Research Article

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
European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 14(4), October 2026, 489-511, https://doi.org/10.30935/scimath/18845
Published: 24 June 2026
OPEN ACCESS   58 Views   41 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 (APA)

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

  1. 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
  2. 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
  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
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. 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
  16. 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
  17. 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/
  18. 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
  19. Cheeseman, J., & Klooger, M. (2018). Mathematics teachers: Dealing with difference. Australian Primary Mathematics Classroom, 23(3), 27-29. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1231210
  20. Cheeseman, J., & Klooger, M. (2021). Mathematics teachers: Dealing with difference. Australian Primary Mathematics Classroom, 26(4), 25-28. https://doi/10.3316/informit.448750812218807
  21. 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
  22. 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
  23. 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
  24. 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
  25. 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
  26. Cohen, E. G. (1998). Complex instruction. European Journal of Intercultural Studies, 9(2), 127-131. https://doi.org/10.1080/0952391980090202
  27. 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
  28. 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
  29. 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
  30. Cramer, K., & Post, T. (1993b). Proportional reasoning. The Mathematics Teacher, 86(5), 404-407. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27968390
  31. 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
  32. 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
  33. 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
  34. 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
  35. 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
  36. Doyle, W. (1983). Academic work. Review of Educational Research, 53, 159-199. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543053002159
  37. 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
  38. 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
  39. 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/
  40. 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
  41. 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
  42. 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
  43. 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
  44. 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
  45. 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
  46. 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
  47. 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
  48. 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
  49. Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. Teachers College Press.
  50. Gay, G. (2002). Preparing for culturally responsive teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(2), 106-116. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487102053002003
  51. 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
  52. 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
  53. 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
  54. 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
  55. 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
  56. 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
  57. 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
  58. 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
  59. 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
  60. 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
  61. 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
  62. 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
  63. 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
  64. 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
  65. 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
  66. 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
  67. 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
  68. 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
  69. 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
  70. 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
  71. 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
  72. 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
  73. 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
  74. 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
  75. 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
  76. Margolinas, C. (2013). (Ed.), Task design in mathematics education: Proceedings of ICMI Study 22 (Vol. 1). Oxford. https://hal.science/hal-00834054v2/document
  77. 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
  78. 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
  79. 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
  80. 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
  81. 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
  82. 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
  83. 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)/
  84. 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
  85. 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
  86. 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
  87. 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
  88. 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
  89. 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
  90. 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
  91. 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
  92. 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
  93. 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
  94. 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
  95. 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
  96. 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
  97. 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
  98. 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
  99. 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
  100. 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
  101. 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
  102. Tomlinson, C. A. (2017). How to differentiate instruction in academically diverse classrooms (3rd ed.). ASCD.
  103. 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
  104. 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
  105. United Nations Educational Scientific, and Cultural Organization [UNESCO] (2017). A guide for ensuring inclusion and equity in education. https://doi.org/10.54675/MHHZ2237
  106. 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
  107. 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
  108. 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
  109. 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
  110. 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
  111. 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
  112. 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
  113. 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
  114. 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
  115. 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