ChapterPDF Available

A Commentary: Accounting-of and Accounting-for the Engagement of Teachers and Teaching



In this commentary, I reflect on the chapters by De Simone; Khalil, Lake, and Johnson; and Montoro and Gil (this volume) and how they contribute to our understanding of engagement within mathematics education. I begin by exploring how engagement has been pursued in mathematics education in particular, and in education in general, and argue that each of these instances can be viewed as either an account-of engagement (ways in which participants engage) and/or an accounting-for engagement (and explanations for why they engage in this way). I then apply this duality of accounting-of and accounting-for in my commentary on the three chapters that make up this section.
Chapter 14
A Commentary: Accounting-
of and Accounting-for the Engagement
of Teachers and Teaching
Peter Liljedahl
14.1 Introduction
In this commentary, I reflect on the chapters by De Simone; Khalil, Lake, and John-
son; and Montoro and Gil (this volume) and how they contribute to our understanding
of engagement within mathematics education. However, to build a foundation for
this reflection, I will first elaborate on the concept of engagement.
Within the context of mathematics education, the terms engaged and engage-
ment are used both colloquially and theoretically. Colloquially, engagement is used
either to refer to a person’s participation in something (verb)—she was engaged in
a problem solving exercise—or to refer to how a person participates in something
(adjective)—they were so engaged that I could not get their attention. Although these
two meanings stem from the same understanding of engagement as involvement the
first use refers to the act of being occupied with something, while the second often
refers to how that occupation is experienced—with affect and motivation. This is not
to say that the first is devoid of experience, but rather that the focus is on the doing
rather than the experience of the doing.
This distinction between the verb and adjective form of engagement also exists
within mathematics education research wherein the empirical and theoretical pursuit
is further bifurcated into a distinction between, what Mason (2002) refers to as, an
accounting-of and accounting-for. That is, research on engagement has been split
into a cataloguing of ways in which participants engage—an accounting-of —and
explanations for why they engage in this way—an accounting-for. In what follows
I first explore this bifurcation through the four theoretical lenses of engagement
structures (Goldin, Epstein, & Schorr, 2007; Goldin, Epstein, Schorr, & Warner,
2011; Schorr & Goldin, 2008), studenting (Allan, 2017; Fenstermacher, 1986,1994;
Liljedahl & Allan, 2013a,b), flow (Csíkszentmihályi, 1990,1996,1998), and forms
P. Liljedahl (B)
Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, Canada
© The Author(s) 2019
M. S. Hannula et al. (eds.), Affect and Mathematics Education,
ICME-13 Monographs, 030-13761- 8_14
310 P. Liljedahl
of engagement (Alvarez, 2016; Remillard, 2012). Following this I introduce the
three chapters that comprise this section of the book, again applying Mason’s (2002)
duality of accounting-of and accounting-for.
14.1.1 Engagement Structures
Engagement structures (Goldin et al., 2007,2011; Schorr & Goldin, 2008) began as
an accounting-of the differing ways in which students in a classroom setting engage
(verb) with problem solving. Through close observation and careful coding nine
behaviours emerged: Get the Job Done, Look How Smart I Am, Check This Out, I’m
Really into This, Don’t Disrespect Me, Stay Out Of Trouble, It’s Not Fair, and Let
Me Teach You.
These behaviours were accounted-for a collection of ten “simultaneously present
and dynamically interacting” components (Goldin et al., 2007) that come together
to form an engagement structure (Goldin et al., 2011). This structure sits at the
intersection of the behavioural, affective, and social. The ten individual components
that make up this “behavioral/affective/social constellation” (Goldin et al., 2011,
p. 549). These ten components are:
1. Goal or motivating desire
2. Patterns of behaviour
3. Affective pathway
4. External expressions of affect
5. Meanings encoded by emotional feelings
6. Meta-affect pertaining to emotional states
7. Self-talk
8. Interactions with systems of beliefs or values
9. Interactions with longer-term traits, characteristics, and orientations
10. Interactions with strategies and heuristics (Goldin et al., 2011, p. 549).
The first seven of these components are based on the in-the-moment state of the
student whereas the last three components are based on the more enduring traits of
the students. Using these ten components to account-for the nine behaviours resulted
in an in-depth understanding of what motivates each of the accounted-of behaviours.
Get the Job Done—In this behaviour, the student’s goal is to complete a mathe-
matical task or activity assigned by the teacher and to fulfil the explicit or implicit
obligation. The behaviour is a clear focus on carrying out the work.
Look How Smart I Am—Here the student’s goal is to impress their peers, teacher,
or themselves with their mathematical ability, knowledge, or genius. This key
marker of this behaviour is “showing off” by trying to produce a solution faster,
or to produce a solution that is more correct, more efficient, or more elegant than
14 A Commentary: Accounting-of and Accounting-for … 311
Check This Out—The underlying desire behind this behaviour is a potential pay-
off—intrinsic or extrinsic. The potentiality of this payoff is heavily predicated on
the perceived value of what it is that the student is working on. The behaviour is
punctuated by an increased attention to the task in pursuit of the payoff.
I’m Really into This—This behaviour is expressed in situations where the student
has entered into a state of deep engagement (Csíkszentmihályi, 1990). The goal that
drives this behaviour is the desire to remain in this state, tuning out distractions, and
seeking evolving complexities in the task as their ability increases. The physicality
of this behaviour is one of focus, rapt interest, and enjoyment.
Don’t Disrespect Me—The motivating desire behind this behaviour is the preser-
vation of the student’s dignity, status, or sense of self-respect and well-being. The
behaviour is observable as resistance to the challenge, defensiveness, face saving,
and excessively charged discussions or arguments.
Stay Out Of Trouble—In this case the student desires to avoid conflict or distress
with peers or the teacher. They achieve this through avoidance and striving to not
be noticed by others often prioritizing these goals addressing the mathematical
It’s Not Fair—The motivating desire behind this behaviour is to redress a per-
ceived inequity and often occurs when the student perceives inequitable workload
recognition from the teacher. The behaviour is focused on correcting this inequity
rather than addressing the mathematical work itself.
Let Me Teach You—In this behavior the student’s behaviour is guided by the
altruistic desire to help another student understand or solve the problem. The
behaviour of helping other is punctuated by the satisfaction derived by being able
to successfully help another student.
14.1.2 Studenting
Like with engagement structures, the work on studenting began with an accounting-of
student behaviours in various learning situations. Fenstermacher (1986) first intro-
duced the term studenting as the set of behaviours that help students learn.
The concept of studenting or pupiling is far and away the more parallel concept to that of
teaching. Without students, we would not have the concept of teacher; without teachers,
we would not have the concept of student. Here is a balanced ontologically dependent
pair, coherently parallel to looking and finding, racing and winning. There are a range of
activities connected with studenting that complement the activities of teaching. For example,
teachers explain, describe, define, refer, correct, and encourage. Students recite, practice,
seek assistance, review, check, locate sources, and access material. The teacher’s task is to
support R’s desire to student and improve his capacity to do so. Whether and how much R
learns from being a student is largely a function of how he students. (p. 39)
He later expanded this definition to also include the student behaviours that do
not help them to learn.
312 P. Liljedahl
[T]hings that students do such as ‘psyching out’ teachers, figuring out how to get certain
grades, ‘beating the system’, dealing with boredom so that it is not obvious to teachers, nego-
tiating the best deals on reading and writing assignments, threading the right line between
curricular and extra-curricular activities, and determining what is likely to be on the test and
what is not. (Fenstermacher, 1994,p.1)
This notion of studenting was used by Liljedahl and Allan (2013a,b) to look
closely at student engagement (verb) across a variety of more traditional mathemat-
ics classrooms and classroom activity settings—doing tasks in class, taking notes,
homework, group work, review, and lecture. Results from this accounting-of student
behaviours showed a disturbing trend towards the later of Fenstermacher’s definition.
For example, while doing tasks in class Liljedahl and Allan (2013a) found that in
some classes upwards of 80% of the students’ behaviours did not contribute to learn-
ing. These non-learning behaviours included slacking (not doing anything), stalling
(avoiding doing anything), faking (pretending to work), and mimicking (mindlessly
following routines). In the context of homework (2013b) they found that 70–80%
of the studenting behaviour did not contribute to learning with the dominant non-
learning studenting behaviours being cheating, not doing it, or getting help. This last
behaviour was interesting because in each case it was shown that, for the most part,
the help aided in getting the homework done, but not in furthering the learning. If
the homework was marked there were more of these types of behaviours with all
three behaviours being almost equally distributed. If the homework was not marked
then cheating sharply decreased, getting help stayed about the same, and not doing
the homework increased drastically with an overall slight decline in the non-learning
studenting behaviour. In the context of note taking, Liljedahl and Allan found that
over half of the students were not attending to what they were writing and, instead,
just mindlessly copied what was on the boards. More troubling was the fact that
over 90% of the students never looked back at their notes. These passive student-
ing behaviours around notes were, like the other examples, not at all conducive to
Allan (2017) did a detailed accounting-for these studenting behaviours using the
theoretical framework of Leont’ev’s (1978) activity theory. Her results were varied
and detailed but can be summarized nicely in her analysis of two students who, from
the outside, seemed to exhibited the same behaviours, but for very different reasons.
While the first student had a primary motive of learning and a secondary motive of
getting a good grade, the second student had the reverse—a primary motive of getting
a good grade and a secondary motive of learning. Although subtle, this difference
in motives made a world of difference in how they engaged in various classroom
activities. Although invisible to an outside observer the main difference was that the
motive of learning manifest itself as continuous engagement, while a primary motive
of getting a good grade resulted in discrete engagement. Only a close accounting-for
was able to reveal these nuanced differences in the accounted-of behaviours.
14 A Commentary: Accounting-of and Accounting-for … 313
14.1.3 Flow
In the early 1970s Mihály Csíkszentmihályi (1990,1996,1998) became interested
in studying the optimal experience—that moment where we are so focused and so
absorbed in an activity that we lose all track of time, we are un-distractible, and we
are consumed by the enjoyment of the activity.
… a state in which people are so involved in an activity that nothing else seems to matter;
the experience is so enjoyable that people will continue to do it even at great cost, for the
sheer sake of doing it. (Csíkszentmihályi, 1990,p.4)
In his pursuit to understand the optimal experience, Csíkszentmihályi (1990,1996,
1998) studied a population of people he thought most likely to experience this phe-
nomenon—musicians, artists, mathematicians, scientists, and athletes. Out of this
research emerged an accounting-of the elements common to every such optimal
experience (Csíkszentmihályi, 1990):
1. There are clear goals every step of the way.
2. There is immediate feedback to one’s actions.
3. There is a balance between challenges and skills.
4. Action and awareness are merged.
5. Distractions are excluded from consciousness.
6. There is no worry of failure.
7. Self-consciousness disappears.
8. The sense of time becomes distorted.
9. The activity becomes an end in itself.
While the last six elements on this list are characteristics of the internal experience
of the doer, the first three elements can be seen as characteristics existing in the
environment of the activity and crucial to occasioning of the optimal experience—the
third of which became the central focus of Csíkszentmihályi’s (1990,1996,1998)
Csíkszentmihályi’s (1990,1996,1998) analysis of the optimal experience comes
into sharp focus when accounting-for the consequences of having an imbalance in
this system. For example, if the challenge of the activity far exceeds a person’s ability
they are likely to experience a feeling of anxiety or frustration. Conversely, if their
ability far exceeds the challenge offered by the activity they are apt to become bored.
When there is a balance in this system a state of, what Csíkszentmihályi refers to as,
flow is created (see Fig. 14.1). Flow is, in brief, the term Csíkszentmihályi (1990,
1996,1998) used to encapsulate the essence of optimal experience and the nine
aforementioned elements into a single emotional-cognitive construct.
Thinking about flow as existing in that balance between skill and challenge (see
Fig. 14.1), however, obfuscates the fact that this is not a static relationship. Flow is
not a collection of fixed ability-challenge pairings wherein the difference between
skill and challenge are within some acceptable range. Flow is, in fact, a dynamic
process (see Fig. 14.2). As students engage in an activity their skills improve. In
314 P. Liljedahl
Fig. 14.1 Graphical representation of the balance between challenge and skill (Csíkszentmihályi,
Fig. 14.2 Graphical representation of the balance between challenge and skill as a dynamic process
(Liljedahl, 2018)
order for these students to stay in flow the challenge of the task must similarly
increase (Liljedahl, 2016,2018).
However, this theory of flow did not always match up with the data Csíkszentmi-
hályi (1998) was analyzing. In particular, he found that a balance of challenge and
skill did not always produce flow and became “a frustrating puzzle in an otherwise
fruitful research program” (Csíkszentmihályi & Csíkszentmihályi, 1988, p. 260).
Massimini and Carli (1988) eventually found that flow only occurred if there was a
balance between challenge and skill and when both of these were in an elevated state.
Otherwise it would produce apathy (see Fig. 14.3). This realization eventually led to
an even more nuanced model (see Fig. 14.4) involving eight distinct states resulting
from different challenge-skill ratios (Massimini, Csikszentmihalyi, & Carli, 1987).
Csíkszentmihályi’s (1990,1996,1998) notion of the optimal experience and the
resulting framework of flow is one of the only ways in which we can account-for the
adjective form of engagement.
14 A Commentary: Accounting-of and Accounting-for … 315
Fig. 14.3 The four-channel model of flow (Massimini & Carli, 1988)
Fig. 14.4 Visual representation of the eight states of the challenge-skills ratio (Massimini et al.,
14.1.4 Modes of Engagement
Drawing on Ellsworth’s (1997) work on film study and Rosenblatt’s (1982,1980)
theory of transactions, Remillard (2012) developed a model of how textual resource
developers position their audience and their resource, and how teachers, in turn,
interact with that resource. This theory begins with the mode of address, which is
about positioning the reader in a particular way so as to know how to initiate the
interaction between the reader and the resource. This is followed by the forms of
address, which are the particular looks and formats embedded in the resource that
manifest the mode of address. A reader will interact with this resource through a
particular stance called a mode of engagement. This stance, in turn, guides the forms
of engagement, which are the various ways in which the reader engages with the
resource and what they look for.
Looking at Remillard’s (2012) theory through the lens of Mason’s (2002)
accounting-of and accounting-for, the idea that the authors of textual resources posi-
tion the reader and that the reader brings a stance to their interaction with the resource
is an accounting-of the fact that both the production of a resource and how that
resource is utilized is guided by goals and volitions and that in order for the inter-
316 P. Liljedahl
action between author and reader to begin some assumptions about these goals and
volitions needs to be made. The modes and forms of the address of the resource and
the modes and forms of the engagement of the reader are an accounting-for the ways
in which these assumptions manifest themselves.
Alvarez (2016) extended and re-purposed Remillard’s (2012) theory to both
account-of and account-for the interaction between a professional developer and
a group of teachers. In this regard, the modes of address referred to the ways in
which the professional developer positioned the teachers and the forms of address
referred to the different pedagogical approaches the professional developer used with
the teachers. From the other side, the modes of engagement were the stances that the
teachers brought to the experience and the forms of engagement were the different
ways in which the teachers engaged in the professional development sessions. In
this sense, the notion of engagement (verb) in both Remillard’s (2012) theory and
Alvarez’s (2016) re-purposing is different in nature than in the aforementioned three
theories in that engagement is not the primary goal of this framework, but rather a
by-product of the efforts to account-for the interaction between a textual resource
and its reader.
14.2 Engagement of Teachers and Teaching
Although situated within a broad set of contexts, the aforementioned theories of
engagement, can be appropriated for use within the specific context of the teaching
and learning of mathematics. In what follows, I summarize the ways in which the
authors of the three chapters that comprise this section of the book have done so
and draw attention to how their work is both an accounting-of and -for engagement.
Although each of these chapters are, ostensibly, about understanding engagement,
each of the results also makes a contribution to our understanding of how to create
engagement. Further, although each chapter is explicitly about teachers, two of the
chapters also offer us subtly insights into the engagement of the learner. In my
summary I try to pull out these more elusive aspects of the contributions.
14.2.1 Teachers’ Classroom Engagement Structures:
A Comparative Study of a Novice US
and an Experienced UK Mathematics Teacher
To begin with Khalil, Lake, and Johnson co-opt the framework of engagement struc-
tures (Goldin et al., 2007,2011; Schorr & Goldin, 2008), developed and used to
account-of and -for student engagement (verb), to do both an accounting-of and an
accounting-for teachers’ engagement (verb). This novel application of the frame-
work, coupled with the notion of learning trajectories (Desimone, 2009), enables
14 A Commentary: Accounting-of and Accounting-for … 317
the authors to account-for the in-the-moment affect of two teachers and eventually
reveals that the teacher’ in-the-moment behaviours may mirror their students’ in-
the-moment behaviours and underpins the teachers’ emotional needs.
There are three implications emerging from this research. First, and foremost, the
framework of engagement structures (Goldin et al., 2007,2011; Schorr & Goldin,
2008) can be used to “connect teachers’ prior ‘in-the-moment’ behaviour as math-
ematics learners with their ‘in-the-moment’ behaviour as mathematics teachers”
(Khalil, Lake, & Johnson, this volume). Further, this framework can be used as a lens
to connect their affective and motivational domains to these same behaviours—both
past and present. Finally, and moving beyond the framework as a tool for the
accounting-for teachers behaviour, the framework of engagement structures can be
used to actively help in teachers’ affective development and to connect their emo-
tional development to their behaviours in-the-moment and across their overarching
learning trajectory as teachers.
The novel appropriation of the engagement structures framework (Goldin et al.,
2007,2011; Schorr & Goldin, 2008) coupled with an explicit desire to not only
understand teacher behaviour, but also to change their behaviour brings to the fore
the importance of explicitly linking teachers’ practice to their past experiences as
a learner and teacher with the in-the-moment emotions. Khalil, Lake, and Johnson
have done an exceptional job of theorizing this complex confluence and actualizing
it as both research and intervention.
14.2.2 Exploring Flow in Pre-service Primary Teachers
Doing Measurement Tasks
Montoro and Gil chapter sits at this same intersection between research and interven-
tion with their dual intention of trying to provide pre-service primary teachers flow
experiences (Csíkszentmihályi, 1990,1996,1998) while at the same time looking
closely at the elements present when these experiences occur. Mobilizing the theory
of flow (Csíkszentmihályi, 1990,1996,1998) within a mixed-method approach, the
authors were able to account-for the difference in the flow experiences of 230 partici-
pants and to hypothesize a way towards creating engaging (adjective) experiences for
this population of learners. The methodological approach used in this paper is both
rigorous and illuminating, giving us a much needed glimpse into the occasioning of
The authors begin their work by looking closely at the participants’ enjoyment
and concentration on each of five measurement tasks. Exploratory and confirmatory
factor analysis reveals that 70% of the participants experienced elements of flow in
tasks 1, 2, 3, and 5, with only 50% having the same experience with task 4. A cursory
analysis of the five tasks reveals that, while all the tasks are situated in the context
of measurement, only task 4 has a problem solving focus. The authors conjecture
that this results in an imbalance between the challenge of the task and the ability of
318 P. Liljedahl
the doer (see Fig. 14.1) and results in a decrease in the occasioning of flow. This is
confirmed through video analysis of one group of pre-service teachers working on
these tasks.
This video analysis further illuminates, not only why task 4 does not promote
flow to the same extent as the other four tasks, but also why the other four tasks do.
Drawing heavily on flow’s dimension of balancing challenges and skills (Csíkszent-
mihályi, 1990,1996,1998), Medina and Caudra’s analysis reveals the importance
of tasks being easy to begin and that an early entry proves to be vital to ensuring
that flow is initiated. Even if the initial entry proves to be incorrect it is more fruitful
for occasioning flow than to begin correctly with something difficult. This result
contradicts Massimini et al. (1987) who predicted that low challenge would produce
apathy (see Fig. 14.4). However, the result is in line with Csíkszentmihályi’s earlier
work and offers us a more nuance understanding of how to engage (adjective) not
only pre-service elementary teachers in particular, but also learners in general.
14.2.3 The Intertwinement of Rationality and Emotions
in the Mathematics Teaching: A Case Study
Finally, De Simone looks at one teacher, Carla, and her engagement (verb) while
teaching. Although not drawing on the aforementioned theories of engagement, she
does account-for Carla’s decision-making process through the joint and intertwined
theories of rationality (Habermas, 1982,1998) and affect (Brown & Reid, 2006). De
Simone argues that with only “the pure rationality à la Habermas, [she] could only
have described the decisions of the teacher, without accounting-for [my emphasis]
their underlying reasons”. To get at the reasons she needed emotions—more specif-
ically, emotional orientation (Brown & Reid, 2006) and its resultant and visible
emotionality—to see the expectations in Carla’s decision-making. In so doing, De
Simone makes a powerful contribution to our understanding of the interplay between
teacher knowledge and teacher practice—something that is often overlooked in our
rush to improve teaching.
Although her work is descriptive in nature, De Simone offers us a means to think
about how her results can be used to improve teacher decision-making. Whereas emo-
tions and emotionality are situated and fleeting, the rationality is grounded and can
be “prepared apriori”. Although not the topic of this chapter, De Simone’s method-
ological use of emotionality gives us insight into the reciprocal relationship between
teacher and student in the decision-making process. Whereas Carla’s emotionality
signaled her intentions to the researcher, it also signaled these same intentions to
the students—helping to inform their own decision-making process within the class-
14 A Commentary: Accounting-of and Accounting-for … 319
Allan, D. (2017). Student actions as a window into goals and motives in the secondary mathematics
classroom (Unpublished Ph.D. thesis). Simon Fraser University.
Alvarez, M. (2016). Teaching teachers: A look inside professional development (Unpublished Ph.D.
thesis). Simon Fraser University.
Brown, L., & Reid, D. A. (2006). Embodied cognition: Somatic markers, purposes and emotional
orientations. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 63(2), 179–192.
Csíkszentmihályi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York, NY: Harper
and Row.
Csíkszentmihályi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention.New
York, NY: Harper Perennial.
Csíkszentmihályi, M. (1998). Finding flow: The psychology of engagement with everyday life.New
York, NY: Basic Books.
Csíkszentmihályi, M., & Csíkszentmihályi, I. (1988). Optimal experience: Psychological studies
of flow in consciousness. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.
Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: Toward
better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38(3), 181–199.
Ellsworth, E. (1997). Teaching positions: Difference, pedagogy, and the power of address.New
York: Teachers College.
Fenstermacher, G. (1986). Philosophy of research on teaching: Three aspects. In M. C. Whittrock
(Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 37–49). New York, NY: Macmillan.
Fenstermacher, G. (1994, revised 1997). On the distinction between being a student and being a
learner. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Associa-
tion, New Orleans, LA.
Goldin, G. A., Epstein, Y. M., & Schorr, R. Y. (2007). Affective pathways and structures in urban
students’ mathematics learning. In D. K. Pugalee, A. Rogerson, & A. Schinck (Eds.), Mathemat-
ics Education in a Global Community: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference of the
Mathematics Education into the 21st Century Project (pp. 260–265). Charlotte, NC: Center for
Mathematics, Science and Technology Education.
Goldin, G. A., Epstein, Y. M., Schorr, R. Y., & Warner, L. B. (2011). Beliefs and engagement struc-
tures: Behind the affective dimension of mathematical learning. ZDM Mathematics Education,
43, 547–556.
Habermas, J. (1998). On the pragmatics of communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Habermas, J. (1982). Habermas: Critical debates. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Leont’ev, A. (1978). Activity, consciousness, and personality. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
(Original work published 1975).
Liljedahl, P. (2016). Building thinking classrooms: Conditions for problem solving. In P. Felmer,
J. Kilpatrick, & E. Pehkonen (Eds.), Posing and solving mathematical problems: Advances and
new perspectives (pp. 361–386). New York, NY: Springer.
Liljedahl, P. (2018). On the edges of flow: Student problem solving behavior. In S. Carreira, N.
Amado, & K. Jones (Eds.), Broadening the scope of research on mathematical problem solving:
A focus on technology, creativity and affect (pp. 505–524). New York, NY: Springer.
Liljedahl, P., & Allan, D. (2013a). Studenting: The case of “now you try one”. In A. M. Lindmeier
&A.Heinze(Eds.).Proceedings of the 37th Conference of the International Group for the
Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 3, pp. 257–264). Kiel, Germany: PME.
Liljedahl, P., & Allan, D. (2013b). Studenting: The case of homework. In M. Martinez & A. Castro
Superfine (Eds.), Proceedings of the 35th Conference for Psychology of Mathematics Educa-
tionNorth American Chapter (pp. 489–492). Chicago, IL: USA.
Mason, J. (2002). Researching your own practice: The discipline of noticing.NewYork,NY:
320 P. Liljedahl
Massimini, F., & Carli, M. (1988). The systematic assessment of flow in daily experience. In M.
Csikszentmihalyi & I. Csikszentmihalyi (Eds.), Optimal experience: Psychological studies of
flow in consciousness (pp. 266–287). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Massimini, F., Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Carli, M. (1987). The monitoring of optimal experience. A
tool for psychiatric rehabilitation. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 175(9), 545–549.
Remillard, J. (2012). Modes of engagement: Understanding teachers’ transactions with mathematics
curriculum resources. In G. Gueudet, et al. (Eds.), From text to ‘Lived’ resources: Mathematics
curriculum materials and teacher documentation (pp. 105–122). New York, NY: Springer.
Rosenblatt, L. M. (1980). What facts does this poem teach you? Language Arts, 57(4), 386–394.
Rosenblatt, L. M. (1982). The literary transaction: Evocation and response. Theory Into Practice,
21(4), 268–277.
Schorr, R. Y., & Goldin, G. A. (2008). Students’ expression of affect in an inner-city simcalc
classroom. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 68(2), 131–148.
Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (, which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate
credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and
indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative
Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by
statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder.
... • Rebellion: refusing to comply and actively diverting attention elsewhere (Schlechty, 2011). • Studenting: behaving in a way that does not lead to real learning (e.g., figuring out how to get high grades, what will be in the exam, how to 'beat the system') (Liljedahl, 2019) • Haven't received much attention FAKE ENGAGEMENT ...
Conference Paper
Full-text available
In order for students to learn a language, they need to engage with it. Sometimes, however, students are reluctant to engage seriously in these activities. At other times, they may even feign task engagement such as to please the teacher. These learners may disengage cognitively, emotionally, or behaviorally. This presentation will discuss how to address fake engagement and promote authentic learner engagement.
Full-text available
In this chapter I first introduce the notion of a thinking classroom and then present the results of over ten years of research done on the development and maintenance of thinking classrooms. Using a narrative style I tell the story of how a series of failed experiences in promoting problem solving in the classroom led first to the notion of a thinking classroom and then to a research project designed to find ways to help teacher build such a classroom. Results indicate that there are a number of relatively easy to implement teaching practices that can bypass the normative behaviours of almost any classroom and begin the process of developing a thinking classroom.
Full-text available
We address the complex affect that can occur when students in the social context of an urban, inner-city classroom engage in conceptually challenging mathematics. Building on some earlier work describing idealized affective pathways and their interaction with mathematical problem solving heuristics, we formulate and discuss the concept of an "archetypal affective structure". This refers to a recurring, idealized pattern, inferred from observations of classroom and interview tapes, that includes characteristic patterns of individual and social behavior, sequences of emotional states, "self-talk" and associated affective responses, meta-affect, and interactions with goals and strategic decision-making. We describe several examples of such affective structures that appear to have important consequences - positive and negative - for mathematics education. Affect and Conceptually Challenging Mathematics Skilled teachers often seek to engage students in conceptually challenging mathematical activity, where existing understandings are changed, new understandings gained, or new representations constructed. Conceptually challenging problems are typically nonroutine for the students, who at some point are likely to reach a point of impasse or blockage. Classroom social interactions around such mathematics may include students presenting ideas that are challenged by publicly by their peers. Disagreements are likely, with some students' conjectures turning out to be incorrect while others are accepted by the teacher or the class. Such situations can evoke strong emotional expressions, and may have lasting emotional effects. Large numbers of adults describe themselves as experiencing negative feelings in connection with mathematics - e.g., "math anxiety" - and many people recall painful or humiliating experiences they had as children in connection with school mathematics. At the same time, some describe important emotional breakthroughs - realizations of their own mathematical capabilities, or moments of profound satisfaction in mathematics. The authors are presently leading a major, exploratory study of affect as it occurs and develops in three middle school urban classrooms in low-income, predominantly minority communities in the United States (1). We are particularly interested in the development of powerful mathematical affect in students (McLeod, 1992, 1994; Goldin, 2000, 2007). By this we do not mean exclusively positive emotional feelings, such as curiosity, interest, and satisfaction - rather we mean affect that may include feelings such as impasse, frustration, and disappointment, but that contributes to mathematical engagement, persistence, problem-solving success, and achievement. The affective domain is beginning to receive long overdue attention from mathematics education researchers and cognitive scientists (Evans, 2000; Malmivuori, 2001; Leder, Pehkonen, & Törner, 2002; Dai & Sternberg, 2004; Hannula, 2002, 2004; Lesh, Hamilton, & Kaput, 2007). Much recent research has focused on individual expressions of affect during mathematical problem solving (e.g., Zan, Brown, Evans, & Hannula, 2006). This article, motivated by our desire to understand affect at the classroom level, discusses a theoretical construct that has emerged from a study of students' affect during interactions with their peers in urban, inner-city classrooms - a construct we term an archetypal affective structure. Preliminary descriptions of some of these structures as inferred from our observations, as well as further
What constitutes enjoyment of life? Optimal Experience offers a comprehensive survey of theoretical and empirical investigations of the 'flow' experience, a desirable or optimal state of consciousness that enhances a person's psychic state. The authors show the diverse contexts and circumstances in which flow is reported in different cultures, and describe its positive emotional impacts. They reflect on ways in which the ability to experience flow affects work satisfaction, academic success, and the overall quality of life
Engagement in mathematical problem-solving is an aspect of problem-solving that is often overlooked in our efforts to improve students’ problem-solving abilities. In this chapter, I look at these constructs through the lens of Csíkszentmihályi’s theory of flow. Studying the problem-solving habits of students within a problem-solving environment designed to induce flow, I look specifically at student behavior when there is an imbalance between students’ problem-solving skills and the challenge of the task at hand. Results indicate that students have higher than expected perseverance in the face of challenge, higher than expected tolerance in the face of the mundane, and use these as buffers while autonomously correcting the imbalance. Emerging from this research is an extension to Csíkszentmihályi’s theory of flow and support for the teaching methods emerging out of my earlier work on building thinking classrooms.
The author suggests that we apply recent research knowledge to improve our conceptualization, measures, and methodology for studying the effects of teachers' professional development on teachers and students. She makes the case that there is a research consensus to support the use of a set of core features and a common conceptual framework in professional development impact studies. She urges us to move away from automatic biases either for or against observation, interviews, or surveys in such studies. She argues that the use of a common conceptual framework would elevate the quality of professional development studies and subsequently the general understanding of how best to shape and implement teacher learning opportunities for the maximum benefit of both teachers and students.
In this article, the author answers specific questions: Just how do I foster an aesthetic stance? What types of activities encourage an efferent stance? She carefully explains her position--that the aesthetic stance in reading is missing in schools--and outlines what teachers must do to balance efferent reading with aesthetic. She also discusses the literary experiences of children across ages--from the young child acquiring language to the college student. Nurturing both efferent and aesthetic linguistic abilities, from the beginning and throughout the entire curriculum, will ensure success in the teaching of both kinds of reading.