research about mathematics education

Journal for Research in Mathematics Education

An official journal of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM), JRME is the premier research journal in mathematics education and is devoted to the interests of teachers and researchers at all levels--preschool through college.

• eTOC Alerts
• Latest Issue TOC RSS

A Way to Consider Balance Among JRME Publications: Descriptive, Transformative, and Reflective Research

Looking inside the black box: measuring implementation and detecting group-level impact of cognitively guided instruction.

Studies have found that some teacher professional development programs that are based on Cognitively Guided Instruction (CGI) can increase student mathematics achievement. The mechanism through which those effects are realized has been theorized, but more empirical study is needed. In service of this need, we designed a novel measure of instructional practice to assess the extent to which observable features of mathematics instruction are consistent with the principles of CGI. We describe the conceptual foundations and first use of the instrument, which we call M-CLIPS. We found that teachers involved in the first 2 years of a CGI program were using methods consistent with the principles. In contrast, instructional practice in the comparison condition was mostly inconsistent with those principles.

Understanding Preservice Elementary Teachers as Mathematical Modelers and Their Perceptions of the Process

A growing consensus holds that preservice K–8 teachers (PSTs) need to experience the modeling process as learners to understand it and envision teaching modeling in their future classrooms. We examine this recommendation by exploring how PSTs construct models and how collaborative learning practices influence them in revising and refining their models. We also explore their reflections on modeling as a pedagogical experience. We introduce Modeling Decision Maps as a tool to examine how PSTs construct and refine mathematical models, and we draw on reflective journal entries to capture PSTs’ perspectives on the process. Our findings indicate that realistic modeling tasks provide opportunities to foster PSTs’ understanding of modeling, grow their mathematical modeling skills, and attune them to important pedagogical practices.

The Journal for Research in Mathematics Education is published online five times a year—January, March, May, July, and November—at 1906 Association Dr., Reston, VA 20191-1502. Each volume’s index is in the November issue. JRME is indexed in Contents Pages in Education, Current Index to Journals in Education, Education Index, Psychological Abstracts, Social Sciences Citation Index, and MathEduc.

An official journal of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM), JRME is the premier research journal in mathematics education and is devoted to the interests of teachers and researchers at all levels--preschool through college. JRME presents a variety of viewpoints. The views expressed or implied in JRME are not the official position of the Council unless otherwise noted.

JRME is a forum for disciplined inquiry into the teaching and learning of mathematics. The editors encourage submissions including:

• Research reports, addressing important research questions and issues in mathematics education,
• Brief reports of research,
• Research commentaries on issues pertaining to mathematics education research.

More information about each type of submission is available here . If you have questions about the types of manuscripts JRME publishes, please contact [email protected].

Editorial Board

The  JRME  Editorial Board consists of the Editorial Team and Editorial Panel.  The Editorial team, led by JRME Editor Patricio Herbst, leads the review, decision and editorial/publication process for manuscripts.  The Editorial Panel reviews manuscripts, sets policy for the journal, and continually seeks feedback from readers. The following are members of the current JRME Editorial Board.

Editorial Staff   

Editorial Panel  

International Advisory Board   

Headquarters Journal Staff  

The editors of the  Journal for Research in Mathematics Education (JRME)  encourage the submission of a variety of manuscripts.

Manuscripts must be submitted through the JRME Online Submission and Review System . 

Research Reports

JRME publishes a wide variety of research reports that move the field of mathematics education forward. These include, but are not limited to, various genres and designs of empirical research; philosophical, methodological, and historical studies in mathematics education; and literature reviews, syntheses, and theoretical analyses of research in mathematics education. Papers that review well for JRME generally include these Characteristics of a High-Quality Manuscript . The editors strongly encourage all authors to consider these characteristics when preparing a submission to JRME. 

The maximum length for Research Reports is 13,000 words including abstract, references, tables, and figures.

Brief Reports

Brief reports of research are appropriate when a fuller report is available elsewhere or when a more comprehensive follow-up study is planned.

• A brief report of a first study on some topic might stress the rationale, hypotheses, and plans for further work.
• A brief report of a replication or extension of a previously reported study might contrast the results of the two studies, referring to the earlier study for methodological details.
• A brief report of a monograph or other lengthy nonjournal publication might summarize the key findings and implications or might highlight an unusual observation or methodological approach.
• A brief report might provide an executive summary of a large study.

The maximum length for Brief Reports is 5,000 words including abstract, references, tables, and figures. If source materials are needed to evaluate a brief report manuscript, a copy should be included.

Other correspondence regarding manuscripts for Research Reports or Brief Reports should be sent to

Ilana Seidel Horn, JRME Editor, [email protected] .

Research Commentaries

The journal publishes brief (5,000 word), peer-reviewed commentaries on issues that reflect on mathematics education research as a field and steward its development. Research Commentaries differ from Research Reports in that their focus is not to present new findings or empirical results, but rather to comment on issues of interest to the broader research community. 

Research Commentaries are intended to engage the community and increase the breadth of topics addressed in  JRME . Typically, Research Commentaries —

• address mathematics education research as a field and endeavor to move the field forward;
• speak to the readers of the journal as an audience of researchers; and
• speak in ways that have relevance to all mathematics education researchers, even when addressing a particular point or a particular subgroup.

Authors of Research Commentaries should share their perspectives while seeking to invite conversation and dialogue, rather than close off opportunities to learn from others, especially those whose work they might be critiquing. 

Foci of Research Commentaries vary widely. They may include, but are not restricted to the following:

• Discussion of connections between research and NCTM-produced documents
• Advances in research methods
• Discussions of connections among research, policy, and practice
• Analyses of trends in policies for funding research
• Examinations of evaluation studies
• Critical essays on research publications that have implications for the mathematics education research community
• Interpretations of previously published research in JRME that bring insights from an equity lens
• Exchanges among scholars holding contrasting views about research-related issues

Read more about Research Commentaries in our May 2023 editorial . 

The maximum length for Research Commentaries is 5,000 words, including abstract, references, tables, and figures.

Other correspondence regarding Research Commentary manuscripts should be sent to: 

Tesha Sengupta-Irving, JRME Research Commentary Editor, [email protected] .

Editorial Policies

Appeals Process Policy

Artificial Intelligence (AI) Policy

Tools for Authors

The forms below provide information to authors and help ensure that NCTM complies with all copyright laws: 

Student Work Release

Photographer Copyright Release

Video Permission

Want to Review?

Find more information in this flyer  about how to become a reviewer for JRME . 

The  Journal for Research in Mathematics Education  is available to individuals as part of an  NCTM membership  or may be accessible through an  institutional subscription .

The  Journal for Research in Mathematics Education  ( JRME ), an official journal of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM), is the premier research journal in math education and devoted to the interests of teachers and researchers at all levels--preschool through college.

JRME is published five times a year—January, March, May, July, and November—and presents a variety of viewpoints.  Learn more about   JRME .

© 2024 National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM)

Powered by: PubFactory

• [185.80.150.64]
• 185.80.150.64

Character limit 500 /500

Breadcrumbs Section. Click here to navigate to respective pages.

Handbook of International Research in Mathematics Education

DOI link for Handbook of International Research in Mathematics Education

Get Citation

This third edition of the Handbook of International Research in Mathematics Education provides a comprehensive overview of the most recent theoretical and practical developments in the field of mathematics education. Authored by an array of internationally recognized scholars and edited by Lyn English and David Kirshner, this collection brings together overviews and advances in mathematics education research spanning established and emerging topics, diverse workplace and school environments, and globally representative research priorities.

New perspectives are presented on a range of critical topics including embodied learning, the theory-practice divide, new developments in the early years, educating future mathematics education professors, problem solving in a 21st century curriculum, culture and mathematics learning, complex systems, critical analysis of design-based research, multimodal technologies, and e-textbooks. Comprised of 12 revised and 17 new chapters, this edition extends the Handbook’s original themes for international research in mathematics education and remains in the process a definitive resource for the field.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section i | 150  pages, priorities in international mathematics education research, chapter 1 | 16  pages, changing agendas in international research in mathematics education, chapter 2 | 41  pages, perspectives on priority mathematics education, chapter 3 | 38  pages, approaches to embodied learning in mathematics, chapter 4 | 53  pages, configuring learning theory to support teaching 1, section ii | 160  pages, democratic access to mathematics learning, chapter 5 | 38  pages, young children's access to powerful mathematics ideas, chapter 6 | 28  pages, powerful ideas in elementary school mathematics, chapter 7 | 20  pages, students' access to mathematics learning in the middle and junior secondary schools, chapter 8 | 18  pages, mathematical structure, proof, and definition in advanced mathematical thinking, chapter 9 | 18  pages, reform as an issue for mathematics education research, chapter 10 | 22  pages, prospective mathematics teachers' learning and knowledge for teaching, chapter 11 | 14  pages, educating future mathematics education professors 1, section iii | 122  pages, transformations in learning contexts, chapter 12 | 23  pages, problem solving in a 21st-century mathematics curriculum, chapter 13 | 23  pages, critical issues in culture and mathematics learning, chapter 14 | 15  pages, mathematics education and democracy, chapter 15 | 21  pages, toward a sociology of mathematics education, chapter 16 | 21  pages, mathematics learning in and out of school, chapter 17 | 17  pages, perspectives on complex systems in mathematics learning, section iv | 108  pages, advances in research methodologies, chapter 18 | 27  pages, researching mathematical meanings for teaching 1 , 2, chapter 19 | 19  pages, measurement challenges in mathematics education research, chapter 20 | 23  pages, design research, chapter 21 | 19  pages, the intertwining of theory and practice, chapter 22 | 18  pages, knowledge creation through dialogic interaction between the practices of teaching and researching, section v | 146  pages, influences of advanced technologies, chapter 23 | 20  pages, foundations for the future, chapter 24 | 32  pages, statistical software and mathematics education, chapter 25 | 22  pages, the use of digital technology in mathematical practices, chapter 26 | 19  pages, computerized environments in mathematics classrooms, chapter 27 | 26  pages, e-textbooks in/for teaching and learning mathematics, chapter 28 | 25  pages, digital technologies in the early primary school classroom, part | 26  pages, final comment, chapter 29 | 24  pages, mathematics education research.

• Privacy Policy
• Terms & Conditions
• Cookie Policy
• Taylor & Francis Online
• Taylor & Francis Group
• Students/Researchers
• Librarians/Institutions

Connect with us

Registered in England & Wales No. 3099067 5 Howick Place | London | SW1P 1WG © 2024 Informa UK Limited

Book series

Research in Mathematics Education

About this book series.

• James A. Middleton

Book titles in this series

Research studies on learning and teaching of mathematics.

Dedicated to Edward A. Silver

• Gabriel J. Stylianides
• Patricia Ann Kenney
• Copyright: 2023

Available Renditions

Mathematical Challenges For All

• Roza Leikin

Piaget’s Genetic Epistemology for Mathematics Education Research

• Paul Christian Dawkins
• Amy J. Hackenberg
• Anderson Norton
• Copyright: 2024

Mathematical Creativity

A Developmental Perspective

• Scott A. Chamberlin
• Peter Liljedahl
• Miloš Savić
• Copyright: 2022

Enabling Mathematics Learning of Struggling Students

• Yan Ping Xin
• Helen Thouless

Publish with us

Abstracted and indexed in.

• Research Guides
• Vanderbilt University Libraries
• Peabody Library
• Mathematics Education Research
• Key Journals

Mathematics Education Research: Key Journals

• Research Tools
• APA Citation Format This link opens in a new window

Browse current issues of math education journals using the BrowZine App! Click on the icon to learn more!

What is Empirical Research?

Some projects and assignments require you to locate "empirical research" (e.g. m.ed. capstone).

We construe the term “empirical educational research” broadly to include experimental and quasi-experimental quantitative studies, qualitative studies of various kinds, and design experiments.  To be classified as “empirical,” a study must make use of data/evidence from observation or experiment.  To be “research,” the data must be gathered and analyzed systematically.  Empirical educational research is reported in peer-reviewed journals after being thoroughly vetted by others engaged in similar inquiry.

Be wary of individual teachers’ anecdotal reports of “I taught it this way,” usually found in practitioner’s journals and magazines.  These personal descriptions of and reflection on practice are not the same as systematic case studies.  Your goal is to determine what research-based knowledge is available to inform the thinking of teachers as they take on the selected subject matter.  Keep your eye on research journals (especially those listed on this page).  Occasionally there are useful empirical reports in practitioners’ journals, but that is less likely.

Journals Featuring Empirical Mathematics Education Research

• Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics, and Technology Education Journal
• Educational Studies in Mathematics
• Investigations in Mathematics Learning
• Journal for Research in Mathematics Education
• Journal of Mathematical Behavior
• Journal of Mathematics Education at Teachers College
• Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education
• Journal of Urban Mathematics Education
• Mathematical Thinking & Learning
• Teaching for Excellence and Equity in Mathematics
• ZDM = International reviews on mathematical education

Journals Focusing on Teaching, Teachers, and Practitioner Knowledge

• For the Learning of Mathematics
• Mathematics Enthusiast
• Mathematics Teacher (1908-2020) Merged & renamed in 2020: Mathematics Teacher: Learning and Teaching PK-12
• Mathematics Teacher: Learning and Teaching PK-12 (2020-) MTLT reflects the current practices of mathematics education, as well as maintaining a knowledge base of practice and policy in looking at the future of the field. Content is aimed at preschool to 12th grade with peer-reviewed and invited articles. (Formerly, Mathematics Teacher & Mathematics Teaching in Middle School. Journals merged in 2020)
• Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School (1994-2019) Merged & renamed in 2020: Mathematics Teacher: Learning and Teaching PK-12
• NCSM Journal of Mathematics Education Leadership Issues from Fall/Winter 2004 to the present are available online.

Teacher Education & Other Education Journals

• American Educational Research Journal
• Cognition & Instruction
• Educational Researcher
• Educational Theory
• Equity and Excellence in Education
• Journal of Curriculum Studies
• Journal of Teacher Education
• Journal of the Learning Sciences
• Teacher Education Quarterly
• Teachers College Record
• Teaching and Teacher Education
• Theory Into Practice
• Urban Education
• << Previous: Research Tools
• Next: APA Citation Format >>

• Last Updated: Jul 10, 2024 3:24 PM
• URL: https://researchguides.library.vanderbilt.edu/mathed

Featured Topics

Featured series.

A series of random questions answered by Harvard experts.

Explore the Gazette

Read the latest.

For this ring, I thee sue 

Speech is never totally free

EVs fight warming but are costly. So why aren’t we driving $10,000 Chinese imports?

“Teachers should teach math in a way that encourages students to engage in sense-making and not merely to memorize or internalize exactly what the teacher says or does,” says Jon R. Star.

Kris Snibbe/Harvard Staff Photographer

One way is the wrong way to do math. Here’s the right way.

Harvard Staff Writer

Research by Ed School psychologist reinforces case for stressing multiple problem-solving paths over memorization

There’s never just one way to solve a math problem, says Jon R. Star , a psychologist and professor of education at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. With researchers from Vanderbilt University, Star found that teaching students multiple ways to solve math problems instead of using a single method improves teaching and learning. In an interview with the Gazette, Star, a former math teacher, outlined the research and explained how anyone, with the right instruction, can develop a knack for numbers.

Jon R. Star

GAZETTE: What is the most common misconception about math learning?

STAR: That you’re either a math person or you’re not a math person — that some people are just born with math smarts, and they can do math, and other people are just not, and there’s not much you can do about it.

GAZETTE: What does science say about the process of learning math?

STAR: One thing we know from psychology about the learning process is that the act of reaching into your brain, grabbing some knowledge, pulling it out, chewing on it, talking about it, and putting it back helps you learn. Psychologists call this elaborative encoding. The more times you can do that process — putting knowledge in, getting it out, elaborating on it, putting it back in — the more you will have learned, remembered, and understood the material. We’re trying to get math teachers to help students engage in that process of elaborative encoding.

GAZETTE: How did you learn math yourself?

STAR: Learning math should involve some sense-making. It’s necessary that we listen to what our teacher tells us about the math and try to make sense of it in our minds. Math learning is not about pouring the words directly from the teacher’s mouth into the students’ ears and brains. That’s not the way it works. I think that’s how I learned math. But that’s not how I hope students learn math and that’s not how I hope teachers think about the teaching of math. Teachers should teach math in a way that encourages students to engage in sense-making and not merely to memorize or internalize exactly what the teacher says or does.

GAZETTE: Tell us about the teaching method described in the research.

STAR: One of the strategies that some teachers may use when teaching math is to show students how to solve problems and expect that the student is going to end up using the same method that the teacher showed. But there are many ways to solve math problems; there’s never just one way.

The strategy we developed asks that teachers compare two ways for solving a problem, side by side, and that they follow an instructional routine to lead a discussion to help students understand the difference between the two methods. That discussion is really the heart of this routine because it is fundamentally about sharing reasoning: Teachers ask students to explain why a strategy works, and students must dig into their heads and try to say what they understand. And listening to other people’s reasoning reinforces the process of learning.

GAZETTE: Why is this strategy an improvement over just learning a single method?

STAR: We think that learning multiple strategies for solving problems deepens students’ understanding of the content. There is a direct benefit to learning through comparing multiple methods, but there are also other types of benefits to students’ motivation. In this process, students come to see math a little differently — not just as a set of problems, each of which has exactly one way to solve it that you must memorize, but rather, as a terrain where there are always decisions to be made and multiple strategies that one might need to justify or debate. Because that is what math is.

For teachers, this can also be empowering because they are interested in increasing their students’ understanding, and we’ve given them a set of tools that can help them do that and potentially make the class more interesting as well. It’s important to note, too, that this approach is not something that we invented. In this case, what we’re asking teachers to do is something that they do a little bit of already. Every high school math teacher, for certain topics, is teaching students multiple strategies. It’s built into the curriculum. All that we’re saying is, first, you should do it more because it’s a good thing, and second, when you do it, this is a certain way that we found to be especially effective, both in terms of the visual materials and the pedagogy. It’s not a big stretch for most teachers. Conversations around ways to teach math for the past 30 or 40 years, and perhaps longer, have been emphasizing the use of multiple strategies.

GAZETTE: What are the potential challenges for math teachers to put this in practice?

STAR: If we want teachers to introduce students to multiple ways to solve problems, we must recognize that that is a lot of information for students and teachers. There is a concern that there could be information overload, and that’s very legitimate. Also, a well-intentioned teacher might take our strategy too far. A teacher might say something like, “Well, if comparing two strategies is good, then why don’t I compare three or four or five?” Not that that’s impossible to do well. But the visual materials you would have to design to help students manage that information overload are quite challenging. We don’t recommend that.

Share this article

You might like.

Unhappy suitor wants $70,000 engagement gift back. Now court must decide whether 

Cass Sunstein suggests universities look to First Amendment as they struggle to craft rules in wake of disruptive protests

Experts say tension between trade, green-tech policies hampers climate change advances; more targeted response needed

Harvard releases race data for Class of 2028

Cohort is first to be impacted by Supreme Court’s admissions ruling

Parkinson’s may take a ‘gut-first’ path

Damage to upper GI lining linked to future risk of Parkinson’s disease, says new study

Professor tailored AI tutor to physics course. Engagement doubled.

Preliminary findings inspire other large Harvard classes to test approach this fall

Remote Mathematics Education from the Perspective of High School Mathematics Teachers

68 Pages Posted: 10 Sep 2024 Publication Status: Under Review

Cahit TAŞDEMİR

Bitlis Eren University

The  pandemic, which caused significant changes in the global education system, forced educational institutions to adapt to remote learning and manage the crisis. This study explores high school mathematics teachers' views on remote mathematics education during the pandemic. The qualitative research sample consists of 15 mathematics teachers who were actively teaching remotely during the pandemic. Data were collected through a semi-structured interview form and analyzed using content analysis. According to the research findings, the rapid transition to remote education led to technical issues such as problems with computers, tablets, phones, and internet infrastructure. Additionally, teachers felt inadequate in terms of technical equipment and faced difficulties in conducting objective assessments. Teachers noted that while remote education was not as effective as traditional education, it did save time and reinforced individual learning. As remote learning becomes an integral part of education with advancing technology, it is crucial that all students have equal access to technology and that teachers possess sufficient knowledge, experience, and equipment. Therefore, it is recommended that teachers' knowledge and equipment deficiencies be addressed through educational technology seminar

Keywords: pandemic, distance learning, high school, teachers, Math education

Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation

Cahit TAŞDEMİR (Contact Author)

Bitlis eren university ( email ), do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on ssrn, paper statistics, related ejournals, pedagogy ejournal.

Subscribe to this fee journal for more curated articles on this topic

• Insights & Impact

Research-Based Guidance for Operationalizing Culturally Responsive and Sustaining Education in Math

Posted on 09.12.2024

A new set of briefs derived from research and created in response to requests from school leaders across New York State provide strategies and practical tools to assist school leaders who are striving to integrate culturally responsive and sustaining education (CRSE) into mathematics.

These briefs complement the strategies provided in the New York State Education Department’s (NYSED) Culturally Responsive-Sustaining (CR-S) Education Framework.

Research shows that attention to CRSE can help foster equitable and inclusive mathematics learning environments—just as in all other subjects—and enhance motivation and academic success. Engaging CRSE in mathematics teaching requires attention to organizational processes in schools, student outcomes, teacher practice, school administration, and families and communities.

The Region 2 Comprehensive Center (R2CC) partnered with WestEd researchers Jahneille Cunningham, Rebecca Colina Neri, and Carlos Sandoval to create an actionable series of practice briefs derived from their previous publication, A Research Agenda for Culturally Responsive and Sustaining Education in Mathematics. In the research agenda, the authors review the literature and detail four key dimensions to strengthen the implementation of CRSE.

The practice briefs explore each of these four dimensions:

• building teacher capacity,
• developing organizational processes,
• codesigning with families and communities, and
• prioritizing a broader set of student outcomes in mathematics.

These briefs offer school and district leaders actionable guidance to support the implementation of CRSE in mathematics teaching and learning.

The practice briefs and the detailed introduction arose in response to requests from school and district leaders throughout New York State for research-based materials to support educators in effectively applying a culturally responsive and sustaining lens to mathematics teaching and learning.

Culturally responsive-sustaining education practices in all subject areas are critical in fostering affirming learning environments and successful outcomes for all students across New York State. —  Dr. Diane M. Wynne, Executive Director of the Office of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion at NYSED

Previously, the R2CC collaborated with NYSED to widely engage administrators, educators, and other key leaders in the state’s Culturally Responsive-Sustaining (CR-S) Education Framework.

R2CC and educational leaders at the NYSED developed and aired two webinar series (see below) through which state and district leaders shared tools and ideas and learned about CRSE principles and practices being implemented throughout the state.

• Culturally Responsive-Sustaining Education Webinar Series
• Elevating Student Voice Webinar Series

Learn more in NYSED Highlights Culturally Responsive-Sustaining Education Practices in Districts Across New York State.

Personnel working on CRSE initiatives across the state consistently expressed interest in learning how to connect CRSE practices, integrate content instruction, and align with learning standards, particularly in math and science.

These briefs demonstrate ways in which the R2CC responds to state and district needs and brings research-based, content-specific guidance to school and district leaders.

Subscribe to the E-Bulletin for regular updates on research, free resources, services, and job postings from WestEd.

Related Resources

A Research Agenda for Culturally Responsive and Sustaining Education in Mathematics: Essential Directions, Methodological Approaches, and Guiding Principles

This report offers practical approaches and guiding principles for culturally responsive and sustaining education (CRSE) research that can promote and support the ...

Strengthening Implementation of Culturally Responsive and Sustaining Education in Mathematics

This brief explores how to strengthen culturally responsive and sustaining education in mathematics.

Reframing Outcomes of Culturally Responsive and Sustaining Education in Mathematics

Too often, the value of culturally responsive and sustaining education (CRSE) is limited to addressing student motivation and engagement rather than being seen as valuable for ...

Codesigning Culturally Responsive and Sustaining Education With Families and Communities

This brief addresses the need to navigate power dynamics and shift mindsets and behaviors to build meaningful, mutual partnerships with students’ families and communities. The ...

Developing Organizational Processes to Support Culturally Responsive and Sustaining Education

This brief addresses the need for robust institutional support at all levels, including strong leadership, clear vision, aligned policies, and strategic resource allocation, ...

Building Mathematics Teachers' Capacity to Enact Culturally Responsive and Sustaining Education

This brief calls on school and district leaders to invest in culturally responsive and sustaining education (CRSE) by providing teachers with consistent messaging and ample ...

Ask a question, request information, make a suggestion, or sign up for our newsletter.

• WestEd Bulletin
• Equity in Focus
• Areas of Work
• Charters & School Choice
• Comprehensive Assessment Solutions
• Culturally Responsive & Equitable Systems
• Early Childhood Development, Learning, and Well-Being
• Economic Mobility, Postsecondary, and Workforce Systems
• English Learner & Migrant Education Services
• Justice & Prevention
• Learning & Technology
• Mathematics Education
• Resilient and Healthy Schools and Communities
• School and District Transformation
• Special Education Policy and Practice
• Strategic Resource Allocation and Systems Planning
• Supporting and Sustaining Teachers
• Professional Development
• Research & Evaluation
• How We Can Help
• Reports & Publications
• Technical Assistance
• Technical Assistance Services
• Policy Analysis and Other Support
• New Releases
• Top Downloads
• R&D Alert
• Best Sellers
• Board of Directors
• Equity at WestEd
• WestEd Pressroom
• WestEd Offices
• Contracting Opportunities

Work at WestEd

Teaching and Learning, Policy and Leadership - Mathematics and Science Education Specialization, Ph.D.

• 60 credits - existing master’s
• 70 credits - without a master’s

Full-time, Part-time

December 3, 2024

June 30, 2025

• In-State - $12,540
• Out-of-State - $26,490

The Ph.D. in Teaching and Learning, Policy and Leadership, with a specialization in Mathematics and Science Education is designed to inspire and prepare the next generation of researchers and transformative practitioners in K-16 mathematics and science education.

As a student in this program, you’ll delve into both traditional and cutting-edge research in mathematics and science education, explore theories of individual and social cognition, and learn about teacher education. You’ll gain expertise in research methods that are essential for mathematics and science education, while connecting theory, research and practice.

You'll also develop your own skills as a mathematical and scientific thinker. The curriculum includes rigorous and engaging courses that cover teaching, learning, policy, and teacher preparation in mathematics and science to help strengthen your skills as a mathematical and scientific thinker. You can also choose more specialized courses focused on either mathematics or science education. Plus, there are opportunities to take courses in STEM policy and leadership.

Our program is uniquely positioned in one of the most diverse regions in the country and our faculty have strong connections with the largest school districts in Maryland. This gives you the chance to receive real-world experience and to engage directly with students in urban school environments. 

Key Features

• Integration of Theory, Research, and Practice : Our program emphasizes the connection between theoretical frameworks, empirical research, and practical application in mathematics and science education
• Focus on Urban Education : Our program leverages its location near Washington, DC, to address the specific needs of high-needs urban school districts, offering students hands-on experience and opportunities to impact communities where it’s needed most
• Development of Expertise : Our program develops students' skills as both researchers and practitioners and offers a comprehensive curriculum that includes courses in teaching, learning, policy, and specialized courses in mathematics or science education, along with opportunities in STEM policy and leadership
• A deep understanding of both traditional and cutting-edge research in mathematics and science education, as well as the research methods commonly used in this field
• Knowledge of theories of individual and social cognition related to mathematics and science education
• Learn how to connect theory, research, and practice effectively in educational settings
• Enhance your abilities as a mathematical and scientific thinker

Information on admissions and application to this program can be found on the University Graduate Admissions website and the program handbook.

Admission Requirements           Guide to Applying

Sharon Fries-Britt, Professor

On average, our program takes at least three years to complete, with five years being a typical timeline.If you have a master’s degree, you will take a minimum of 60 credits. If you do not have a master’s degree, you will take a minimum of 70 credits and work with your advisor to develop an individualized plan that seamlessly blends master’s level and doctoral level coursework. 

You will take a two-course “departmental core” sequence introducing you to educational research and helping you refine your research interests; four courses on approaches to conducting research; five courses on mathematics and science education, and elective courses chosen to help you pursue your academic and career interests.

Our faculty are chosen for their expertise and dedication; they provide exceptional guidance and support to foster your academic and professional success.

Mathematics Education Specialization

Center for Mathematics Education Faculty Listing

Science Education Specialization

Center for Science and Technology Education Faculty Listing

For more information about the admissions process, please contact:  Kay Moon Graduate Coordinator [email protected]  

For math-specific questions, please contact::  Andrew Brantlinger Associate Professor [email protected]  

For science-specific questions, please contact:  Andrew Elby Professor [email protected]  

Sep 17 Graduate Fair Expo Sep 17, 2024 4:00 – 6:00 pm

Sep 25 COE Open House Sep 25, 2024 11:00 am – 2:00 pm Benjamin Building Courtyard

Advertisement

Design-based research in mathematics education: trends, challenges and potential

• Published: 23 January 2022
• Volume 35 , pages 635–658, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

• Samuel Fowler   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4515-687X 1 ,
• Chelsea Cutting   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-3497-9865 1 ,
• Sebastian H. D. Fiedler   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8536-5698 2 &
• Simon N. Leonard   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-7914-356X 1  

2370 Accesses

5 Citations

2 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Originating from the learning sciences community, design-based research (DBR) is attracting interest from many educational researchers including those focused on mathematics. Beyond its research role, it is being seen as a collaborative way to engage teachers in deep professional development leading not only to changes in skill but also in purpose. Previous reviews of the approach, however, have offered only cautious optimism for the capacity of DBR to support widespread or scalable change. This paper will use methods drawn from the digital humanities and social sciences to explore patterns relating to regional differences, theoretical underpinnings, practical implementation and methodological choice in recent DBR research in the domain of mathematics education. The findings suggest that much of the work presented as DBR might be better characterized as ‘implementation studies’ as they contain only limited commitment to theoretical development capable of supporting the scaling of innovation. The exceptions appear to occur in settings with well-developed research capacity which recognizes the need for ontological innovation of theory whilst iteratively and comprehensively exploring the complexities of authentic learning interventions. An example of a rich mathematical research study using DBR is provided to point to the potential for this methodology to achieve its overarching aims more fully.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

How theory and design-based research can mature PBL practice and research

Assessment for Learning in a Math Classroom

Reflections on the increasing relevance of large-scale professional development, explore related subjects.

• Artificial Intelligence

Availability of data and material

Coding available from https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.14594847

Anderson, T., & Shattuck, J. (2012). Design-based research: A decade of progress in education research? Educational Researcher, 41 (1), 16–25. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x11428813

Article   Google Scholar  

Bakker, A., & van Eerde, D. (2015). An introduction to design-based research with an example from statistics education. In A. Bikner-Ahsbahs, C. Knipping, & N. Presmeg (Eds.). Approaches to Qualitative Research in Mathematics Education: Examples of Methodology and Methods (pp. 429–466). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9181-6_16

Bannen, M. (2018). Just a tool? John Dewey’s pragmatic instrumentalism and educational technology University of Kansas]. http://hdl.handle.net/1808/27543

Biesta, G. (2010). Good education in an age of measurement: Ethics, politics, democracy , 33,  Taylor and Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315634319

Biesta, G. (2017). Education, measurement and the professions: Reclaiming a space for democratic professionality in education. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 49 (4), 315–330. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2015.1048665

Biesta, G., Filippakou, O., Wainwright, E., & Aldridge, D. (2019). Why educational research should not just solve problems, but should cause them as well. British Educational Research Journal, 45 (1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3509

Collins, A. (1992). Toward a design science of education. In E. Scanlon & T. O’Shea. New Directions in Educational Technology Berlin, Heidelberg.

Confrey, J. (2019). Leading a design-based research team using agile methodologies to build learner-centered software. In K. R. Leatham (Ed.). Designing, Conducting, and Publishing Quality Research in Mathematics Education (pp. 123–142). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23505-5_9

Confrey, J., & Maloney, A. (2015). A design research study of a curriculum and diagnostic assessment system for a learning trajectory on equipartitioning. ZDM-Mathematics Education, 47 (6), 919–932. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-015-0699-y

Crain-Dorough, M., & Elder, A. C. (2021). Absorptive capacity as a means of understanding and addressing the disconnects between research and practice. Review of Research in Education, 45 (1), 67–100. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732x21990614

Cutting, C. (2021). Spatial reasoning and the development of early fraction understanding. In Y. H. Leong, B., Kaur, B. H. Choy, J.B.W. Yeo & S.L. Chin, Excellence in mathematics education: Foundations and pathways (Proceedings of the 43rd annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia), Singapore.

Dalby, D., & Swan, M. (2019). Using digital technology to enhance formative assessment in mathematics classrooms. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50 (2), 832–845. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12606

Dewey, J. (1929). The quest for certainty . Minton, Balch.

Dewey, J., Poulos, K., Nagal, E., & Boydston, J. A. (2008). The later works, 1925–1953. Southern Illinois University Press.

diSessa, A. A., & Cobb, P. (2004). Ontological innovation and the role of theory in design experiments. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13 (1), 77–103. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1301_4

Dunn, R., Hattie, J., & Bowles, T. (2019). Exploring the experiences of teachers undertaking Educational Design Research (EDR) as a form of teacher professional learning. Professional Development in Education, 45 (1), 151–167. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2018.1500389

Easterday, M. W., Rees Lewis, D. G., & Gerber, E. M. (2018). The logic of design research. Learning: Research and Practice , 4 (2), 131–160. https://doi.org/10.1080/23735082.2017.1286367

Fiedler, S. H. D. (2012). Emancipating and developing learning activity: Systemic intervention and reinstrumentation in higher education. Painosalama.

Fowler, S., Cutting, C., Kennedy, J., Leonard, S. N., Gabriel, F., & Jaeschke, W. (2021). Technology enhanced learning environments and the potential for enhancing spatial reasoning: a mixed methods study. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-021-00368-9

Fowler, S., & Leonard, S. (2021). Using Design Based Research to shift perspectives: A model for sustainable professional development for the innovative use of digital tools. Professional Development in Education, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2021.1955732

Geiger, V., Stillman, G., Brown, J., Galbriath, P., & Niss, M. (2018). Using mathematics to solve real world problems: The role of enablers. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 30 (1), 7–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-017-0217-3

Getenet, S. (2019). Using design-based research to bring partnership between researchers and practitioners. Educational Research, 61 (4), 482–494. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2019.1677168

Glade, M., & Prediger, S. (2017). Students’ individual schematization pathways - Empirical reconstructions for the case of part-of-part determination for fractions. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 94 (2), 185–203. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-016-9716-5

Gough, D. (2021). Appraising evidence claims. Review of Research in Education, 45 (1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732x20985072

Gravemeijer, K. (1994). Developing realistic mathematics education . Freudenthal Institute.

Gravemeijer, K., & Cobb, P. (2006). Design research from a learning design perspective. In J. Van den Akker, K. Gravemeijer, S. McKenney, & N. Nieveen (Eds.), Educational Design Research (pp. 17–51). Taylor & Francis Group.

Google Scholar  

Hall, T. (2020). Bridging practice and theory: The emerging potential of design-based research (DBR) for digital innovation in education. Education Research Perspectives in education , 47 (1).

Honebein, P. C., & Reigeluth, C. M. (2021). To prove or improve, that is the question: The resurgence of comparative, confounded research between 2010 and 2019. Educational Technology Research and Development . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-021-09988-1

Hoyles, C., & Noss, R. (2015). A computational lens on design research. ZDM-Mathematics Education, 47 (6), 1039–1045. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-015-0731-2

Hußmann, S., Schacht, F., & Schindler, M. (2018). Tracing conceptual development in mathematics: Epistemology of webs of reasons. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 31 (2), 133–149. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-018-0245-7

Jannah, R. D., Putri, R. I. I., & Zulkardi, Z. (2019). Soft tennis and volleyball contexts in Asian games for Pisa-like mathematics problems. Journal on Mathematics Education , 10 (1), 157–170. https://doi.org/10.22342/jme.10.1.5248.157-170

Janssen, F., Westbroek, H., & Doyle, W. (2015). Practicality studies: How to move from what works in principle to what works in practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 24 (1), 176–186. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2014.954751

Kidron, A., & Kali, Y. (2017). Extending the applicability of design-based research through research-practice partnerships. EDeR. Educational Design Research , 1 (2). https://doi.org/10.15460/eder.1.2.1157

Kitchin, R. (2014). The reframing of science, social science and humanities research In The Data Revolution: Big data, open data, data infrastructures & their consequences (pp. 128–148). SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781473909472

Lai, M. K., McNaughton, S., Jesson, R., & Wilson, A. (2020). Research-practice partnerships for school improvement: the learning schools model . Bingley, U.K. : Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/9781789735710

Lake, W., Wallin, M., Woolcott, G., Boyd, W., Foster, A., Markopoulos, C., & Boyd, W. (2017). Applying an alternative mathematics pedagogy for students with weak mathematics: Meta-analysis of alternative pedagogies. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 48 (2), 215–228. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2016.1245876

Leonard, S. N., & Fitzgerald, R. N. (2018). Holographic learning: A mixed reality trial of Microsoft HoloLens in an Australian secondary school. Research in Learning Technology, 26(2160), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.25304/rlt.v26.2160

Leonard, S. N., & Roberts, P. (2014). Performers and postulates: the role of evolving socio-historical contexts in shaping new teacher professional identities. Critical Studies in Education, 55(3), 303–318. https://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2014.904808

Leonard, S. N., & Westwell, M. (2020). Translating the science of learning through co-design: working with teachers to prioritise executive functioning skills in mathematics education. In A. Carroll, R. Cunnington, & A. Nugent (Eds.), Learning under the Lens – Applying findings from the Science of Learning to the Classroom. Routledge.

Marton, F. (1986). Phenomenography: A research approach to investigating different understandings of reality. Journal of Thought, 21 , 289–303.

McKenney, S. (2018). How can the learning sciences (better) impact policy and practice? Journal of the Learning Sciences, 27 (1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2017.1404404

McKenney, S., & Reeves, T. C. (2014). Educational design research. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.). Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology (pp. 131–140). Springer New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-5_11

Michel, J. B., Kui Shen, Y., Presser Aiden, A., Veres, A., Gray, M. K., Pickett, J. P., Hoiberg, D., Clancy, D., Norvig, P., Orwant, J., Pinker, S., Nowak, M. A., & Aiden, E. L. (2011). Quantitative analysis of culture using millions of digitized books. Science, 331 (6014), 176–182. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1199644

Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & The, P. G. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLOS Medicine, 6 (7), e1000097. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097

Nathan, M. J., & Sawyer, R. K. (2014). Foundations of the learning sciences. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.).  The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences (2 ed., pp. 21–43). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139519526.004

Paniagua, A., & Istance, D. (2018). Teachers as designers of learning environments: The importance of innovative pedagogies Educational Research and Innovation,  1–204.  https://doi.org/10.1787/g272b194c2-en

Paterson, B. L., Thorne, S. E., Canam, C., & Jillings, C. (2001). Meta-Study of Qualitative Health Research . https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412985017

Peck, F. A. (2020). Beyond rise over run: A learning trajectory for slope. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 51 (4), 433–467. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc-2020-0045

Plomp, T. (2013). Educational design research: An introduction. In T. Plomp & N. Nieveen (Eds.).  Educational Design Research part A: An introduction . Netherlands institure for curriculum development.

Prediger, S. (2019). Investigating and promoting teachers’ expertise for language-responsive mathematics teaching. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 31 (4), 367–392. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-019-00258-1

Reeves, T., Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (2005). Design research: A socially responsible approach to instructional technology research in higher education. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 16 (2), 96–115. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02961476

Sandoval, W. (2014). Conjecture mapping: An approach to systematic educational design research. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 23 (1), 18–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2013.778204

Schoenfeld, A. H. (2006). Design experiments. In J. L. Green, J. Green, G. Camilli, G. Camilli, P. B. Elmore, & P. Elmore (Eds.). Handbook of Complementary Methods in Education Research (3rd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203874769

Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review , 57 (1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.57.1.j463w79r56455411

Smeyers, P., de Ruyter, D. J., Waghid, Y., & Strand, T. (2014). Publish yet perish: On the pitfalls of philosophy of education in an age of impact factors. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 33 (6), 647–666. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-014-9404-9

Stokes, D. E. (1997). Pasteur’s quadrant: Basic science and technological innovation . Brookings Institutional Press.

Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M., & Drijvers, P. (2020). Realistic mathematics education. In S. Lerman (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Mathematics Education (pp. 713–717). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15789-0_170

Welsh, R. O. (2021). Assessing the quality of education research through its relevance to practice: An integrative review of research-practice partnerships. Review of Research in Education, 45 (1), 170–194. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732x20985082

Woolcott, G., Le Tran, T., Mulligan, J., Davis, B., & Mitchelmore, M. (2020). Towards a framework for spatial reasoning and primary mathematics learning: An analytical synthesis of intervention studies. Mathematics Education Research Journal . https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-020-00318-x

Yoon, S. A., & Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2017). What do learning scientists do? A survey of the ISLS membership. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 26 (2), 167–183. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2017.1279546

Download references

We acknowledge support from an Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Centre for Change and Complexity in Learning (C3L), University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia

Samuel Fowler, Chelsea Cutting & Simon N. Leonard

Nuertingen-Geislingen University, Nürtingen, Germany

Sebastian H. D. Fiedler

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Samuel Fowler .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Fowler, S., Cutting, C., Fiedler, S.H. et al. Design-based research in mathematics education: trends, challenges and potential. Math Ed Res J 35 , 635–658 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-021-00407-5

Download citation

Received : 10 June 2021

Revised : 16 November 2021

Accepted : 22 November 2021

Published : 23 January 2022

Issue Date : September 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-021-00407-5

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Design-based research
• Research capacity
• Digital humanities and social sciences
• Theory development
• Mathematics education research
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research