International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education

International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education Indexed in ESCI
Meaningful Learning in Mathematics: A Research Synthesis of Teaching Approaches
In-text citation: (Koskinen & Pitkäniemi, 2022)
Reference: Koskinen, R., & Pitkäniemi, H. (2022). Meaningful Learning in Mathematics: A Research Synthesis of Teaching Approaches. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 17(2), em0679.
In-text citation: (1), (2), (3), etc.
Reference: Koskinen R, Pitkäniemi H. Meaningful Learning in Mathematics: A Research Synthesis of Teaching Approaches. INT ELECT J MATH ED. 2022;17(2), em0679.
In-text citation: (Koskinen and Pitkäniemi, 2022)
Reference: Koskinen, Rauno, and Harri Pitkäniemi. "Meaningful Learning in Mathematics: A Research Synthesis of Teaching Approaches". International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education 2022 17 no. 2 (2022): em0679.
In-text citation: (Koskinen and Pitkäniemi, 2022)
Reference: Koskinen, R., and Pitkäniemi, H. (2022). Meaningful Learning in Mathematics: A Research Synthesis of Teaching Approaches. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 17(2), em0679.
In-text citation: (Koskinen and Pitkäniemi, 2022)
Reference: Koskinen, Rauno et al. "Meaningful Learning in Mathematics: A Research Synthesis of Teaching Approaches". International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, vol. 17, no. 2, 2022, em0679.
In-text citation: (1), (2), (3), etc.
Reference: Koskinen R, Pitkäniemi H. Meaningful Learning in Mathematics: A Research Synthesis of Teaching Approaches. INT ELECT J MATH ED. 2022;17(2):em0679.


The premise on which our synthesis is based is the fragmentation of research focused on teaching and learning in mathematics. Our intention is to build an aggregate synthesis from these sources in the context of school education and meaningful learning. Our research targets the links between the different approaches used in teaching, interaction during the teaching-learning process and learning outcomes. Methodologically, our dataset consists of qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods studies and meta-analyses. An EBSCO search produced 69 analysis-eligible publications from 2007-2019. According to our findings, the use of contextual, concrete and social approaches promotes meaningful learning in mathematics, although with certain refinements. The analyses revealed that high-quality learning in mathematics requires guidance during student activities and evaluation with immediate feedback during the teaching-learning process. It also requires the skill among teachers to choose suitable contexts and learning tools, and to focus the students’ communication on what is relevant. Additional significant factors in a meaningful learning process include an affectively favourable classroom atmosphere and teachers who treat their students as individuals.


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).


  • Abdulrahim, N. A., & Orosco, M. J. (2020). Culturally responsive mathematics teaching: A research synthesis. Urban Review, 52(1), 1-15.
  • Al-Washmi, R., Blanchfield, P., & Hopkins, G. (2015). The efficacy of digital games to teach mathematics. In Proceedings of the 8th Annual International Conference on Computer Games, Multimedia & Allied Technology 2015, 148-154.
  • Amador, J. M. (2016). Teachers’ considerations of students’ thinking during mathematics lesson design. School Science & Mathematics, 116(5), 239-252.
  • Azigwe, J. B., Kyriakides, L., Panayiotou, A., & Creemers, B. P. M. (2016). The impact of effective teaching characteristics in promoting student achievement in Ghana. International Journal of Educational Development, 51, 51-61.
  • Benavides-Varela, S., Zandonella Callegher, C., Fagiolini, B., Leo, I., Altoè, G., & Lucangeli, D. (2021). Effectiveness of digital-based interventions for children with mathematical learning difficulties: A meta-analysis. Computers & Education, 157, 103953.
  • Bernacki, M. L., & Walkington, C. (2018). The role of situational interest in personalized learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 110(6), 864-881.
  • Berthold, K., & Renkl, A. (2009). Instructional aids to support a conceptual understanding of multiple representations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(1), 70-87.
  • Brey, A., & Tagney, B. (2018). Technology usage in mathematics education research—A systematic review of recent trends. Computers & Education, 114, 255-273.
  • Brezovszky, B., McMullen, J., Veermans, K., Hannula-Sormunen, M. M., Rodríguez-Aflecht, G., Pongsakdi, N., Laakkonen, E., & Lehtinen, E. (2019). Effects of a mathematics game-based learning environment on primary school students’ adaptive number knowledge. Computers & Education, 128, 63-74.
  • Byun, J., & Joung, E. (2018). Digital game‐based learning for K–12 mathematics education: A meta‐analysis. School Science & Mathematics, 118(3/4), 113-126.
  • Cai, J., Wang, N., Moyer, J. C., Wang, C., & Nie, B. (2011). Longitudinal investigation of the curricular effect: An analysis of student learning outcomes from the LieCal Project in the United States. International Journal of Educational Research, 50(2), 117-136.
  • Cai, S., Liu, E., Yang, Y., & Liang, J.‐C. (2019). Tablet‐based AR technology: Impacts on students’ conceptions and approaches to learning mathematics according to their self‐efficacy. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(1), 248-263.
  • Capar, G., & Tarim, K. (2015). Efficacy of the cooperative learning method on mathematics achievement and attitude: A meta-analysis research. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 15(2), 553-559.
  • Carbonneau, K. J., Marley, S. C., & Selig, J. P. (2013). A meta-analysis of the efficacy of teaching mathematics with concrete manipulatives. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(2), 380-400.
  • Chadli, A., Tranvouez, E., Dahmani, Y., Bendella, F., & Belmabrouk, K. (2018). An empirical investigation into student’s mathematical word‐based problem‐solving process: A computerized approach. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 34(6), 928-938.
  • Chazan, D., Herbst, P., & Clark, L. (2016). Research on the teaching of mathematics: A call to theorize the role of society and schooling in mathematics instruction. In D. Gitomer, & C. Bell (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 1039-1097). American Educational Research Association.
  • Christie, B., Beames, S., & Higgins, P. (2016). Context, culture and critical thinking: Scottish secondary school teachers’ and pupils’ experiences of outdoor learning. British Educational Research Journal, 42(3), 417-437.
  • Csapó, B. (2007). Research into learning to learn through the assessment of quality and organization of learning outcomes. Curriculum Journal, 18(2), 195-210.
  • Daschmann, E. C., Goetz, T., & Stupnisky, R. H. (2011). Testing the predictors of boredom at school: Development and validation of the precursors to boredom scales. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(3), 421-440.
  • Davis, J. D. (2014). Reasoning-and-proving within Ireland’s reform-oriented national syllabi. Mathematics Enthusiast, 11(3), 665-705.
  • Dennis, M. S., Sharp, E., Chovanes, J., Thomas, A., Burns, R. M., Custer, B., & Park, J. (2016). A meta-analysis of empirical research on teaching students with mathematics learning difficulties. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 31(3), 156-168.
  • Di Leo, I., Muis, K. R., Singh, C. A., & Psaradellis, C. (2019). Curiosity... confusion? Frustration! The role and sequencing of emotions during mathematics problem solving. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 58, 121-137.
  • Duijzer, C., Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M., Veldhuis, M., Doorman, M., & Leseman, P. (2019) Embodied learning environments for graphing motion: A systematic literature review. Educational Psychology Review, 31(3), 597-629.
  • Eames, C. L., Graf, E. A., van Rijn, P. W., Budzban, G., & Voepel, T. (2021). The finite-to-finite strand of a learning progression for the concept of function: A research synthesis and cognitive analysis. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 62, 100864.
  • Ferrucci, B. J., McDougall, J., & Carter, J. (2009/2010). Getting a BEAD on it. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 15(5), 268-273.
  • Finfgeld, D. L. (2003). Metasynthesis: The state of the art–so far. Qualitative Health Research, 13(7), 893-904.
  • Fuchs, L. S., Compton, D. L., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C. L., DeSelms, J., Seethaler, P. M., Wilson, J., Craddock, C. F., Bryant, J. D., Luther, K., Geary, D. C., Schatschneider, C., & Changas, P. (2013). Effects of first-grade number knowledge tutoring with contrasting forms of practice. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(1), 58-77.
  • Fuchs, L. S., Compton, D. L., Fuchs, D., Hollenbeck, K. N., Craddock, C. F., & Hamlett, C. L. (2008a). Dynamic assessment of algebraic learning in predicting third graders’ development of mathematical problem solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(4), 829-850.
  • Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Powell, S. R., Seethaler, P. M., Cirino, P. T., & Fletcher, J. M. (2008b). Intensive intervention for students with mathematics disabilities: seven principles of effective practice. Learning Disability Quarterly, 31(2), 79-92.
  • Ge, L. (2012). Sequences of multiple representations in mathematics education. Journal of Applied Global Research, 5(14), 10-18.
  • Gresalfi, M., Martin, T., Hand, V., & Greeno, J. (2009). Constructing competence: an analysis of student participation in the activity systems of mathematics classrooms. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 70(1), 49-70.
  • Guo, J.-P., Yang, L.-Y., & Ding, Y. (2014). Effects of example variability and prior knowledge in how students learn to solve equations. European Journal of Psychology of Education–EJPE (Springer Science & Business Media B.V.), 29(1), 21-42.
  • Hainey, T., Connolly, T. M., Boyle, E. A., Wilson, A., & Razak A. (2016). A systematic literature review of games-based learning empirical evidence in primary education. Computers & Education, 102, 202-223.
  • Hiebert, J., & Wearne, D. (1992). Links between teaching and learning place value with understanding in first grade. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 23(2), 98-122.
  • Hofmann, R., & Ruthven, K. (2018). Operational, interpersonal, discussional and ideational dimensions of classroom norms for dialogic practice in school mathematics. British Educational Research Journal, 44(3), 496-514.
  • Howard, S., & Crotty, Y. (2017). The potential of an interactive game-based software to motivate high-achieving maths students at primary school level. Electronic Journal of Mathematics & Technology, 11(2), 112-127.
  • Hughes, E. M., Lee, J-Y., Cook, M. J., & Riccomini, P. J. (2019). Exploratory study of a self-regulation mathematical writing strategy: Proof-of-concept. Learning Disabilities—A Contemporary Journal, 17(2), 185-203.
  • Huy, P. P. (2014). An integrated framework involving enactive learning experiences, mastery goals, and academic engagement-disengagement. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 10(1), 41-66.
  • Jorgensen, R., & Niesche, R. (2008). Equity, mathematics and classroom practice: Developing rich mathematical experiences for disadvantaged students. Australian Primary Mathematics Classroom, 13(4), 21-27.
  • Kainose Mhlolo, M., & Schafer, M. (2013). Consistencies far beyond chance: An analysis of learner preconceptions of reflective symmetry. South African Journal of Education, 33(2), 1-17.
  • Kapur, M. (2014). Productive failure in learning math. Cognitive Science, 38(5), 1008-1022.
  • Ke, F. (2008). Computer games application within alternative classroom goal structures: Cognitive, metacognitive, and affective evaluation. Educational Technology Research & Development, 56(5/6), 539-556.
  • Kim, N. J., Belland, B. R., & Walker, A. E. (2018). Effectiveness of computer-based scaffolding in the context of problem-based learning for Stem education: Bayesian meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 30(2), 397-429.
  • Kiuru, N., Aunola, K., Lerkkanen, M.-K., Pakarinen, E., Poskiparta, E., Ahonen, T., Poikkeus, A.-M., & Nurmi, J.-E. (2015). Positive teacher and peer relations combine to predict primary school students’ academic skill development. Developmental Psychology, 51(4), 434-446.
  • Kong, S. C. (2008). The development of a cognitive tool for teaching and learning fractions in the mathematics classroom: A design-based study. Computers & Education, 51(2), 886-899.
  • Kul, U., & Celik, C. (2020). A meta-analysis of the impact of problem posing strategies on students’ learning of mathematics. Romanian Journal for Multidimensional Education, 12(3), 341-368.
  • Leary, H., & Walker, A. (2018). Meta-analysis and meta-synthesis methodologies: Rigorously piecing together research. TechTrends, 62(5), 525-534.
  • Lein, A. E., Jitenda, A. K., & Harwell, M. R. (2020). Effectiveness of mathematical word problem solving interventions for students with learning disabilities and/or mathematics difficulties: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 112(7), 1388-1408.
  • Liu, M., Bryant, D. P., Kiru, E., & Nozari, M. (2021). Geometry interventions for students with learning disabilities: A research synthesis. Learning Disabilty Quarterly, 44(1), 23-34.
  • Marshall, J. H., Ung, C., Nessay, P., Ung, N. H., Savoeun, V., Tinon, S., & Veasna, M. (2009). Student achievement and education policy in a period of rapid expansion. International Review of Education, 55(4), 393-413.
  • Matos, L., Lens, W., Vansteenkiste, M., & Mouratidis, A. (2017). Optimal motivation in Peruvian high schools: Should learners pursue and teachers promote mastery goals, performance-approach goals or both? Learning & Individual Differences, 55, 87-96.
  • Mavridis, A., Katmada, A., & Tsiatsos, T. (2017). Impact of online flexible games on students’ attitude towards mathematics. Educational Technology Research & Development, 65(6), 1451-1470.
  • McKenna, J. W., Shin, M., & Ciullo, S. (2015). Evaluating reading and mathematics instruction for students with learning disabilities: A synthesis of observation research. Learning Disabilty Quarterly, 38(4), 195-207.
  • Miller, S. C., & Lindt, S. F. (2018). Engaging elementary students through movement integration in mathematics and reading—An exploratory study to understand teacher’s perceptions. Curriculum & Teaching Dialogue, 20(1-2), 31-43.
  • Modiba, M. (2011). Even the ‘best’ teachers may need adequate subject knowledge: An illustrative mathematics case study. Research in Education, 85(1), 1-16.
  • Muis, K. R., Psaradellis, C., Chevrier, M., Di Leo, I., & Lajoie, S. P. (2016). Learning by preparing to teach: Fostering self-regulatory processes and achievement during complex mathematics problem solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(4), 474-492.
  • National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2014). Principles to actions: Ensuring mathematical success for all. Author.
  • Ni, Y., & Cai, J. (2011). Searching for evidence of curricular effect on the teaching and learning of mathematics: Lessons learned from the two projects. International Journal of Educational Research, 50(2), 137-143.
  • Ni, Y., Li, Q., Li, X., & Zhang, Z.-H. (2011). Influence of curriculum reform: An analysis of student mathematics achievement in Mainland China. International Journal of Educational Research, 50(2), 100-116.
  • Ni, Y., Zhou, D.-H. R., Cai, J., Li, X., Li, Q., & Sun, I. X. (2018). Improving cognitive and affective learning outcomes of students through mathematics instructional tasks of high cognitive demand. Journal of Educational Research, 111(6), 704-719.
  • Nilsen, T., & Gustafsson, J. E. (2016). Teacher quality, instructional quality and student outcomes. Relationships across countries, cohorts and time. Springer International Publishing.
  • Nizami, A. W., & Mahmudi, A. (2018). Problem-solving-based learning to improve students’ learning interest. AIP Conference Proceedings, 2014(1), 1-6.
  • Norqvist, M., Jonsson, B., Lithner, J., Qwillbard, T., & Holm, L. (2019). Investigating algorithmic and creative reasoning strategies by eye tracking. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 55, 1-14.
  • Núñez Castellar, E., Van Looy, J., Szmalec, A., & de Marez, L. (2014). Improving arithmetic skills through gameplay: Assessment of the effectiveness of an educational game in terms of cognitive and affective learning outcomes. Information Sciences, 264, 19-31.
  • Nye, E., Melendez-Torres, J. G., & Bonell, C. (2016). Origins, methods and advances in qualitative meta-synthesis. Review of Education, 4(1), 57-79.
  • O’Connor, C., Michaels, S., Chapin, S., & Harbaugh, A. G. (2017). The silent and the vocal: Participation and learning in whole-class discussion. Learning & Instruction, 48, 5-13.
  • Ok, M. W., Bryant, D. P., & Bryant, B. R. (2020). Effects of computer-assisted instruction on the mathematics performance of students with learning disabilities: A synthesis of the research. Exceptionality, 28(1), 30-44.
  • Olteanu, C., & Holmqvist, M. (2012). Differences in success in solving second-degree equations due to differences in classroom instruction. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science & Technology, 43(5), 575-587.
  • Pampaka, M., Williams, J., Hutcheson, G., Wake, G., Black, L., Davis, P., & Hernandez‐Martinez, P. (2012). The association between mathematics pedagogy and learners’ dispositions for university study. British Educational Research Journal, 38(3), 473-496.
  • Reed, H. C., Drijvers, P., & Kirschner, P. A. (2010). Effects of attitudes and behaviours on learning mathematics with computer tools. Computers & Education, 55(1), 1-15.
  • Reid, J., & Carmichael, C. (2015). A taste of Asia with statistics and technology. Australian Primary Mathematics Classroom, 20(1), 10-15.
  • Richey, J. E., Andres-Bray, J. M. L., Mogessie, M., Scruggs, R., Andres, J. M. A. L., Star, J. R., Baker, R. S., & McLaren, B. M. (2019). More confusion and frustration, better learning: The impact of erroneous examples. Computers & Education, 139, 173-190.
  • Richland, L. E., Begolli, K. N., Simms, N., Frausel, R. R., & Lyons, E. A. (2017). Supporting mathematical discussions: The roles of comparison and cognitive load. Educational Psychology Review, 29(1), 1-13.
  • Rittle-Johnson, B., Star, J. R., & Durkin, K. (2012). Developing procedural flexibility: Are novices prepared to learn from comparing procedures? British Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(3), 436-455.
  • Rodríguez‐Aflecht, G., Jaakkola, T., Pongsakdi, N., Hannula‐Sormunen, M., Brezovszky, B., & Lehtinen, E. (2018). The development of situational interest during a digital mathematics game. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 34(3), 259-268.
  • Schwonke, R., Renkl, A., Salden, R., & Aleven, V. (2011). Effects of different ratios of worked solution steps and problem solving opportunities on cognitive load and learning outcomes. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(1), 58-62.
  • Simões, F., & Alarcão, M. (2014). The moderating influence of perceived competence in learning on mentored students’ school performance. Learning & Individual Differences, 32, 212-218.
  • Singer, F. M. (2009). The dynamic infrastructure of mind—A hypothesis and some of its applications. New Ideas in Psychology, 27(1), 48-74.
  • Slavin, R. E., Lake, C., & Groff, C. (2009). Effective programs in middle and high school mathematics: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 79(2), 839-911.
  • Smith, J. M., & Mancy, R. (2018). Exploring the relationship between metacognitive and collaborative talk during group mathematical problem-solving—What do we mean by collaborative metacognition? Research in Mathematics Education, 20(1), 14-36.
  • Souvignier, E., & Kronenberger, J. (2007). Cooperative learning in third graders’ jigsaw groups for mathematics and science with and without questioning training. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(4), 755-771.
  • Sun, C.-T., Ye, S.-H., & Hsieh, H.-C. (2014). Effects of student characteristics and question design on Internet search results usage in a Taiwanese classroom. Computers & Education, 77, 134-144.
  • Thunder, K., & Berry, R. (2016). The promise of qualitative metasynthesis for mathematics education. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 47(4), 318-337.
  • Tokac, U., Novak, E., & Thompson, C. G. (2019). Effects of game‐based learning on students’ mathematics achievement: A meta‐analysis. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 35(3), 407-420.
  • Tumkaya, S., & Ulum, H. (2020). A systematical review of the approaches enhancing the mathematics achievement. Journal of Education Culture and Society, 11(2), 171-182.
  • van der Kleij, F. M., Feskens, R. C. W., & Eggen, T. J. H. M. (2015). Effects of feedback in a computer-based learning environment on students’ learning outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 85(4), 475-511.
  • Venkat, H., & Brown, M. (2009). Examining the implementation of the mathematics strand of the key stage 3 strategy: what are the bases of evaluation? British Educational Research Journal, 35(1), 5-24.
  • Vetter, M., Orr, R., O’Dwyer, N., & O’Connor, H. (2020). Effectiveness of active learning that combines physical activity and math in schoolchildren: A systematic review. Journal of School Health, 90(4), 306-318.
  • Vista, A. (2013). The role of reading comprehension in maths achievement growth: Investigating the magnitude and mechanism of the mediating effect on maths achievement in Australian classrooms. International Journal of Educational Research, 62(6), 21-35.
  • Vitale, J. M., Black, J. B., & Swart, M. I. (2014). Applying grounded coordination challenges to concrete learning materials: A study of number line estimation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(2), 403-418.
  • Volk, M., Cotič, M., Zajc, M., & Istenic Starcic, A. (2017). Tablet-based cross-curricular maths vs. traditional maths classroom practice for higher-order learning outcomes. Computers & Education, 114, 1-23.
  • Wakefield, E., Novack, M. A., Congdon, E. L., Franconeri, S., & Goldin‐Meadow, S. (2018). Gesture helps learners learn, but not merely by guiding their visual attention. Developmental Science, 21(6), 1-12.
  • Wolgemuth, J.R., Hicks, T., & Agosto, V. (2017). Unpacking assumptions in research synthesis: A critical construct synthesis approach. Educational Researcher, 46(3), 131-139.
  • Wood, M. B., & Kalinec, C. A. (2012). Student talk and opportunities for mathematical learning in small group interactions. International Journal of Educational Research, 51-52, 109-127.
  • Xie, C., Cheung, A. C. K., Lau, W. W. F., & Slavin, R. E. (2020). The effects of computer-assisted instruction on mathematics achievement in Mainland China: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Educational Research, 102, 101565.
  • Ziegler, E., Edelsbrunner, P. A., & Stern, E. (2018). The relative merits of explicit and implicit learning of contrasted algebra principles. Educational Psychology Review, 30(2), 531-558.


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.