Opportunity-to-learn context-based tasks provided by mathematics textbooks

Bernardo, A. B. I. (1999). Overcoming obstacles to understanding and solving word problems in mathematics. Educational Psychology, 19(2), 149–163.

Bishop, A. J. (1988). Mathematics education in its cultural context. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 19(2), 179–191.

Blum, W., & Leiss, D. (2007). How do students and teachers deal with mathematical modelling problems? The example “Sugarloaf”. In C. Haines, P. Galbraith, W. Blum, & S. Khan (Eds.), Mathematical modelling (ICTMA 12): Education, engineering and economics (pp. 222–231). Chichester: Horwood Publishing.

Boaler, J. (1993). Encouraging the transfer of ‘school’ mathematics to the ‘real world’ through the integration of process and content, context and culture. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 25, 341–373.

Brewer, D. J., & Stasz, C. (1996). Enhancing opportunity to learn measures in NCES data. Santa Monica: RAND.

Carroll, J. (1963). A model of school learning. Teachers College Record, 64, 723–733.

Chapman, O. (2006). Classroom practices for context of mathematics word problems. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 62(2), 211–230.

Charalambous, C. Y., Delaney, S., Hsu, H.-Y., & Mesa, V. (2010). A comparative analysis of the addition and subtraction of fractions in textbooks from three countries. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 12(2), 117–151.

Clements, M. A. (1980). Analyzing children’s errors on written mathematical task. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 11(1), 1–21.

Cooper, B., & Harries, T. (2002). Children’s responses to contrasting ‘realistic’ mathematics problems: Just how realistic are children ready to be? Educational Studies in Mathematics, 49(1), 1–23.

Cummins, D. D., Kintsch, W., Reusser, K., & Weimer, R. (1988). The role of understanding in solving word problems. Cognitive Psychology, 20(4), 405–438.

De Lange, J. (1995). Assessment: No change without problems. In T. A. Romberg (Ed.), Reform in school mathematics (pp. 87–172). Albany: SUNY Press.

De Lange, J. (2003). Mathematics for literacy. In B. L. Madison & L. A. Steen (Eds.), Quantitative literacy: Why numeracy matters for schools and colleges (pp. 75–89). Princeton: National Council on Education and Disciplines.

Ding, M., & Li, X. (2010). A comparative analysis of the distributive property in U.S. and Chinese elementary mathematics textbooks. Cognition and Instruction, 28(2), 146–180.

Floden, R. E. (2002). The measurement of opportunity to learn. In A. C. Porter & A. Gamoran (Eds.), Methodological advances in cross-national surveys of educational achievement (pp. 231–266). Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

Forman, S. L., & Steen, L. A. (2001). Why math? Applications in science, engineering, and technological programs (Research Brief No. AACB-RB-00-2). Washington, D.C: American Association of Community Colleges.

Freeman, D. J., & Porter, A. C. (1989). Do textbooks dictate the content of mathematics instruction in elementary schools? American Educational Research Journal, 26(3), 403–421.

Freudenthal, H. (1986). Didactical principles in mathematics instruction. In J. A. Barroso (Ed.), Aspects of mathematics and its applications (pp. 351–357). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers BV.

Gatabi, A. R., Stacey, K., & Gooya, Z. (2012). Investigating grade nine textbook problems for characteristics related to mathematical literacy. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 24(4), 403–421.

Graumann, G. (2011). Mathematics for problems in the everyday world. In J. Maasz & J. O'Donoghue (Eds.), Real-world problems for secondary school mathematics students: Case studies (pp. 113–122). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

Greer, B., Verschaffel, L., & Mukhopadhyay, S. (2007). Modelling for life: Mathematics and children's experience. In W. Blum, P. L. Galbraith, H.-W. Henn, & M. Niss (Eds.), Modelling and applications in mathematics education: The 14th ICMI study (pp. 89–98). New York: Springer.

Haggarty, L., & Pepin, B. (2002). An investigation of mathematics textbooks in England, France and Germany: Some challenges for England. Research in Mathematics Education, 4(1), 127–144.

Haines, C., & Crouch, R. (2007). Mathematical modelling and applications: Ability and competence frameworks. In W. Blum, P. L. Galbraith, H.-W. Henn, & M. Niss (Eds.), Modelling and applications in mathematics education: The 14th ICMI study (pp. 89–98). New York: Springer.

Hiebert, J., Gallimore, R., Garnier, H., Givvin, K. B., Hollingsworth, H., Jacobs, J., et al. (2003). Teaching mathematics in seven countries: Results from the TIMSS 1999 Video Study. NCES 2003–013. Washington, D.C: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.

Husén, T. (Ed.). (1967). International study of achievement in mathematics: A comparison of twelve countries (Vol. 2). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Ikeda, T. (2007). Possibilities for, and obstacles to teaching applications and modelling in the lower secondary levels. In W. Blum, P. L. Galbraith, H.-W. Henn, & M. Niss (Eds.), Modelling and applications in mathematics education: The 14th ICMI study (pp. 457–462). New York: Springer.

Kolovou, A., Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M., & Bakker, A. (2009). Non-routine problem solving tasks in primary school mathematics textbooks—a needle in a haystack. Mediterranean Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 8(2), 31–68.

Lampert, M. (1990). When the problem in not the question and the solution is not the answer: Mathematical knowing and teaching. American Educational Research Journal, 27, 29–63.

Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159–174.

Li, X., Ding, M., Capraro, M. M., & Capraro, R. M. (2008). Sources of differences in children's understandings of mathematical equality: Comparative analysis of teacher guides and student texts in China and the United States. Cognition and Instruction, 26(2), 195–217.

Liu, X. (2009). Linking competence to opportunities to learn: Models of competence and data mining. New York: Springer.

Maass, K. (2007). Modelling tasks for low achieving students—first results of an empirical study. In D. Pitta-Pantazi & G. Philippou (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education CERME 5 (pp. 2120–2129). Cyprus: Larnaca.

Maass, K. (2010). Classification scheme for modelling tasks. Journal für Mathematik-Didaktik, 31(2), 285–311.

McDonnell, L. M. (1995). Opportunity to learn as a research concept and a policy instrument. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 17(3), 305–322.

McNeil, N. M., Grandau, L., Knuth, E. J., Alibali, M. W., Stephens, A. C., Hattikudur, S., et al. (2006). Middle-school students’ understanding of the equal sign: The books they read can’t help. Cognition and Instruction, 24(3), 367–385.

Muller, E., & Burkhardt, H. (2007). Applications and modelling for mathematics—overview. In W. Blum, P. L. Galbraith, H.-W. Henn, & M. Niss (Eds.), Modelling and applications in mathematics education: The 14th ICMI study (pp. 267–274). New York: Springer.

Niss, M., Blum, W., & Galbraith, P. (2007). Introduction. In W. Blum, P. L. Galbraith, H.-W. Henn, & M. Niss (Eds.), Modelling and applications in mathematics education: The 14th ICMI study (pp. 3–32). New York: Springer.

OECD. (2003a). Literacy skills for the world of tomorrow. Further results from PISA 2000. Paris: OECD.

OECD. (2003b). The PISA 2003 assessment framework—mathematics, reading, science, and problem solving knowledge and skills. Paris: OECD.

OECD. (2004). Learning for tomorrow’s world. First results from PISA 2003. Paris: OECD.

OECD. (2007). PISA 2006: Science competencies for tomorrow's world. Paris: OECD.

OECD. (2009). Learning mathematics for life. A view perspective from PISA. Paris: OECD.

OECD. (2010). PISA 2009 Results: What students know and can do. Student performance in reading, mathematics, and science (Vol. 1). Paris: OECD.

Pepin, B., & Haggarty, L. (2001). Mathematics textbooks and their use in English, French and German classrooms: A way to understand teaching and learning cultures. ZDM – The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 33(5), 158–175.

Pusat Kurikulum. (2003a). Kurikulum 2004. Standar Kompetensi mata pelajaran matematika Sekolah Menengah Pertama dan Madrasah Tsanawiyah [The Curriculum 2004. The competence standards of mathematics for Junior High School and Islamic Junior High School]. Jakarta: Departemen Pendidikan Nasional.

Pusat Kurikulum. (2003b). Kurikulum 2004. Standar Kompetensi mata pelajaran matematika Sekolah Menengah Atas dan Madrasah Aliyah [The Curriculum 2004. The competence standards of mathematics for Senior High School and Islamic Senior High School]. Jakarta: Departemen Pendidikan Nasional.

Reys, B. J., Reys, R. E., & Chavez, O. (2004). Why mathematics textbooks matter. Educational Leadership, 61(5), 61–66.

Schmidt, W. H., McKnight, C. C., Valverde, G. A., Houang, R. T., & Wiley, D. E. (1997). Many visions, many aims: A cross-national investigation of curricular intentions in school mathematics. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Schwarzkopf, R. (2007). Elementary modeling in mathematics lessons: The interplay between “real-world” knowledge and “mathematics structures”. In W. Blum, P. L. Galbraith, H.-W. Henn, & M. Niss (Eds.), Modelling and applications in mathematics education: The 14th ICMI study (pp. 209–216). New York: Springer.

Stein, M. K., & Smith, M. S. (1998). Mathematical tasks as a framework for reflection: From research to practice. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 3(4), 268–275.

Tornroos, J. (2005). Mathematics textbooks, opportunity to learn and student achievement. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 31(4), 315–327.

Valverde, G. A., Bianchi, L. J., Wolfe, R. G., Schmid, W. H., & Houang, R. T. (2002). According to the book. Using TIMSS to investigate the translation of policy into practice through the world of textbooks. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M. (1996). Assessment and realistic mathematics education. Utrecht: CD-β Press, Center for Science and Mathematics Education.

Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M. (2005). The role of context in assessment problems in mathematics. For the Learning of Mathematics, 25(2), 2–9 and 23.

Van Zanten, M., & Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M. (2014). Freedom of design: The multiple faces of subtraction in Dutch primary school textbooks. In Y. Li & G. Lappan (Eds.), Mathematics curriculum in school education (pp. 231–259). Heidelberg: Springer.

Verschaffel, L., Greer, B., & De Corte, E. (2000). Making sense of word problems. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.

Verschaffel, L., Van Dooren, W., Greer, B., & Mukhopadhyay, S. (2010). Reconceptualising word problems as exercises in mathematical modelling. Journal für Mathematik-Didaktik, 31(1), 9–29.

Wijaya, A., Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M., Doorman, M., & Robitzsch, A. (2014). Difficulties in solving context-based PISA mathematics tasks: An analysis of students’ errors. The Mathematics Enthusiast, 11(3), 555–584.

Xin, Y. P. (2007). Word problem solving tasks in textbooks and their relation to student performance. Journal of Educational Research, 100(6), 347–359.