ABSTRACT
The term ‘methodology’ is discussed before we consider the methodological contributions of each team of chapter authors (Cobb, Gresalfi & Hodge; Nathan, Eilam & Kim; and Saxe, Gearhart, Shaughnessy, Earnest, Cremer, Itabkhan, Platas & Young) and examine links between them. We generate questions arising from our analyses of the three chapters in this section and formulate views on classroom learning in mathematics that could be researched through complementary analyses. The subsequent discussion of data-collection instruments appropriate to further analyses is informed by our own research perspectives. This commentary concludes with a summary of what we have learnt through comparing the three methodologies and how simultaneously focusing on data from different theoretical perspectives might help to show the way forward in researching the richness of learning in classrooms.
