A typology for inclusive mathematics education practices

Abstract This paper examines Inclusive Mathematics Education (IME) practices for students with Special Educational Needs (SEN) in upper primary and lower post‐primary settings. In response to the absence of shared conceptualisations of SEN and IME, the study adopts a conceptual research design and develops a typology grounded in analysis of existing literature. The aim was to categorise dominant forms of IME practice and to examine the SEN and inclusion contexts within which these practices are positioned. The analysis identified three principal approaches to SEN: General SEN, Specific SEN and Unidentified SEN. Two perspectives on inclusion were also identified, defined as Broad and Narrow. Across the reviewed studies, four dominant types of IME practice emerged: Teaching for Understanding, Constructivist Teaching, Differentiated Instruction and Teaching for Procedural Fluency. Each type comprised associated variants. This typology provides a foundational framework for conceptualising IME practice and highlights areas for further refinement, particularly where practices overlap or are multi‐typed.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Support for Learning
Published
2026-09-15
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9604.70073
Primary Topic
Mathematics Education and Teaching Techniques
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
article

A typology for inclusive mathematics education practices

Aisling Twohill, Helen Keenan
Support for Learning
Mathematics Education and Teaching Techniques
article

A typology for inclusive mathematics education practices

Aisling Twohill, Helen Keenan
article en

Abstract

Abstract This paper examines Inclusive Mathematics Education (IME) practices for students with Special Educational Needs (SEN) in upper primary and lower post‐primary settings. In response to the absence of shared conceptualisations of SEN and IME, the study adopts a conceptual research design and develops a typology grounded in analysis of existing literature. The aim was to categorise dominant forms of IME practice and to examine the SEN and inclusion contexts within which these practices are positioned. The analysis identified three principal approaches to SEN: General SEN, Specific SEN and Unidentified SEN. Two perspectives on inclusion were also identified, defined as Broad and Narrow. Across the reviewed studies, four dominant types of IME practice emerged: Teaching for Understanding, Constructivist Teaching, Differentiated Instruction and Teaching for Procedural Fluency. Each type comprised associated variants. This typology provides a foundational framework for conceptualising IME practice and highlights areas for further refinement, particularly where practices overlap or are multi‐typed.

Support for LearningVol. 41(4)
University of Ulster (GB), Dublin City University (IE)
Quality Education
Openalex Percentile: Top 2%
Mathematics Education and Teaching Techniques
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

A typology for inclusive mathematics education practices — Aisling Twohill, Helen Keenan · Support for Learning (2026) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS