Relationen mellan lärares intentioner och deras respons till elever En studie om återkoppling som stöd för matematisk resonemangsförmåga på mellanstadiet

Main Article Content

Andreia Balan
Anders Jönsson


Formative feedback has the potential to support student learning and performance. However, teachers sometimes have difficulties realizing their intentions with formative feedback when responding to students’ questions or solutions. If the actual response provided does not agree with the teacher’s intentions, the formative potential may be diminished or lost. The purpose of this study is therefore to investigate whether teachers themselves are able to identify the correspondence between their stated intentions and their actual response to students. Four teachers participated in the study by responding to the mathematical reasoning performed by twelve students in grades 4-5 (the feedback situations were recorded) and then taking part in stimulated-recall interviews. The results show that the teachers were able to identify certain instances of correspondence, and/or differences, between their intentions and how they acted in the feedback situations. The differences identified by the teachers were justified based on the teachers’ individual beliefs – for instance, the belief that some mathematical methods belong to certain grade levels and should not be taught in advance – or on concerns about how the students would react.

Article Details

How to Cite
Balan, A., & Jönsson, A. (2021). Relationen mellan lärares intentioner och deras respons till elever. Educare - Vetenskapliga Skrifter, (4), 81 - 113.


Ajzen, I. (1991). The Theory of Planned Behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179-211.
Attard, C., Edwards-Groves, C. & Grootenboer, P. (2018). Dialogic Practices in the Mathemat-ics Classroom. In Hunter, J., Perger, P., & Darragh, L. (Eds.). Making waves, opening spaces (Proceedings of the 41st annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australa-sia) pp. 122-129. Auckland: MERGA.
Borko, H., & Putnam, R. T. (1996). Learning to teach. In D. C.Berliner, & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 673-708). New York: Macmillan.
Boesen, J., Lithner, J., & Palm, T. (2010). The relation between types of assessment tasks and the mathematical reasoning students use. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 75, 89-105.
Carless, D. & Boud, D. (2018). The development of student feedback literacy: enabling uptake of feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43, 1315-1325.
Casey, S., Lesseig, K., Monson, D., & Krupa, E. E. (2018). Examining preservice secondary mathematics teachers’ responses to student work to solve linear equations. Mathematics Teacher Education and Development, 20(1), 132-153.
Cochran-Smith, M. & Lytle, S.L. (1999). The teacher research movement: a decade later. Educa-tional Researcher, 28, 15-25.
Farrell, T. (2003). Reflective teaching: The principles and the practices. English Teaching Forum, 41, 14-21.
Ghaouar, N. (2014). Teachers’ Beliefs and Practice in the Linguistics Classroom. Journal of History Culture and Art Research, 4, 78-90.
Green, J. (2014). Elevers användande av formativ återkoppling i matematik. Licentiatuppsats. Högsko-lan Kristianstad.
Haglund, B. (2003). Stimulated Recall - Några anteckningar om en metod att generera data Peda-gogisk Forskning i Sverige, 8, 145-157.
Hattie, J. & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77, 81-112.
Junqueira, L. & Kim, Y. J. (2013). Exploring the Relationship Between Training, Beliefs, and Teachers’ Corrective Feedback Practices: A Case Study of a Novice and an Experienced ESL Teacher. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 69, 181-206. doi:10.3138/cmlr.1536
Jäder, J., Sidenvall, J., & Sumpter, L. (2017). Students’ mathematical reasoning and beliefs in non-routine task solving. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15, 759-776.
Jönsson, A. (2013). Facilitating productive use of feedback in Higher Education, Active Learning in Higher Education, 14, 63-76.
Kartchava, E., Gatbonton, E., Amma, A. & Trofimovich, P. (2020). Oral corrective feedback: Pre-service English as a second language teachers’ beliefs and practices. Language Teaching Research, 24, 220-249.
Lee, I. (2009).Ten mismatches between teachers’ beliefs and written feedback practice. ELT Journal, 63, 13-22. doi:10.1093/elt/ccn010
Lithner, J. (2003). Students’ mathematical reasoning in university textbook exercises. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 52, 29-55.
Lithner, J. (2008). A research framework for creative and imitative reasoning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 67, 255-276.
Mao, S. S. & Crosthwaite, P. (2019). Investigating written corrective feedback: (Mis)alignment of teachers’ beliefs and practice. Journal of Second Language Writing, 45, 46-60.
Minarni, B. W., Retnawati, H. & Nugraheni, T. V. T. (2018). Mathematics Teachers’ Beliefs and Its Contribution toward Teaching Practice and Student Achievement. Journal of Physics: Conf. Series 1097. 012143 doi :10.1088/1742-6596/1097/1/012143
Montgomery, J. L., & Baker, W. (2007). Teacher-written feedback: Student perceptions, teacher self-assessment, and actual teacher performance. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 82–99.
Nespor, J.: 1987, ‘The role of beliefs in the practice of teaching’, Journal of Curriculum Studies, 19, 317-328.
Roothooft, H. (2014). The relationship between adult EFL teachers' oral feedback practices and their beliefs. System, 46, 65-79.
Runnalls, C., & Hong, D. S. (2019). “Well, they understand the concept of area”: Pre-service teachers’ responses to student area misconceptions. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 32, 629-651. 1007/s13394-019-00274-1
Sánchez-Matamoros, G., Fernández, C., & Llinares, S. (2019). Relationships among prospective secondary mathematics teachers’ skills of attending, interpreting and responding to stu-dents’ understanding. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 100(1), 83-99.
Saroyan, A., & Amundsen, C. (2001). Evaluating university teaching: Time to take stock. As-sessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 26, 337-349.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1985). Mathematical problem solving. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (2011). How we think: A Theory of Goal-Oriented Decision Making and its Educa-tional Applications. New York: Routledge
Shulman, L. S. (1996). Paradigms and research programs in the study of teaching: A contempo-rary perspective. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., 3-36). New York: Macmillan.
Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78, 153-189.
Skolverket (2021). Kursplan i matematik grundskolan. Stockholm: Skolverket
Son, J.-W. (2013). How preservice teachers interpret and respond to student errors: Ratio and proportion in similar rectangles. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 84(1), 49–70. 9475-5
Speer, N. (2005) Issues of Methods and Theory in the Study of Mathematics Teachers’ Professed and Attributed Beliefs. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 58, 361-391.
Stovner, R., Klettel, K. & Nortvedt, G. (2021). The instructional situations in which mathemat-ics teachers provide substantive feedback. Educational Studies in Mathematics,
Van der Kleij, F. M., Adie, L. E. & Cumming, J. J. (2019). A meta-review of the student role in feedback. International Journal of Educational Research, 98, 303-323.
Van Der Kleij, F & Adie, L (2020). Towards effective feedback: an investigation of teachers’ and students’ perceptions of oral feedback in classroom practice. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 27(3), 252-270, doi: 10.1080/0969594X.2020.1748871
Van der Schaaf, M. F., Stokking, K. M., Verloop, N. (2008). Teacher beliefs and teacher behav-ior in portfolio assessment. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 1691-1704.
Winstone, N. E., Nash, R. A., Parker, M., & Rowntree, J. (2017). Supporting learners’ agentic engagement with feedback: A systematic review and a taxonomy of recipience processes. Educational Psychologist, 52, 17-37.