Meeting our Collective Commitments. World Education Forum, Dakar, Senegal, 26-28 April. http://www.unesco.org/education/efa/ed-for-all/dakfram eng.shtml.