International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education

International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education Indexed in ESCI
Lesson Plans as a Mirror: A Close Look at Planning of Work with Underachieving Students
In-text citation: (Guberman & Tsybulsky, 2021)
Reference: Guberman, R., & Tsybulsky, D. (2021). Lesson Plans as a Mirror: A Close Look at Planning of Work with Underachieving Students. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 16(1), em0621.
In-text citation: (1), (2), (3), etc.
Reference: Guberman R, Tsybulsky D. Lesson Plans as a Mirror: A Close Look at Planning of Work with Underachieving Students. INT ELECT J MATH ED. 2021;16(1), em0621.
In-text citation: (Guberman and Tsybulsky, 2021)
Reference: Guberman, Raisa, and Dina Tsybulsky. "Lesson Plans as a Mirror: A Close Look at Planning of Work with Underachieving Students". International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education 2021 16 no. 1 (2021): em0621.
In-text citation: (Guberman and Tsybulsky, 2021)
Reference: Guberman, R., and Tsybulsky, D. (2021). Lesson Plans as a Mirror: A Close Look at Planning of Work with Underachieving Students. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 16(1), em0621.
In-text citation: (Guberman and Tsybulsky, 2021)
Reference: Guberman, Raisa et al. "Lesson Plans as a Mirror: A Close Look at Planning of Work with Underachieving Students". International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, vol. 16, no. 1, 2021, em0621.
In-text citation: (1), (2), (3), etc.
Reference: Guberman R, Tsybulsky D. Lesson Plans as a Mirror: A Close Look at Planning of Work with Underachieving Students. INT ELECT J MATH ED. 2021;16(1):em0621.


The study investigates mathematics lesson plans that teachers produced for re-teaching purposes. Its goal is to determine which aspects of mathematics-content knowledge are expressed in lesson plans on the topic of fractions prepared by primary math teachers and intended for underachieving students, and to see how these aspects are manifested.
The data were gathered in an analysis of forty-nine lesson plans that the participating teachers prepared. The data were analysed in two phases: (1) a category analysis of the plans and (2) a statistical analysis of the data obtained, via cluster analysis and ANOVA tests.
The findings point to four types of teachers in terms of their mathematical knowledge: (1) those whose knowledge is faulty; (2) those who have incomplete or scanty understanding of math but know how to phrase a mathematical idea correctly; (3) those who understand mathematical content well but are not strict about correctly describing the “mathematics” that they teach in the lesson; and (4) those thoroughly versed in mathematics, from whose lesson plans one may infer both correct wording of the mathematical idea and consistently correct use of mathematical concepts and principles. Despite the differences in their content knowledge, teachers of all four types planned to teach their students at a procedural level while attempting to impart conceptual knowledge—most likely because they expect little of their underachieving students. Practical recommendations derived from the study are offered.


Declaration of Conflict of Interest: No conflict of interest is declared by author(s).

Data sharing statement: Data supporting the findings and conclusions are available upon request from the corresponding author(s).


  • Archer, A., & Hughes, C. (2011). Explicit instruction: Effective and efficient teaching. New York: Guilford.
  • Ashman, A., & Elkins, J. (2009). Educating students with diverse disabilities. French Forest (NSW): Prentice Hall.
  • Ausubel, D. P. (1978). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston Inc.
  • Baxter, J. A., Woodward, J., & Olson, D. (2001). Effects of reform-based mathematics instruction on low achievers in five third-grade classrooms. The Elementary School Journal, 101(5), 529-547.‏
  • Bellert, A. (2015). Effective re-teaching. Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties, 20(2), 163-183.‏
  • Bellert, A., & Graham, L. (2017). Educational approaches for students experiencing learning difficulties. In J. C. Horvath, J. M. Lodge, & J. Hattie (Eds.), From the laboratory to the classroom: Translating science of learning for teachers (pp. 229-250). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
  • Beswick, K. (2008). Influencing teachers’ beliefs about teaching mathematics for numeracy to students with mathematics learning difficulties. Mathematics Teacher Education and Development, 9, 3-20.
  • Brophy, J. (1996). Teaching problem students. New York: Guilford.
  • Bryant, D. P., Bryant, B. R., Gersten, R., Scammacca, N., & Chavez, M. M. (2008). Mathematics intervention for first-and second-grade students with mathematics difficulties: The effects of tier 2 intervention delivered as booster lessons. Remedial and Special Education, 29(1), 20-32.
  • Cai, J. (2005). U.S. and Chinese teachers’ constructing, knowing, and representations to teach mathematics. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 7(2), 135-169.
  • Cai, J., & Wang, T. (2006). US and Chinese teachers’ conceptions and constructions of representations: A case of teaching ratio concept. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 4(1), 145-186.
  • Cavey, L. O., & Berenson, S. B. (2005). Learning to teach high school mathematics: Patterns of growth in understanding right triangle trigonometry during lesson plan study. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 24(2), 171-190.
  • Davis, G. A., & Rimm, S. B. (2018). Gifted education: Matching instruction with needs. In Education of the gifted and talented (pp. 1-24).‏ United States: Pearson.
  • Gervasoni, A., & Lindenskov, L. (2011). Students with “special rights” for mathematics education. In B. Atweh, M. Graven, & P. Valero (Eds.), Mapping equity and quality in mathematics education (pp. 307-324). New York: Springer.
  • Good, T. L., & Brophy, J. E. (1990). Educational psychology: A realistic approach. Longman/Addison Wesley.
  • Guberman, R. (2016). Development of Arithmetical Thinking: Evaluation of Subject Matter Knowledge of Pre-Service Teachers in Order to Design the Appropriate Course. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 14(4), 739-755.
  • Guberman, R., & Leikin, R. (2013). Interesting and difficult mathematical problems: changing teachers’ views by employing multiple-solution tasks. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 16(1), 33-56.
  • Guskey, T. R. (2010). Lessons of mastery learning. Educational Leadership, 68(2), 52-57.
  • Hammond, J., & Gibbons, P. (2005). What is scaffolding. Teachers’ Voices, 8, 8-16.‏
  • Hill, H. C., Charalambous, C. Y., & Chin, M. J. (2018). Teacher Characteristics and student learning in mathematics: A comprehensive assessment. Educational Policy.
  • Hornstra, L., Denessen, E., Bakker, J., van den Bergh, L., & Voeten, M. (2010). Teacher attitudes toward dyslexia: Effects on teacher expectations and the academic achievement of students with dyslexia. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 43(6), 515-529.
  • Isoda, M., Stephens, M., Ohara, Y., & Miyakawa, T. (2007). Japanese lesson study in mathematics: Its impact, diversity and potential for educational improvement. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing,
  • Kameenui, E. J., & Carnine, D. W. (1998). Effective teaching strategies that accommodate diverse learners. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
  • Karsenty, R. (2010). Nonprofessional mathematics tutoring for low-achieving students in secondary schools: A case study. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 74(1), 1-21.
  • Karsenty, R., & Arcavi, A. (2003). Learning and thinking characteristics of low achievers in mathematics. Report submitted to the Israel Ministry of Education. Science Teaching Department, Weizmann Institute of Science (in Hebrew).
  • Karsenty, R., Arcavi, A., & Hadas, N. (2007). Exploring informal mathematical products of low achievers at the secondary school level. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 26(2), 156-177.
  • Keijzer, R., & Terwel, J. (2004). A low-achiever’s learning process in mathematics: Shirley’s fraction learning. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 39(2), 10-23.‏
  • Lalley, J. P., & Miller, R. H. (2006). Effects of pre-teaching and re-teaching on math achievement and academic self-concept of students with low achievement in math. Education, 126(4), 747-756.‏
  • Le, V. Y., Stecher, B. M., Lockwood, J. R., Hamilton, L. S., Robyn, A., Williams, V. L., ... Klein, S. P. (2006). Improving mathematics and science education: A longitudinal investigation of the relationship between reform-oriented instruction and student achievement. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.
  • Li, Y., Chen, X., & Kulm, G. (2009). Mathematics teachers’ practices and thinking in lesson plan development: A case of teaching fraction division. ZDM, 41(6), 717-731.‏
  • Maloney, E. A., & Beilock, S. L. (2012). Math anxiety: Who has it, why it develops, and how to guard against it. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16(8), 404-406.‏
  • Marzano, R. J. (2010). Reviving re-teaching. Educational Leadership, 68(2), 82-83.
  • Montague, M. (2011). Effective instruction in mathematics for students with learning difficulties. In C. Wyatt-Smith, J. Elkins & S. Gunn (Eds.), Multiple perspectives on difficulties in learning literacy and numeracy (pp. 295-313). Netherlands: Springer.
  • Morgan, P. L., Farkas, G., & Maczuga, S. (2015). Which instructional practices most help first-grade students with and without mathematics difficulties? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 37(2), 184-205.
  • Moser Opitz, E., Freesemann, O., Prediger, S., Grob, U., Matull, I., & Hußmann, S. (2017). Remediation for students with mathematics difficulties: An intervention study in middle schools. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 50(6), 724-736.‏
  • Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307-332.
  • Peltenburg, M., van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M., & Robitzsch, A. (2012). Special education students’ use of indirect addition in solving subtraction problems up to 100—A proof of the didactical potential of an ignored procedure. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 79(3), 351-369.
  • Peterson, E. R., Rubie-Davies, C., Osborne, D., & Sibley, C. (2016). Teachers’ explicit expectations and implicit prejudiced attitudes to educational achievement: Relations with student achievement and the ethnic achievement gap. Learning and Instruction, 42, 123-140.
  • Phillipson, S.N. (2008). The optimal achievement model and underachievement in Hong Kong: An application of the Rasch model. Psychology Science Quarterly, 50(2), 147-172.
  • Schenke, K., Nguyen, T., Watts, T. W., Sarama, J., & Clements, D. H. (2017). Differential effects of the classroom on African American and non-African American’s mathematics achievement. Journal of educational psychology, 109(6), 794-811.
  • Scherer, P., Beswick, K., DeBlois, L., Healy, L., & Opitz, E. M. (2016). Assistance of students with mathematical learning difficulties: How can research support practice? ZDM, 48(5), 633-649.
  • Shing, Y. L., & Brod, G. (2016). Effects of prior knowledge on memory: Implications for education. Mind, Brain, and Education, 10(3), 153-161.‏
  • Stein, M. K., Grover, B. W., & Henningsen, M. (1996). Building student capacity for mathematical thinking and reasoning: An analysis of mathematical tasks used in reform classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 33(2), 455-488.
  • Stein, M., Silbert, J., & Carnine, D. W. (2004). Designing effective mathematics instruction (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  • Straehler-Pohl, H., Fernández, S., Gellert, U., & Figueiras, L. (2014). School mathematics registers in a context of low academic expectations. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 85(2), 175-199.‏
  • Sullivan, Z. T. (1991). Theory for the untheoretical: Rereading and re-teaching Austen, Bronte, and Conrad. College English, 53(5), 571-579.
  • Valk, T. & Broekman, H. G. B. (1999). The lesson preparation method: A way of investigating pre-service teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. European Journal of Teacher Education, 22(1), 11-22.
  • Van de Walle, J. A., Karp, K. S., & Bay-Williams, J. M. (2013). Elementary and middle school mathematics: Teaching developmentally. United States: Pearson.
  • Van Kesteren, M. T., Rijpkema, M., Ruiter, D. J., Morris, R. G., & Fernández, G. (2014). Building on prior knowledge: Schema-dependent encoding processes relate to academic performance. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 26(10(, 2250-2261.
  • Verschaffel, L., & De Corte, E. (1995). Teaching realistic mathematical modeling in the elementary school. A teaching experiment with fifth graders. In L. Meira, & D. Carraher (Eds.), Proceedings of the 19th PME Conference (pp. 105-112). Recife, Brazil: Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Graduate Program in Cognitive Psychology.
  • Wyatt-Smith, C., Elkins, J., & Gunn, S. (Eds.), (2011). Multiple perspectives on difficulties in learning literacy and numeracy. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.
  • Zohar, A., Degani, A., & Vaaknin, E. (2001). Teachers’ beliefs about low-achieving students and higher order thinking. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(4), 469-485.


This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.