Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education

• AAMT. (2006). Standards for excellence in teaching mathematics in Australian schools. Australian Association of Mathematics Teachers. https://aamt.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Standard-of-Excellence.pdf
• Abdeljaber, S. R. (2015). High school mathematics teachers’ perceptions of mathematics education in northwest Florida [Phd thesis, University of Phoenix].
• AITSL. (2014). National professional standards for teachers. Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership. https://www.aitsl.edu.au/docs/default-source/national-policy-framework/australian-professional-standards-for-teachers.pdf?sfvrsn=5800f33c_74
• AMSI. (2022). Maths crisis: Year 12 maths enrolment reach all-time low. Australian Mathematical Sciences Institute. https://amsi.org.au/2022/04/27/maths-crisis-year-12-maths-enrolments-reach-all-time-low/
• Australian Academy of Science. (2015). Desktop review of mathematics school education. Department of Education. https://www.dese.gov.au/australiancurriculum/resources/desktop-reviewmathematics-school-education-pedagogicalapproaches-and-learning-resources-june-2015
• Bearman, M. (2019). Focus on methodology: Eliciting rich data: A practical approach to writing semi-structured interview schedules. Focus on Health Professional Education, 20(3), 1. https://doi.org/10.11157/fohpe.v20i3.387
• Bennett, S. (2019). Kids claim new maths subjects too hard. Courier mail. https://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/kids-claim-new-maths-subjects-too-hard/news-story/1214588829201ba7b603d551cd439483
• Bernard, H. R. (2011). Research methods in anthropology qualitative and quantitative approaches. AltaMira Press.
• Bita, N., & Dodd, T. (2022). Students shun maths as enrolments fall to all-time low. The Australian. https://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/students-shun-maths-as-enrolments-fall-to-alltime-low/news-story/c08f2197fb24186768e8a05d591ca256
• Boyle, D. J., & Kaiser, B. S. (2017). Collaborative planning as a process. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 22(7), 406-419. https://doi.org/10.5951/mathteacmiddscho.22.7.0406
• Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
• CESE. (2017). Effective reading instruction in the early years of school, literature review. NSW Department of Education. https://www.cese.nsw.gov.au/images/stories/PDF/Effective_Reading_Instruction_AA.pdf
• Chinofunga, M. D., Chigeza, P., & Taylor, S. (2021). Senior high school mathematics subjects in Queensland: Options and trends of student participation. PRISM: Casting New Light on Learning, Theory and Practice, 4, 1. https://doi.org/10.24377/prism.ljmu.0401216
• Chinofunga, M. D., Chigeza, P., & Taylor, S. (2022). A framework for content sequencing from junior to senior mathematics curriculum. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 18(4), em2100. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/11930
• Cowan, N. (2001). ‘The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity’. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24(1) 87-114. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X01003922
• Creswell, J. W. (2014). Educational research: Planning, conducting and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Pearson.
• Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. SAGE.
• Davidson, A. (2019). Ingredients for planning student-centered learning in mathematics. Australian Primary Mathematics Classroom, 24(3), 8-14.
• Domínguez, A.-B., Carrillo, M.-S., González, V., & Alegria, J. (2016). How do deaf children with and without cochlear implants manage to read sentences: The key word strategy. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 21(3), 280-292. https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/enw026
• Duncan, G. J., Dowsett, C. J., Claessens, A., Magnuson, K., Huston, A. C., Klebanov, P., Pagani, L. S., Feinstein, L., Engel, M., Brooks-Gunn, J., Sexton, H., Duckworth, K., & Japel, C. (2007). School readiness and later achievement. Developmental Psychology, 43(6), 1428-1446. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.43.6.1428
• Ealy, J. (2018). Analysis of students’ missed organic chemistry quiz questions that stress the importance of prior general chemistry knowledge. Education Sciences, 8(2), 42. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci8020042
• Fautley, M., & Savage, J. (2014). Lesson planning for effective learning. McGraw-Hill Education.
• Fetters, M. D., Curry, L. A., & Creswell, J. W. (2013). Achieving integration in mixed methods designs–Principles and practices. Health Services Research, 48, 2134-2156. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.12117
• Galletta, A., & Cross, W. E. (2013). Mastering the semi-structured interview and beyond: From research design to analysis and publication. New York University Press. https://doi.org/10.18574/nyu/9780814732939.001.0001
• Garbett, D. (2011). Constructivism deconstructed in science teacher education. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 36(6), 36-49. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2011v36n6.5
• Geary, D. C., Hoard, M. K., Nugent, L., & Bailey, D. H. (2013). Adolescents’ functional numeracy is predicted by their school entry number system knowledge. PloS ONE, 8(1), e54651-e54651. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0054651
• Gilbert, M., & Gilbert, B. (2013). Connecting teacher learning to curriculum. In A. M. Lindmeier, & A. Heinze (Eds.), Mathematics learning across the life span (pp. 337-344). PME.
• Grundén, H. (2020). Planning in mathematics teaching–a varied, emotional process influenced by others. LUMAT: International Journal on Math, Science and Technology Education, 8, 1. https://doi.org/10.31129/LUMAT.8.1.1326
• Guion, L. A., Diehl, D. C., & McDonald, D. (2011). Triangulation: Establishing the validity of qualitative studies. University of Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, EDIS. https://doi.org/10.32473/edis-fy394-2011
• Hailikari, T., Katajavuori, N., & Lindblom-Ylanne, S. (2008). The relevance of prior knowledge in learning and instructional design. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 72(5), 113. https://doi.org/10.5688/aj7205113
• Hansen, E. (2011). Idea-based learning a course design process to promote conceptual understanding. Stylus Publishing.
• Hu, Y., Wang, W., & Jiang, L. (2011). Teaching discrete mathematics with the constructivism learning theory. In Proceedings of the 6^th International Conference on Computer Science & Education.
• Jones, K., & Edawards, J. (2017). Planning for mathematics learning. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315672175
• Kallio, H., Pietilä, A. M., Johnson, M., & Kangasniemi, M. (2016). Systematic methodological review: Developing a framework for a qualitative semi‐structured interview guide. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 72(12), 2954-2965. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.13031
• Kennedy, J., Lyons, T., & Quinn, F. (2014). The continuing decline of science and mathematics enrolments in Australian high schools. Teaching Science, 60(2), 34-46.
• Kuehnert, E. R. A., Eddy, C. M., Miller, D., Pratt, S. S., & Senawongsa, C. (2018). Bansho: Visually sequencing mathematical ideas. Teaching Children Mathematics, 24(6), 362-369. https://doi.org/10.5951/teacchilmath.24.6.0362
• Li, H., Zhu, J., Zhang, J., Zong, C., & He, X. (2020). Keywords-guided abstractive sentence summarization. In Proceedings of the 34^th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 8196-8203). https://doi.org/10.1609/aaai.v34i05.6333
• Li, Y., Chen, X., & Kulm, G. (2009). Mathematics teachers’ practices and thinking in lesson plan development: A case of teaching fraction division. ZDM-Mathematics Education, 41, 717-731. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-009-0174-8
• Mallamaci, L. (2018). Constructivism in mathematics. Vinculum (Parkville, Vic.), 55(2), 20-21.
• Martin, A. J., & Evans, P. (2020). Load reduction instruction (LRI): Sequencing explicit instruction and guided discovery to enhance students’ motivation, engagement, learning, and achievement. In S. Tindall-Ford, S. Agostinho, & J. Sweller (Eds.), Advances in cognitive load theory: Rethinking teaching (pp. 15-29). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429283895-2
• McKim, C. A. (2017). The value of mixed methods research: A mixed methods study. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 11(2), 202-222. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689815607096
• Monette, D. R., Sullivan, T. J., & DeJong, C. R. (2008). Applied social research: A tool for the human services. Thomson Brooks/Cole.
• Moreno, R., & Park, B. (2010). Cognitive load theory: Historical development and relation to other theories. In J. Plass, R. Moreno, & R. Brünken (Eds.), Cognitive load theory (pp. 9-28). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511844744.003
• Mousley, J., Sullivan, P., & Zevenbergen, R. (2007). Keeping all students on the learning path. In Proceedings of the 9^th International Conference Mathematics Education in a Global Community (pp. 466-471).
• Nakamura, A. (2014). Hierarchy construction of mathematical knowledge. Lecture Notes on Information Theory, 2(2), 203-207. https://doi.org/10.12720/lnit.2.2.203-207
• NCTM. (2014). Principles to actions: Ensuring mathematical success for all. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
• Newton, K. J., Lange, K., & Booth, J. L. (2020). Mathematical flexibility: Aspects of a continuum and the role of prior knowledge. The Journal of Experimental Education, 88(4), 503-515. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2019.1586629
• Novak, J. D. (2010). Learning, creating, and using knowledge: Concept maps as facilitative tools in schools and corporations. Je-LKS, 6, 3. https://doi.org/10.20368/1971-8829/441
• Noyes, A., & Adkins, M. (2016). Studying advanced mathematics in England: Findings from a survey of student choices and attitudes. Research in Mathematics Education, 18(3), 231-248. https://doi.org/10.1080/14794802.2016.1188139
• Paas, F., & Sweller, J. (2012). An evolutionary upgrade of cognitive load theory: Using the human motor system and collaboration to support the learning of complex cognitive tasks. Educational Psychology Review, 24, 27-45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-011-9179-2
• Pagani, L. S., Fitzpatrick, C., Archambault, I., & Janosz, M. (2010). School readiness and later achievement: A French Canadian replication and extension. Developmental Psychology, 46(5), 984-994. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018881
• Palinkas, L. A., Horwitz, S. M., Green, C. A., Wisdom, J. P., Duan, N., & Hoagwood, K. (2013). Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 42(5), 533-544. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-013-0528-y
• QCAA. (2018). Mathematical methods. General senior syllabus. Queensland Curriculum and Assessment Authority. https://www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/downloads/senior-qce/syllabuses/snr_maths_methods_19_syll.pdf
• Remillard, J. T. (2005). Examining key concepts in research on teachers’ use of mathematics curricula. Review of Educational Research, 75(2), 211-246. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543075002211
• Roche, A., Clarke, D. M., Clarke, D. J., & Sullivan, P. (2014). Primary teachers’ written unit plans in mathematics and their perceptions of essential elements of these. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 26(4), 853-870. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-014-0130-y
• Roseshine, B. V. (2009). The empirical support for instruction. In S. Tobias, & T. M. Duffy (Eds). Constructivist instruction: Success or failure? Routledge.
• Schneider, M., Rittle-Johnson, B., & Star, J. R. (2011). Relations among conceptual knowledge, procedural knowledge, and procedural flexibility in two samples differing in prior knowledge. Developmental Psychology, 47(6), 1525-1538. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024997
• Schuhl, S. (2020). Mathematics unit planning in a PLC at work. Grades 3-5. Solution Tree Press.
• Schuhl, S., Kanold, T. D., Deinhart, J., Larson, M. R., & Toncheff, M. (2020). Mathematics unit planning in a PLC at work®, grades 3-5: A guide to collaborative teaching and mathematics lesson planning to increase student understanding and expected learning outcomes. Solution Tree.
• Simon, M. A. (1995). Reconstructing mathematics pedagogy from a constructivist perspective. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 26(2), 114-145. https://doi.org/10.2307/749205
• Smith, M. S., Sherin, M. G., & Steele, M. (2020). The five practices in practice: Successfully orchestrating mathematics discussions in your high school classroom. SAGE.
• Stemhagen, K. (2016). Deweyan democratic agency and school math: Beyond constructivism and critique: Deweyan democratic agency and school math. Educational Theory, 66(1-2), 95-109. https://doi.org/10.1111/edth.12156
• Stratton, S. J. (2018). Likert data. Prehospital and Disaster Medicine, 33(2), 117-118. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049023X18000237
• Sullivan, P., Clarke, D. M., Clarke, D., & Roche, A. (2013). Teachers’ decisions about mathematics tasks when planning. In V. Steinle, L. Ball, & C. Bardini (Eds.), Mathematics education: Yesterday, today and tomorrow. MERGA.
• Sweller, J. (2010). Cognitive load theory: Recent theoretical advances. In J. Plass, R. Moreno, & R. Brünken (Eds.), Cognitive load theory (pp. 29-47). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511844744.004
• Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-8126-4
• Taber, K. S. (2019). Constructivism in education: Interpretations and criticisms from science education. In Early childhood development: Concepts, methodologies, tools, and applications (pp. 312-342). https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-7507-8.ch015
• Tavakol, M., & Sandars, J. (2014). Quantitative and qualitative methods in medical education research: AMEE Guide No 90: Part I. Medical Teacher, 36(9), 746-756. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2014.915298
• Truxaw, M. P., Gorgievski, N., & DeFranco, T. C. (2008). Measuring K‐8 teachers’ perceptions of discourse use in their mathematics classes. School Science and Mathematics, 108(2), 58-70. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2008.tb17805.x
• Wang, M. T. (2012). Educational and career interests in math: A longitudinal examination of the links between classroom environment, motivational beliefs, and interests. Developmental Psychology, 48(6), 1643-1657. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027247
• Watt, H. (2007). A trickle from the pipeline: Why girls under-participate in maths. Professional Educator, 6(3), 36-41.
• Watts, T. W., Duncan, G. J., Siegler, R. S., & Davis-Kean, P. E. (2014). What’s past is prologue: Relations between early mathematics knowledge and high school achievement. Educational Researcher, 43(7), 352-360. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X14553660

APA

Chinofunga, M. D., Chigeza, P., & Taylor, S. (2023). Teachers’ perceptions of the effectiveness of a planning framework on content sequencing for the teaching and learning of mathematics. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 19(4), em2252. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/13108

Vancouver

Chinofunga MD, Chigeza P, Taylor S. Teachers’ perceptions of the effectiveness of a planning framework on content sequencing for the teaching and learning of mathematics. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2023;19(4):em2252. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/13108

AMA

Chinofunga MD, Chigeza P, Taylor S. Teachers’ perceptions of the effectiveness of a planning framework on content sequencing for the teaching and learning of mathematics. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2023;19(4), em2252. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/13108

Chicago

Chinofunga, Musarurwa David, Philemon Chigeza, and Subhashni Taylor. "Teachers’ perceptions of the effectiveness of a planning framework on content sequencing for the teaching and learning of mathematics". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education 2023 19 no. 4 (2023): em2252. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/13108

Harvard

Chinofunga, M. D., Chigeza, P., and Taylor, S. (2023). Teachers’ perceptions of the effectiveness of a planning framework on content sequencing for the teaching and learning of mathematics. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 19(4), em2252. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/13108

MLA

Chinofunga, Musarurwa David et al. "Teachers’ perceptions of the effectiveness of a planning framework on content sequencing for the teaching and learning of mathematics". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, vol. 19, no. 4, 2023, em2252. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/13108