Möchten Sie über diese Zeitschrift informiert bleiben? Klicken Sie bitte auf die Buttons, um unsere Alerts zu abonnieren.
Möchten Sie über diese Zeitschrift informiert bleiben? Klicken Sie bitte auf die Buttons, um unsere Alerts zu abonnieren.
Designing For Implementability: Authentic and Technocritical Mathematics Education Innovations
in Implementation and Replication Studies in Mathematics EducationSearch for other papers by Andreas Lindenskov Tamborg in
Current site
Google Scholar
Search for other papers by Peter Wied Stenkilde in
Current site
Google Scholar
Abstract
Based on three research articles from computer science about algorithmic bias we develop technocritical mathematics education (TCME) innovations that allow students to relate critically to technologies in their surroundings. We present an adapted version of Gagliardi et al.’s (2011) implementability framework to fit the context of mathematics education and based on this framework, we present an approach to maximize the implementability of TCME innovations. Further, we identify adapters’ preliminary post-implementation views of such innovations’ implementability through observations and teacher interviews in a small-scale implementation context.
The impact sheet to this article can be accessed at https://doi.org/10.1163/26670127-bja10034 under Supplementary Materials.
Kauf
Sofortzugang erwerben (PDF-Download und unbegrenzter Online-Zugang):
Institutszugang
Melden Sie sich mit Open Athens, Shibboleth oder Ihren institutionellen Anmeldedaten an.
Persönliche Anmeldung
Melden Sie sich mit Ihrem brill.com-Konto an
-
Angwin, J., Larson, J. Mattu, S., & Kirchner, L. (2016). Machine Bias: There’s software used across the country to predict future criminals. And it’s biased against blacks. Probublica. https://www.propublica.org/article/machine-bias-risk-assessments-in-criminal-sentencing.
-
Ärlebäck, J. B., & Frejd, P. (2025). Exploring Swedish secondary students’ mathematical models of fairness in ranking real-life, multi-faceted heptathlon outcomes. ZDM — Mathematics Education, 57(2–3), 229–244. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-025-01678-z.
-
Augenstein, I., Baldwin, T., Cha, M., Chakraborty, T., Ciampaglia, G. L., Corney, D., DiResta, R., Ferrara, E., Hale, S., Halevy, A., Hovy, E., Ji, H., Menczer, F., Miguez, R., Nakov, P., Scheufele, D., Sharma, S., & Zagni, G. (2024). Factuality challenges in the era of large language models and opportunities for fact-checking. Nature Machine Intelligence, 6(8), 852–863. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-024-00881-z.
-
Aumüller, M., Har-Peled, S., Mahabadi, S., Pagh, R., & Silvestri, F. (2022). Sampling a near neighbor in high dimensions — Who is the fairest of them all? ACM Transactions on Database Systems, 47(1), 1–40. https://doi.org/10.1145/3502867.
-
Baker, R. S., & Hawn, A. (2022). Algorithmic bias in education. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence Education, 32(4), 1052–1092. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-021-00285-9.
-
Bender, E. M., Gebru, T., McMillan-Major, A., & Shmitchell, S. (2021). On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models be too big? 🦜. Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, 610–623. https://doi.org/10.1145/3442188.3445922.
-
Biesta, G. (2007). Why “what works” won’t work: Evidence-based practice and the democratic deficit in educational research. Educational Theory, 57(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-5446.2006.00241.x.
-
Børne- og Undervisningsministeriet (2019). Matematik fælles mål 2019 [Mathematics common objectives 2019]. https://uvm.dk/media/ko0dtyah/240513-faellesmaal-matematik.pdf.
-
Børne- og Undervisningsministeriet. (2021). Forsøg med teknologiforståelse i folkeskolens obligatoriske undervisning. Slutevaluering. [Experiment with technology comprehension in compulsory schools’ mandatory teaching. End evaluation]. https://stukuvm.dk/media/d3jk2qfg/211004-slutevaluering-teknologoforstaaelse.pdf.
-
Century, J., & Cassata, A. (2016). Implementation research: Finding common ground on what, how, why, where, and who. Review of Research in Education, 40(1), 169–215. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X16665332.
-
Clemmensen, L. H., & Kjærsgaard, R. D. (2022). Data representativity for machine learning and AI systems. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2203.04706.
-
Education Committee of the European Mathematical Society. (2011). “Solid findings” in mathematics education. Newsletter of the European Mathematical Society, 81, 46–48.
-
Engell, T., Løvstad, A. M., Kirkøen, B., Ogden, T., & Hagen, K. A. (2021). Exploring how intervention characteristics affect implementability: A mixed methods case study of common elements-based academic support in child welfare services. Children and Youth Services Review, 129, Article 106180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2021.106180.
-
Fazelpour, S., & Danks, D. (2021). Algorithmic bias: Senses, sources, solutions. Philosophy Compass, 16(8), Article e12760. https://doi.org/10.1111/phc3.12760.
-
FitzSimons, G. E., & Boistrup, L. B. (2017). In the workplace mathematics does not announce itself: Towards overcoming the hiatus between mathematics education and work. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 95(3), 329–349. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-017-9752-9.
-
Gagliardi, A. R., Brouwers, M. C., Palda, V. A., Lemieux-Charles, L., & Grimshaw, J. M. (2011). How can we improve guideline use? A conceptual framework of implementability. Implementation Science, 6, Article 26. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-6-26.
-
Garcia, M. (2016). Racist in the machine: The disturbing implications of algorithmic bias. World Policy Journal, 33(4), 111–117. https://doi.org/10.1215/07402775-3813015.
-
Geiger, V. (2024). The need for a critical orientation to mathematical modelling in times of disruption. In H.-S. Siller, G. Kaiser, & V. Geiger (Eds.), Researching mathematical modelling education in disruptive times (pp. 15–34). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-53322-8_2.
-
Gellert, U., & Jablonka, E. (Eds.). (2007). Mathematization and de-mathematization: Social, philosophical and educational ramifications. Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789460911439.
-
Gregersen, R. M., Lauridsen, S. D., & Jankvist, U. T. (2019). Operationalizing implementation theory in mathematics education research — identifying enablers and barriers in the Swedish “Boost for Mathematics”. In U. T. Jankvist, M. Van der Heuvel-Panhuizen, & M. Veldhuis (Eds.), Proceedings of the Eleventh Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (pp. 4373–4380). Freudenthal Group & Freudenthal Institute, Utrecht University and ERME.
-
Jankvist, U. T., Aguilar, M. S., Ärlebäck, J. B., & Wæge, K. (2017). Introduction to the papers and posters of TWG23: Implementation of research findings in mathematics education. In T. Dooley & G. Gueudet (Eds.), Proceedings of the Tenth Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (CERME 10, February 1–5, 2017) (pp. 3769–3775). DCU Institute of Education and ERME.
-
Jankvist, U. T., Aguilar, M. S., Misfeldt, M., & Koichu, B. (2021). Launching Implementation and Replication Studies in Mathematics Education (IRME). Implementation and Replication Studies in Mathematics Education, 1(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1163/26670127-01010001.
-
Jankvist, U. T., Misfeldt, M., Geraniou, E., Aguilar, M. S., & Baccaglini-Frank, A. (2023). Towards a technocritical mathematics education. NOMAD Nordic Studies in Mathematics Education, 28(3–4), 9–34. https://doi.org/10.7146/nomad.v28i3-4.149029.
-
Johansen, M. W. (2023, June 2). Tågede orakler [Foggy oracles]. Weekendavisen. https://www.weekendavisen.dk/ideer/taagede-orakler.
-
Kaiser, G., van der Kooij, H., & Wake, G. (2013). Educational interfaces between mathematics and industry at school level. In A. Damlamian, J. F. Rodrigues, & R. Strässer (Eds.), Educational interfaces between mathematics and industry (pp. 263–270). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02270-3_26.
-
Kohen, Z. & Orenstein, D. (2021). Mathematical modeling of tech-related real-world problems for secondary school-level mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 107(1), 71–91. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-020-10020-1.
-
Koichu, B., Aguilar, M. S., & Misfeldt, M. (2021). Implementation-related research in mathematics education: The search for identity. ZDM — Mathematics Education, 53(5), 975–989. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-021-01302-w.
-
Koichu, B., Misfeldt, M., Aguilar, M. S., & Jankvist, U. T. (2024). About implementability. Implementation and Replication Studies in Mathematics Education, 4(2), 161–176. https://doi.org/10.1163/26670127-00402001.
-
Krawitz, J., Schukajlow, S., Yang, X., & Geiger, V. (2025). A systematic review of international perspectives on mathematical modelling: Modelling goals and task characteristics. ZDM — Mathematics Education, 57(2–3), 193–212. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-025-01683-2.
-
Misfeldt, M., Szabo, A., & Helenius, O. (2019). Surveying teachers’ conception of programming as a mathematics topic following the implementation of a new mathematics curriculum. In Jankvist, U. T., Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M., & Veldhuis, M. (Eds.). (2019). Proceedings of the Eleventh Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (CERME11, February 6–10, 2019). (pp. 2713–2720). Freudenthal Group & Freudenthal Institute, Utrecht University and ERME.
-
Moreau, T., Sinatra, R., & Sekara, V. (2024). Failing our youngest: On the biases, pitfalls, and risks in a decision support algorithm used for child protection. Proceedings of the 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, 290–300. https://doi.org/10.1145/3630106.3658906.
-
Niss, M., & Højgaard, T. (2019). Mathematical competencies revisited. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 102(1), 9–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-019-09903-9.
-
O’Reilly-Shah, V. N., Gentry, K. R., Walters, A. M., Zivot, J., Anderson, C. T., & Tighe, P. J. (2020). Bias and ethical considerations in machine learning and the automation of perioperative risk assessment. British Journal of Anaesthesia, 125(6), 843–846. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bja.2020.07.040.
-
Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. (n.d. a). Critical. In Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. Retrieved February 24, 2026. https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/critical?q=critical.
-
Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. (n.d. b). Disruption. In Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. Retrieved January 14, 2026. https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/disruption?q=disruption.
-
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). Free Press.
-
Schukajlow, S., Kaiser, G., & Stillman, G. (2018). Empirical research on teaching and learning of mathematical modelling: A survey on the current state-of-the-art. ZDM — Mathematics Education, 50(1–2), 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-018-0933-5.
-
Schumpeter, J. A. (1961). The fundamental phenomenon of economic development (R. Opie, Trans.). In The theory of economic development: An inquiry into profits, capital, credit, interest, and the business cycle (pp. 57–94). Oxford University Press. (Original work published 1934).
-
Skovsmose, O. (2023). Critical mathematics education. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-26242-5.
-
Solorio, T., Shafaei, M., Smailis, C., Augenstein, I., Mitchell, M., Stapf, I., & Kakadiaris, I. (2021). White paper — Creating a repository of objectionable online content: Addressing undesirable biases and ethical considerations. OpenReview.net. https://openreview.net/forum?id=i3kSsvYOO18.
-
Sterlie, S., Weng, N., & Feragen, A. (2024). Generalizing fairness to generative language models via reformulation of non-discrimination criteria. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2403.08564.
-
Tamborg, A. L., & Nøhr, L. (2023). Implementability of computational thinking in Danish compulsory school mathematics — A survey conducted in a pre-implementation context. In P. Drijvers, C. Csapodi, H. Palmér, K. Gosztonyi, & E. Kónya (Eds.), Proceedings of the Thirteenth Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (CERME13) (pp. 4332–4339). Alfréd Rényi Institute of Mathematics. https://hal.science/hal-04407688.
-
Weintrop, D., Beheshti, E., Horn, M., Orton, K., Jona, K., Trouille, L., & Wilensky, U. (2016). Defining computational thinking for mathematics and science classrooms. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(1), 127–147. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-015-9581-5.
Supplementary Materials
| Insgesamt | Letzte 365 Tage | In den letzten 30 Tagen | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Aufrufe von Kurzbeschreibungen | 56 | 56 | 32 |
| Gesamttextansichten | 14 | 14 | 8 |
| PDF-Downloads | 29 | 29 | 22 |
Designing For Implementability: Authentic and Technocritical Mathematics Education Innovations
in Implementation and Replication Studies in Mathematics EducationSearch for other papers by Andreas Lindenskov Tamborg in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Peter Wied Stenkilde in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Abstract
Based on three research articles from computer science about algorithmic bias we develop technocritical mathematics education (TCME) innovations that allow students to relate critically to technologies in their surroundings. We present an adapted version of Gagliardi et al.’s (2011) implementability framework to fit the context of mathematics education and based on this framework, we present an approach to maximize the implementability of TCME innovations. Further, we identify adapters’ preliminary post-implementation views of such innovations’ implementability through observations and teacher interviews in a small-scale implementation context.
The impact sheet to this article can be accessed at https://doi.org/10.1163/26670127-bja10034 under Supplementary Materials.
| Insgesamt | Letzte 365 Tage | In den letzten 30 Tagen | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Aufrufe von Kurzbeschreibungen | 56 | 56 | 32 |
| Gesamttextansichten | 14 | 14 | 8 |
| PDF-Downloads | 29 | 29 | 22 |
