This study foregrounds three students who are regarded by their teachers as being in special educational needs in mathematics (SEM) and these same students voicing what inclusion in mathematics education means to them. In this study, inclusion is defined as processes of participation. Discourse analysis was applied when analysing these students’ voices of inclusion in mathematics education in two inclusive mathematics classrooms, with both classes aiming to include every student in the mathematics education. The three main Discourses which were identified were the Discourse of assessment, the Discourse of being in a mathematics classroom setting, and the Discourse of accessibility in mathematics education. The analysis of the Discourses indicates that they were affected by wider sociopolitical discourses. Furthermore, when inclusion is regarded as processes of participation in mathematics education, the results indicate that participation becomes more complex. Therefore, in this process, both ideological and societal issues, as well as individual and subject-specific issues, must be considered in the educational endeavour. © 2023, The Author(s).

This article presents a reflection on what the qualitative interview method conducted with students can provide to (mathematics) education research in terms of in-depth knowledge and what critical methodological points should be taken into consideration. Repeated interviews with the same students in relation to research quality is considered. The argument is that repeated interviews can provide in- depth knowledge and a grasp of students’ understandings. Critical points to consider when gaining in-depth knowledge are person- dependency, process ethics, connections between repeated interviews as a method and the aim, and the re-interview effect. These are important to discuss and reflect on throughout the research process, as they can function as quality criteria when producing in-depth knowledge in qualitative research with repeated interviews.

In this study Swedish school regulations are investigated concerning inclusion and mathematics education. The texts are seen as socially produced written language. Discourse analysis is used focusing social interaction in the texts. The research question is, what in the regulation texts denotes and connotes inclusion, and how does this influence and govern inclusion in the case of mathematics education? Four Discourses were construed: the discourses of democracy and citizenship, of equity, of possibilities for participation and access, and of knowledge and assessment in mathematics. These Discourses make governing functions of inclusion visible. The functions are mostly ideological, and there appears to be a gap to how to actually do inclusion in the education. How this gap can be bridged needs to be considered by principals and teachers in their work for inclusion. Also, there are contradictions in the regulations. This implies that how in(ex)clusion in mathematics education is produced needs to be reconsidered by policy makers.

This article builds upon a systematic review of 53 articles in international research journals and makes three main contributions. First, it develops a method for identifying motives, values, and assumptions in research by analysing segments of text in journal articles. Second, it represents a reflective account of research within the field of mathematics education. Third, it captures the ongoing directions of intentionalities inherent in the diverse field of special education mathematics and, thereby, some of the characteristics of the core issues in this field. Three directions of intentionalities were identified: towards teachers and teaching competence, towards enhanced mathematical achievement, and towards every student's learning. The results indicate that each direction has specific limitations and potentials. In order to improve special education mathematics, we recommend that researchers and practitioners remain broadly informed and involved in all three directions of intentionalities.

Inkluderande matematikundervisning – tidiga insatser i FK–6 ­ger teoretiska och didaktiska perspektiv på hur inkludering kan omsättas, såväl ­inom organisationen som i den praktiska matematikundervisningen i klassrummet.

Här får du kunskap om orsaksförklaringar till särskilda utbildningsbehov i matematik (SUM) och om hur kartläggning för att ringa in behov och lämpliga åtgärder kan gå till. Med denna grund ligger fokus sedan på innehåll, planering och utvärdering av undervisningen och frågor som:

• Hur kan gruppindelningar användas på ett inkluderande vis?
• Hur stimuleras elevernas meningsfulla deltagande?
• Hur kan man anpassa undervisningsinnehållet?

This chapter investigates the future shared duties of special education pre-service teachers in mathematics and mathematics pre-service teachers for primary school to support students in need of support in mathematics. Within the Swedish context, teacher education training policy frames special education teachers in mathematics (STms) as the historians of schooling, in that they carry specific knowledge about how students in need of support have been treated earlier, and recognise that current practices and policies have been motivated by the history and culture of Swedish schools. This framing also suggests that they have the expertise in supporting students in need of special support and an understanding of specific disabilities or prerequisites for learning that these students can have. In contrast, mathematics teachers for primary school (MTPs) are framed as being responsible for the overall education taking place in classrooms, being willing to collaborate and learn from other professions involved in the students learning and development, and needing to pay attention to those other professions’ experiences and knowledge. In addition, the teacher education training policy indicates that MTPs are supposed to cooperate, listen, and reflect, whereas STms are to lead, be independent, analyse, and drive school development. Furthermore, the position, role, and authority of STms are not supported by the Swedish Education Act. This together with the sometimes contradictory roles identified by each of the profession’s goals in their degree ordinance could put MTPs’ and STms’ shared duties at risk, and creates a need for negotiation. A possible way forward, in order to counteract this risk, might be shared courses during teacher training. This could presumably prepare for future negotiations and collaborations of roles and responsibilities.

This research describes how students perceived as being in special educational needs in mathematics (SEM), either as students in access to mathematics, or as students in struggle to get access, are challenged in their participation in mathematics education. Discourse analysis is used as a tool and a theory to construe discourses from students own stories of participation in an inclusive mathematics classroom. Distinguishing between (d)iscourse as stories in texts, and (D)iscourses as social and political recognisable units, the result shows the same, yet different, discourses; tasks, the importance of the teacher, to be (un)valued and math is boring, all indicating a Discourse of accessibility in mathematics education. The accessibility is challenged in two ways, the students are challenged in their participation since they do not fit into the ‘normal’ education, and the mathematics education is challenged to meet every students’ need to promote equity.

This research reports on a study investigating how three students perceived as being in special educational needs in mathematics (SEM), either as students in access to mathematics or as students in struggle to get access, talk about participation in mathematics education. Discourse analysis is used as a theory and a tool to investigate the students’ own stories of learning and teaching in an inclusive mathematics classroom. The results show that students’ participation in mathematics education is influenced by how the mathematics education is set up. That is, how the organisation of the mathematics classroom and students being in a small group influence students’ participation.The results also show that even though the same issues of the organisation influence the three students, there is a diversity within the issues, calling for a critical question, is the inclusive classroom setting really inclusive in terms of participation and access to mathematics?

This literature review focuses on the definitions and roles of inclusion in the field of mathematics education to help promote the sustainable development of inclusion in the discipline. Discourse analysis was used to analyse 76 studies published between 2010 and 2016. The results show that the term inclusion is used both for an ideology and a way of teaching, and these two uses are most often treated separately and independently of each other. When inclusion is treated as an ideology, values are articulated; when treated as a way of teaching, interventions are brought to the fore. When the notion of inclusion is used as an ideology, the most extensive discourse concerns equity in mathematics education; when it is used as a way of teaching, the most extensive discourse relates to teaching interventions for mathematical engagement. Based on the literature review, if sustainable development of inclusion in mathematics education is to be promoted, scholars need to connect and interrelate the operationalisation and meanings of inclusion in both society and in mathematics classrooms, and take students’ voices into consideration in research.