Success factors for a national problem-driven program aimed at enhancing affective performance in mathematics learning

Implementation-related research in mathematics education: the search for identity

“…This is because most of these papers simultaneously encompass several reasons. For example, Jaworski and Potari ( 2021) mentioned all five reasons as the motivation for their study, and many authors developed arguments that concern four reasons (e.g., Burkhardt & Schoenfeld, 2021;Krainer, 2021;Prytz, 2021) or three (e.g., Devlin, 2021;Jankvist et al, 2021aJankvist et al, , 2021bValoyes-Chávez & Felmer, 2021;Wang et al, 2021). In other words, most of the papers simultaneously elaborate on design and/or re-design issues, on the interplay of factors that influence the enactment and on aspects of implementation-related theory development.…”

“…Of course, there are also implementation programs, in which nearly symmetrical attention is given to both materialcentered and interaction-center innovations that complement each other (e.g., Diego-Mantecón et al, 2021;Jankvist et al, 2021aJankvist et al, , 2021bKarsenty, 2021;Roesken-Winter et al, 2021;Wang et al, 2021). Such programs concern innovations that can be seen as mixed or material-interactive.…”

“…Overall, this seems to belong to the interaction-centered type of object, or to the mixed material-interactive type, but never to the material-centered type only. Actually, research as an object of implementation is alluded to in many studies as a conjunction of approaches, resources, organizational models or theories developed in the past within an organizational frame called 'research' (e.g., Burkhardt & Schoenfeld, 2021;Wang et al, 2021). Some authors avoid the use of the collocation 'implementation of research' and talk about 'implementation of researchbased innovations' (e.g., Jaworski & Potari, 2021;Roesken-Winter et al, 2021).…”

“…Interestingly, both studies focus on tensions and pitfalls of implementation. In contrast, the studies, in which 'the object of change' is not pre-defined but co-constructed under a flexible theoretical umbrella (e.g., Cai & Hwang, 2021;Valoyes-Chávez & Felmer, 2021) are essentially described as 'success stories', in the following meaning: they extensively report on learning gains in the process of implementation (and sometimes also in its outcomes; see Wang et al, 2021), and focus less on tensions and pitfalls of the implementation processes. This leads us to a paramount question, addressed in the next section: who decides on what 'the object of change' should or can be, and on what is this decision based?…”

“…Scaling up is achieved to different extents. Finally, scenario (iii), in which policy makers initiate the change, on their own or in collaboration with researchers, appears in papers by Krainer (2021), Tamborg (2021), Valoyes-Chávez andFelmer (2021) and Wang et al, (2021). Not surprisingly, projects in which policy makers are involved from the beginning always aim to implement at scale, projects in which researchers are proponents of innovations vary in this respect, and projects initiated by teachers are neutral with regard to upscaling.…”