Inclusion, equity, and diversity in task design at primary and lower secondary levels: The case of ratio and proportion

Ahu Canogullari 1 * , Farzad Radmehr 1
More Detail
1 Department of Teacher Education, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, NORWAY
* Corresponding Author
EUR J SCI MATH ED, Volume 14, Issue 4, pp. 489-511. https://doi.org/10.30935/scimath/18845
Published: 24 June 2026
OPEN ACCESS   36 Views   21 Downloads
Download Full Text (PDF)

ABSTRACT

This research employs a multiple case study to explore pre-service and in-service mathematics teachers’ task design practice for addressing the principles of inclusion, equity, and diversity (IED) in the context of teaching ratio and proportion, and to observe the evolution of their practice upon participating in a workshop focused on integrating IED principles into task design. The participants were four in-service and two pre-service primary and lower secondary school teachers in Norway. Data was collected through semi-structured interviews with participants in a workshop and analyzed through the lens of the anthropological theory of the didactic. The findings suggest that participants modified their task design techniques during the workshop. Participants critically reflected on their practice, enabling them to amend their tasks to align with IED principles. These changes were detailed in the results, and their implications for task design practice were discussed.
Keywords: inclusion, equity, and diversity, task design, mathematics teachers, anthropological theory of the didactic, ratio, proportion

CITATION

Canogullari, A., & Radmehr, F. (2026). Inclusion, equity, and diversity in task design at primary and lower secondary levels: The case of ratio and proportion. European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 14(4), 489-511. https://doi.org/10.30935/scimath/18845

REFERENCES

  • Bardy, T., Holzäpfel, L., & Leuders, T. (2021). Adaptive tasks as a differentiation strategy in the mathematics classroom: Features from research and teachers’ views. Mathematics Teacher Education and Development, 23(3), 26-53. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1320725
  • Bardy, T., Holzäpfel, L., Reinhold, F., & Leuders, T. (2024). Mathematics teachers’ multiple perspectives on adaptive tasks: Task evaluation and selection as core practices for teaching quality. ZDM Mathematics Education, 56, 981-996. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-024-01626-3
  • Behr, M. J., Harel, G., Post, T., & Lesh, R. (2006). Rational number, ratio, and proportion. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning: A project of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (pp. 296-333). Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-60752-874-620251018
  • Behr, M., Lesh, R., Post, T., & Silver, E. (1983). Rational number concepts. In R. Lesh, & M. Landau (Eds.), Acquisition of mathematics concepts and processes (pp. 91-125). Academic Press. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258510439_Rational_number_concepts
  • Ben-Chaim, D., Fey, J. T., Fitzgerald, W. M., Benedetto, C., & Miller, J. (1998). Proportional reasoning among 7th grade students with different curricular experiences. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 36(3), 247-273. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1003235712092
  • Bishop, A., Tan, H., & Barkatsas, T. N. (Eds.). (2015). Diversity in mathematics education: Towards inclusive practices. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05978-5
  • Boaler, J. (2013). Promoting ‘relational equity’ and high mathematics achievement through an innovative mixed-ability approach. British Educational Research Journal, 34(2), 167-194. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920701532145
  • Boaler, J. (2015). Mathematical mindsets: Unleashing Students' Potential Through Creative Math, Inspiring Messages and Innovative Teaching (1st edition). Jossey-Bass. https://www.google.no/books/edition/_/1_KlCgAAQBAJ?hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiT08SPqOiUAxVy_gIHHRIiH0oQ7_IDegQIIRAG
  • Boaler, J. (2022). Mathematical mindsets: Unleashing Students' Potential Through Creative Mathematics, Inspiring Messages and Innovative Teaching (2nd edition). Jossey-Bass. https://www.google.no/books/edition/Mathematical_Mindsets/NJFfEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0
  • Boaler, J., & Staples, M. (2008). Creating mathematical futures through an equitable teaching approach: The case of Railside School. Teachers College Record, 110(3), 608-645. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146810811000302
  • Borromeo Feri, R. (2007). Personal experiences and extra-mathematical knowledge as an influence factor on modelling routes of pupils. In D. Pitta-Pantazi, & C. Philippou (Eds.), Proceedings of CERME5 (pp. 2080-2089). https://erme.site/wp-content/uploads/CERME5/WG13.pdf
  • Bosch, M., Chevallard, Y., García, F. J., & Monaghan, J. (2019). Working with the anthropological theory of the didactic in mathematics education: A comprehensive casebook. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429198168
  • Brown, L. C., & Coles, A. T. (2013). On doing the same problem–First lessons and relentless consistency. In C. Margolinas (Ed.), Task design in mathematics education: Proceedings of ICMI study 22 (vol. 1, pp. 619-628). https://hal.science/hal-00834054v2
  • Burkhardt, H., & Swan, M. (2013). Task design for systemic improvement: Principles and frameworks. In C. Margolinas (Ed.), Task design in mathematics education: Proceedings of ICMI study 22 (vol. 1, pp. 433-441). https://hal.science/hal-00834054v2
  • Büscher, C. (2019). Conceptual learning opportunities in teachers’ differentiated task designs for inclusive mathematics education. In U. T. Jankvist, M. Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, & M. Veldhuis. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 11th Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (pp. 3604-3611). https://hal.science/hal-02430044v1
  • Büscher, C., & Prediger, S. (2024). Teachers’ practices of integrating challenging demands of inclusive mathematics education in a professional development program. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 27(2), 209-233. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-022-09560-5
  • Calleja, J. (2024). Features in task design for inclusion: An example of a mathematical investigation. Journal of the International Society for Design and Development in Education, 5(17), Article 68. https://www.educationaldesigner.org/ed/volume5/issue17/article68/
  • Canogullari, A., & Radmehr, F. (2026). Task design principles in mathematics education: A literature review. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 57(4), 615-647. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2025.2457365
  • Cheeseman, J., & Klooger, M. (2018). Mathematics teachers: Dealing with difference. Australian Primary Mathematics Classroom, 23(3), 27-29. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1231210
  • Cheeseman, J., & Klooger, M. (2021). Mathematics teachers: Dealing with difference. Australian Primary Mathematics Classroom, 26(4), 25-28. https://doi/10.3316/informit.448750812218807
  • Chen, G. A. (2022). How concepts change as teachers learn ambitious and equitable mathematics instruction. In I. Horn, B. Garner, & G. A. Chen (Eds.), Teacher learning of ambitious and equitable mathematics instruction (pp. 25-54). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003182214-3
  • Chevallard, Y. (2019). Introducing the anthropological theory of the didactic: An attempt at a principled approach. Hiroshima Journal of Mathematics Education, 12, 71-114. https://www.jasme.jp/hjme/download/05_Yves%20Chevallard.pdf
  • Chevallard, Y., & Bosch, M. (2020). A short (and somewhat subjective) glossary of the ATD. In M. Bosch, Y. Chevallard, F. J. García, & J. Monaghan (Eds.), Working with the anthropological theory of the didactic in mathematics education: A comprehensive casebook (pp. xviii–xxxvii). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429198168
  • Chevallard, Y. (2024). What is questioning the world? Towards an epistemological and curricular break. In I. Florensa, N. Ruiz-Munzón, K. Markulin, B. Barquero, M. Bosch, & Y. Chevallard (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on the Anthropological Theory of the Didactic (pp. 3-24). Birkhäuser. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-55939-6_1
  • Christiansen, B., & Walther, G. (1986). Task and activity. In B. Christiansen, G. Howson, & M. Otte (Eds.), Perspectives in mathematics education (pp. 243-307). Reidel. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-4504-3_7
  • Cohen, E. G. (1998). Complex instruction. European Journal of Intercultural Studies, 9(2), 127-131. https://doi.org/10.1080/0952391980090202
  • Cohen, E. G., Lotan, R. A., & Holthuis, N. (1995). Talking and working together: Conditions for learning in complex instruction. In M. T. Hallinan (Ed.), Restructuring schools: Promising practices and policies (pp. 157-174). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-1094-3_9
  • Cohen, E. G., Lotan, R. A., Scarloss, B. A., & Arellano, A. R. (1999). Complex instruction: Equity in cooperative learning classrooms. Theory Into Practice, 38(2), 80-86. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405849909543836
  • Cramer, K., & Post, T. (1993a). Making connections: A case for proportionality. The Arithmetic Teacher, 40(6), 342-346. https://doi.org/10.5951/AT.40.6.0342
  • Cramer, K., & Post, T. (1993b). Proportional reasoning. The Mathematics Teacher, 86(5), 404-407. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27968390
  • Cramer, K. A., Post, T. R., Behr, M. J., Laing, R. A., Channell, D. E., & Greenwood, J. J. (1989). Activities: Interpreting proportional relationships. The Mathematics Teacher, 82(6), 445-452. https://doi.org/10.5951/MT.82.6.0445
  • Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). Sage Publications. https://us2.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/research-design/book270550
  • Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). Sage Publications. https://us2.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/qualitative-inquiry-and-research-design/book266033
  • Dole, S., & Shield, M. (2008). The capacity of two Australian eighth-grade textbooks for promoting proportional reasoning. Research in Mathematics Education, 10(1), 19–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/14794800801915863
  • Doorman, M., Bos, R., de Haan, D., Jonker, V., Mol, A., & Wijers, M. (2019). Making and implementing a mathematics day challenge as a makerspace for teams of students. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 17, 149-165. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-019-09995-y
  • Doyle, W. (1983). Academic work. Review of Educational Research, 53, 159-199. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543053002159
  • Doyle, W. (1988). Work in mathematics classes: The context of students’ thinking during instruction. Educational Psychologist, 23(2), 167-180. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2302_6
  • Doyle, W., & Sanford, J. P. (1985). Managing students’ work in secondary classrooms: Practical lessons from a study of classroom tasks. ERIC. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED271319
  • Falculan, F. R., & Aberin, M. A. Q. (2024, July 7-14). Differentiated instruction in geometry using low floor, high ceiling mathematical tasks [Conference session]. The 15th International Congress on Mathematical Education, Sydney, Australia. https://archium.ateneo.edu/mathematics-faculty-pubs/287/
  • Faragher, R., Hill, J., & Clarke, B. (2016). Inclusive practices in mathematics education. In K. Makar, S. Dole, J. Visnovska, M. Goos, A. Bennison, & K. Fry (Eds.), Research in mathematics education in Australasia 2012-2015 (pp. 119-141). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-1419-2_7
  • Felton-Koestler, M. D. (2019). “Children know more than I think they do”: The evolution of one teacher’s views about equitable mathematics teaching. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 22(2), 153-177. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-017-9384-0
  • Forgasz, H., & Rivera, F. (Eds.). (2012). Towards equity in mathematics education: Gender, culture, and diversity. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-27702-3
  • Frønes, T. S., Pettersen, A., Radišić, J., & Buchholtz, N. (Eds.). (2020). Equity, equality and diversity in the Nordic model of education. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-61648-9
  • Gadanidis, G. (2012). Why can’t I be a mathematician? For the Learning of Mathematics, 32(2), 20-26. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ989668
  • Gadanidis, G., & Hughes, J. M. (2011). Performing big math ideas across the grades. Teaching Children Mathematics, 17(8), 486-496. https://doi.org/10.5951/teacchilmath.17.8.0486
  • Gadanidis, G., Hughes, J. M., Minniti, L., & White, B. J. (2017). Computational thinking, grade 1 students and the binomial theorem. Digital Experiences in Mathematics Education, 3(2), 77-96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40751-016-0019-3
  • Gallivan, H. R. (2017). Supporting prospective middle school teachers’ learning to revise a high-level mathematics task to be culturally relevant. Mathematics Teacher Educator, 5(2), 94-121. https://doi.org/10.5951/mathteaceduc.5.2.0094
  • Gascón, J., & Nicolás, P. (2022). ATD on relationships between research and teaching: The case of a didactic problem concerning real numbers. In Y. Chevallard, B. Barquero, M. Bosch, I. Florensa, J. Gascón, P. Nicolás, & N. Ruiz-Munzón (Eds.), Advances in the Anthropological Theory of the Didactic (pp. 13-24). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-76791-4_2
  • Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. Teachers College Press.
  • Gay, G. (2002). Preparing for culturally responsive teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(2), 106-116. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487102053002003
  • Gay, G. (2015). The what, why, and how of culturally responsive teaching: International mandates, challenges, and opportunities. Multicultural Education Review, 7(3), 123-139. https://doi.org/10.1080/2005615X.2015.1072079
  • Geiger, V. (2019). Using mathematics as evidence supporting critical reasoning and enquiry in primary science classrooms. ZDM Mathematics Education, 51, 929-940. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-019-01068-2
  • Gjesteland, T., & Vos, P. (2019). Affect and mathematical modeling assessment: A case study on engineering students’ experience of challenge and flow during a compulsory mathematical modeling task. In P. Vos, G. R. Kaiser, & T. L. Goodchild (Eds.), Affect in mathematical modeling (pp. 257–272). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04432-9_16
  • Gilbert, A., Suh, J., & Choudhry, F. (2025). Exploring the development of preservice teachers’ visions of equity through science and mathematics integration. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 23(2), 489–514. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-024-10467-1
  • Gomes, P., Martins, M., Quaresma, M., Mata-Pereira, J., & Ponte, J. P. D. (2022). Task design and enactment: Developing in-service and prospective teachers’ didactical knowledge in lesson study. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 18(7), Article em2131. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/12172
  • Graham, M., & Roth-McDuffie, A. (2023). Supporting mathematics preservice teachers in noticing for equity. School Science and Mathematics, 123(8), 488–501. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.12619
  • Gravemeijer, K., & Doorman, M. (1999). Context problems in realistic mathematics education: A calculus course as an example. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 39(1), 111-129. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1003749919816
  • Hakamata, R. (2021). Building reference paradidactic praxeological model for investigating teachers’ reflection. In B. Barquero, I. Florensa, P. Nicolás, & N. Ruiz-Munzón (Eds.), Extended abstracts spring 2019: Advances in the anthropological theory of the didactic (pp. 29–35). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-76413-5_4
  • Hall, J., Averill, R., Vale, C., & Howell, S. (2024). Factors impacting on equity in mathematics education. In C. Mesiti, W. T. Seah, B. Kaur, C. Pearn, A. Jones, S. Cameron, E. Every, & K. Copping (Eds), Research in mathematics education in Australasia 2020-2023 (pp. 137-158). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-97-1964-8_7
  • Hand, V. (2012). Seeing culture and power in mathematical learning: Toward a model of equitable instruction. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 80(1), 233-247. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-012-9387-9
  • Hauk, S., Toney, A. F., Brown, A., & Salguero, K. (2021). Activities for enacting equity in mathematics education research. International Journal of Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education, 7(1), 61-76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40753-020-00122-9
  • Healy, L., Fernandes, S. H. A. A., & Frant, J. B. (2013). Designing tasks for a more inclusive school mathematics. Task Design in Mathematics Education: Proceedings of ICMI Study 22, 1, 63–70. https://hal.science/hal-00834054v2/document
  • Heinz, K., Sterba-Boatwright, B., Knott, L., & Evitts, T. A. (2008). The when and why of using proportions. Mathematics Teacher, 101(7), 528-533. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20876201
  • Heller, P. M., Ahlgren, A., & Post, T., Behr, M., & Lesh, R. (1989). Proportional reasoning: The effect of two context variables, rate type, and problem setting. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26(3), 205-220. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660260303
  • Hiebert, J., & Wearne, D. (1993). Instructional tasks, classroom discourse, and student learning in second grade. American Educational Research Journal, 30, 393-425. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312030002393
  • Irvine. J. J. (1990). Transforming teaching for the twenty-first century. Educational Horizons, 69(1), 16-21. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42924855?seq=1
  • Jackson, C., Buchheister, K. W., & Taylor, C. E. (2023). A planning framework foregrounding equity in mathematics teaching and learning. Investigations in Mathematics Learning, 15(2), 103-117. https://doi.org/10.1080/19477503.2022.2150462
  • Jackson, C., & Jong, C. (2017). Reading and reflecting: Elementary preservice teachers' conceptions about teaching mathematics for equity. Mathematics Teacher Education and Development, 19(1), 66–81. https://mted.merga.net.au/index.php/mted/article/view/299
  • Kollosche, D., Marcone, R., Knigge, M., Penteado, M. G., & Skovsmose, O. (Eds.). (2019). Inclusive mathematics education: State-of-the-art research from Brazil and Germany. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11518-0
  • Ladson-Billings, G. (1995a). But that’s just good teaching! The case for culturally relevant pedagogy. Theory Into Practice, 34(3), 159-165. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405849509543675
  • Ladson-Billings, G. (1995b). Towards a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465-491. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312032003465
  • Lamon, S. J. (2020). Teaching fractions and ratios for understanding: Essential content knowledge and instructional strategies for teachers. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003008057
  • Lee, H. J., & Herner-Patnode, L. (2025). Equitable mathematics teaching for diverse learners: Connecting preservice teachers' beliefs and practices. Journal of Teacher Education and Educators, 14(1), 38–57. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/4159699
  • Lotan, R. A. (2025). Complex instruction in heterogeneous schools: Building equitable, excellent, and democratic classrooms. Intercultural Education, 36(1), 5-9. https://doi.org/10.1080/14675986.2024.2435743
  • Lotan, R. A., Cohen, E. G., & Holthuis, N. (1994). Talking and working together: Conditions for learning in complex instruction [Paper presentation]. The Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED373092.pdf
  • Margolinas, C. (2013). (Ed.), Task design in mathematics education: Proceedings of ICMI Study 22 (Vol. 1). Oxford. https://hal.science/hal-00834054v2/document
  • McGraw, R., Fernandes, A., Wolfe, J. A., & Jarnutowski, B. (2024). Unpacking mathematics preservice teachers’ conceptions of equity. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 36(3), 645–670. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-023-00463-z
  • Mellroth, E., Bergwall, A., & Nilsson, P. (2021). Task design for differentiated instruction in mixed-ability mathematics classrooms: Manifestations of contradictions in a professional learning community. Mathematics Teacher Education and Development, 23(3), 78-96. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1321055
  • Mendez, J. A., & van Es, E. A. (2025). Examining teachers’ relational noticing: Promoting equity through positive interactions in mathematics education. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 28(7), 1541-1566. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-024-09635-5
  • Miyakawa, T., & Winsløw, C. (2013). Developing mathematics teacher knowledge: The paradidactic infrastructure of “open lesson” in Japan. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 16(3), 185-209. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-013-9236-5
  • Moldavan, A. M., & Gonzalez, M. L. (2023). Engaging preservice teachers with equity-related cases to make visible the inequities in mathematics teaching. Action in Teacher Education, 45(4), 282–301. https://doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2023.2242312
  • Myers, B., Hudson, S. E., & Pausch, R. (2000). Past, present, and future of user interface software tools. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 7(1), 3-28. https://doi.org/10.1145/344949.344959
  • National Council of Teachers of Mathematics [NCTM]. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. https://www.nctm.org/store/Products/NCTM-Principles-and-Standards-for-School-Mathematics,-Full-Edition-(PDF)/
  • Papadopoulos, I. (2020). Using tasks to bring challenge in mathematics classroom. Journal of Pedagogical Research, 4(3), 375-386. https://doi.org/10.33902/JPR.2020063021
  • Phuong, A. E., Nguyen, J., & Marie, D. (2017). Evaluating an adaptive equity-oriented pedagogy: A study of its impacts in higher education. Journal of Effective Teaching, 17(2), 5-44. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1157447
  • Radmehr, F. (2023). Toward a theoretical framework for task design in mathematics education. Journal on Mathematics Education, 14(2), 189–204. https://doi.org/10.22342/jme.v14i2.pp189-204
  • Resnick, M., Myers, B., Nakakoji, K., Shneiderman, B., Pausch, R., Selker, T., & Eisenberg, M. (2005). Design principles for tools to support creative thinking. Institute for Software Research. https://scispace.com/pdf/design-principles-for-tools-to-support-creative-thinking-3h4r4qgbee.pdf
  • Riard, A., & Kaur, B. (2022). A ‘stimulus-based interview’ approach to illuminate teachers’ orientations and resources related to task selection and modification. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 34(3), 599-630. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-022-00417-x
  • Rogers, P., & Kaiser, G. (Eds.). (1995). Equity in mathematics education: Influences of feminism and culture. Falmer Press. https://www.routledge.com/Equity-In-Mathematics-Education-Influences-Of-Feminism-And-Culture/Rogers-Kaiser/p/book/9780750704014
  • Roos, H. (2019). Inclusion in mathematics education: An ideology, a way of teaching, or both? Educational Studies in Mathematics, 100(1), 25-41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-018-9854-z
  • Roos, H. (2023). Students’ voices of inclusion in mathematics education. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 113(2), 229-249. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-023-10213-4
  • Roth, W. M. (1996). Where is the context in contextual word problem?: Mathematical practices and products in grade 8 students’ answers to story problems. Cognition and Instruction, 14(4), 487-527. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci1404_3
  • Sawatzki, C. (2017). Lessons in financial literacy task design: Authentic, imaginable, useful. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 29(1), 25–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-016-0184-0
  • Small, M. (2015). Building proportional reasoning across grades and math strands, K-8. Teachers College Press. https://www.google.no/books/edition/Building_Proportional_Reasoning_Across_G/LRDjBwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0
  • Stehr, E. M., He, J., & Nguyen, H. (2018). Selecting, sequencing, and connecting: Using technology to support area measurement through tasks, strategies, and discussion. In L. Millsaps (Ed.), Proceedings of the Interdisciplinary STEM Teaching and Learning Conference (vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 12-23). https://doi.org/10.20429/stem.2018.020104
  • Stephen, J. S., Barnett, N. G., & Ben Ramadan, A. A. (2023). Diversity, equity, and inclusion in course design and instructional material development. In J.S. Stephen, G. Kormpas, & C. Coombe (Eds.), Global perspectives on higher education: From crisis to opportunity (pp. 147-161). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-31646-3_11
  • Sujadi, I., Suprihatiningsih, S., Irfan, M., & Pepkolaj, L. (2025). Pre-service mathematics teachers: Designing context-based tasks. Infinity Journal, 14(4), 995-1018. https://doi.org/10.22460/infinity.v14i4.p995-1018
  • Sullivan, P. (2007). Teaching mixed ability mathematics classes. In S. Close, D. Corcoran, & T. Dooley (Ed.), Proceedings of the 2nd National Conference on Research in Mathematics Education (pp. 372-383). St. Patrick’s College of Education. https://eprints.teachingandlearning.ie/id/eprint/2005/1/Cleary%202007.pdf#page=372
  • Sullivan, P., Clarke, D., Clarke, D., & Roche, A. (2013). Teachers' decisions about mathematics tasks when planning. In V. Steinle, L. Ball, & C. Bardini (Eds.), Proceedings of the 36th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (pp. 626–633). MERGA. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED573025.pdf
  • Sullivan, P. (2015). 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. 239-253). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05978-5_14
  • Sullivan, P., Knott, L., & Yang, Y. (2015). The relationships between task design, anticipated pedagogies, and student learning. In A. Watson, & M. Ohtani (Eds.), Task design in mathematics education: An ICMI study 22 (pp. 83-114). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09629-2_3
  • Tomlinson, C. A. (2017). How to differentiate instruction in academically diverse classrooms (3rd ed.). ASCD.
  • Topphol, V. (2023). The didactic transposition of the fundamental theorem of calculus. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 12(2), 144–172. https://doi.org/10.17583/redimat.11982
  • Turner, E. E. (2022, November 17-20). A classroom observation tool for equity-oriented teaching of mathematical modeling in the elementary grades [Conference session]. Forty-Fourth Annual Meeting of the North American Chapter for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (PME-NA) (pp. 1889–1894), Middle Tennessee State University, TN, United States. https://doi.org/10.51272/pmena.44.2022
  • United Nations Educational Scientific, and Cultural Organization [UNESCO] (2017). A guide for ensuring inclusion and equity in education. https://doi.org/10.54675/MHHZ2237
  • Van de Walle, J., Karp. K. S., Bay-Williams, J. M. (2018). Elementary and middle school mathematics: Teaching developmentally (10th ed.). Pearson. https://www.pearson.com/nl/en_NL/higher-education/subject-catalogue/Education/Elementary-and-Middle-School-Mathematics-Teaching-Developmentally-Global-Edition-10E.html
  • van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M. (2003). The didactical use of models in realistic mathematics education: An example from a longitudinal trajectory on percentage. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 54(1), 9-35. https://doi.org/10.1023/b:educ.0000005212.03219.dc
  • Vithal, R., Brodie, K., & Subbaye, R. (2024). Equity in mathematics education. ZDM Mathematics Education, 56, 153-164. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-023-01504-4
  • Vos, P. (2020). Task contexts in Dutch mathematics education. In M. Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen (Ed.), National reflections on the Netherlands didactics of mathematics: Teaching and learning in the context of realistic mathematics education (pp. 31-53). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33824-4_3
  • Warshauer, H. K. (2015). Productive struggle in middle school mathematics classrooms. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 18(4), 375-400. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-014-9286-3
  • Watson, A. (2016, July 24–31). Parameters for practice and research in task design in mathematics education [Paper presentation]. 13th International Congress on Mathematical Education (ICME-13), Hamburg, Germany. http://www.pmtheta.com/uploads/4/7/7/8/47787337/tsg36_pa_watson_v2.pdf
  • Watson, A., & Ohtani, M. (2015). Themes and issues in mathematics education concerning task design: Editorial introduction. In A. Watson, & M. Ohtani (Eds.), Task design in mathematics education: An ICMI study 22 (pp. 3-15). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09629-2_1
  • Wijayanti, D., & Winsløw, C. (2017). Mathematical practice in textbooks analysis: Praxeological reference models: The case of proportion. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 6(3), 307–330. https://doi.org/10.17583/redimat.2017.2078
  • Yılmaz, Z., Gülbağcı Dede, H., Sears, R., & Yıldız Nielsen, S. (2021). Are we all in this together? Mathematics teachers’ perspectives on equity in remote instruction during pandemic. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 108(1), 307-331. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-021-10060-1
  • Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). Sage. https://collegepublishing.sagepub.com/products/case-study-research-and-applications-6-250150