 So, I'm at the Swedish Institute for Educational Research. We started in 2015 and this autumn we published our first systematic reviews. It was, and I'm going to talk about one of them. We do systematic reviews for teachers on teaching. So, the teacher are meant to be able to use them in their teaching. And they plan when they perform their teaching. I will stick quite close to my manuscript. My English is not so good as the previous presenters. But I hope I will try to take it slow also. So, you understand what I'm saying. This systematic reviews, we conducted it in a project group consisted of my colleagues at the institute, Ida, who is here today. Eva Bergman, Maria Bergman, Sara Fundell. And we also got great help from another colleague, Linda Ekström, with a response on her manuscript. And we also had two researchers in the project. It was Eva Noreen, who is at Stockholm University, and Joakim Samusson at Linköping University. I'm going to concentrate this presentation to the actual synthesis. But also, in brief, say something about the different steps in the systematic review process. As you know, there are different steps in the systematic review. There are the search strategies, inclusion criteria, relevance and quality appraisal, and the synthesis. And beyond these commonalities, there are considerable diversity, as you know. Since the methods used depend on the review question and the primary research included in the review, and one thing that differs is the synthesis. They are broadly characterized as either aggregative synthesis or configurative synthesis. And we have done a qualitative analysis, and so we have followed the logic of configuration. And so the aggregative synthesis follow more of a quantitative analysis. And configuration. We have a definition of this from Sandalowski. It's the action of placing study findings alongside one another in order to build up a picture of the whole and how they relate to one another. The references, the literature that I have cited, I have a list in the end of the presentation, so you can get it there if you want to read more. So you know that there is an ongoing discussion about the need for developing methods for synthesizing this kind of research, qualitative results. And one example, of course, is this workshop. In a large part of educational research are of a qualitative character, and the discussion is going on also there. And one example of this is from an article talking about the need for synthesizing educational research. And this systematic review that I'm talking about is about mathematics education, so that's why I'm taking this. So mathematics education has benefited from qualitative methodological approaches over the past 40 years. Only the number, type, and quality of qualitative research studies in mathematics education has increased. Little is known about how a collective body of qualitative research findings contributes to our understanding of a particular topic within the field. And they also say, in other words, there's a lack of knowledge about how to integrate or synthesize findings across qualitative studies in mathematics education in order to influence policy and practice. So that was a bit about the background. The search strategy, and it centers around our research question, which was the following. This is a research question. What are the characteristics of classroom dialogue in mathematics that involve pupils in collaborative mathematical reasoning and what characterizes the teacher's role? So it's about classroom dialogue in mathematics in whole class. And the classroom dialogue in mathematics can take on different forms, and thereby involve pupils in different ways. So quite a common way is that the teacher dominates the conversation, and the pupils are passive receivers of the instruction, participating only with short answers to teachers' questions. We were interested in finding out what it is that characterizes classroom dialogues in which pupils are active participants. And what is it that the teachers actually do to facilitate the pupils' active participation? And from our research question, we with the help of our information specialist constructed a complex search string, divided in three different blocks, and carried out searches in international databases. And we had the following inclusion criteria. We were interested in empirical findings that in which the participant were teacher and pupils in compulsory school. The teaching or the methods in teaching should be whole class dialogue in mathematics. The result should concern the relation between the teaching and the pupils' participation. So it should not only be about pupils' participation in the description of that. It should not be only about the teaching. It should be about those two things interacting. And we wanted the result should be in the form of recorded observations of the dialogue. So recordings of the dialogue between the pupil and the teacher. And it should be a regular teaching in the classroom. So our qualitative results concerned interaction. It's not about the pupils or the teacher's attitudes or their perceptions of something. Rather, it concerns what they do, their action, how they interact. What? And I'm going to go through this because I don't think maybe you see the numbers. But this is an illustration of the amount of studies that have gone through the relevance and quality appraisal. Our search in international databases resulted in 10,528 studies. And we at the Institute first went through the studies in order to sift out those who were clearly not relevant. And then we ended up in 900, which the researcher then went through. So they first read Titan Abstract. And then they ended up in 195 studies. And then they read the studies in full text. And then they ended up with 25 studies. And after the quality appraisal, we had 18 studies left. So there are 18 studies in the systematic review. And then to the quality. I haven't prepared any PowerPoint on the actual extraction of the data or the result, but maybe I can say something about that later. We analyzed the studies by comparing them and looking for differences and similarities. All articles are about classroom dialogue, characterized by pupils' active participation. But they have slightly different focus. You could say that they detail different things. So some of the articles are characterized pupils' engagement in different kinds of talk. And different kinds of talk are defined as exploratory talk. And that was what we were interested in, the exploratory talk. Because then the pupils are engaged and participate. And that is unlike in disputational talk or in cumulative talk. And we had articles, results, that describe the teacher and the pupils' different roles. And they detail this, they go into and then also describe changes in these roles over time, for example. And one thing that they describe, they describe different kinds of questions that the teachers ask, open and closed questions. And that's an example. And we had articles that nominate or give name to certain teacher actions that promote pupils' participation. For example, the teacher revoices a pupil's statement or reinforce valued behavior. The thing that I have in the fetstil, bald, it's a concept that the research is interpretation of the interaction, you see. So we are dealing very much with concepts in the analysis. And we also had articles that identify different kinds of interaction norms that govern the conversation. It was like social and sociomathematical norms. So in broad line, this was the kind of results that we had in our studies. And we wanted to see how do they relate to one another. And we tried to build up a picture of the whole. And here in dark blue, we have our questions. We were interested in classroom dialogue, as you see in the round circle there. And one of our questions was what characterizes these kind of classroom dialogues. And we had the result that detailed different kinds of talk. And we highlighted exploratory talk as a kind of talk that involve pupil. And we had a question of what characterizes the teacher's role. And we had results about that. Among other things, it said it was about that. The teacher actually supports the pupil's participation in exploratory talk by, for instance, asking open questions, listening carefully to the pupil's ideas, and make use of them in the conversation. And the studies was about that and describe that in detail. And this is another role that the teacher has in IRE. It stands for initiation, response, and evaluation. And where the teacher dominates the conversation and the pupil's tasks are limited to providing correct, often short answers. And the results goes on. We had the result that denominator teachers different actions named them. The teacher exemplified, the teacher reinforced, the teacher voiced. And this is about actions that promote the pupil's actual participation in the dialogue. And we had also other kinds of teacher actions where the teacher asked the pupils to explain their solutions or motivate their solutions, compare different kinds of solutions. And this was actions that engaged the pupils in the mathematics. So it was slightly different actions. And also we had this result concerning different norms. So this different kind of engagement in the conversation and in the mathematics concerns different kinds of interactional norms. We have the one, the social norms, promoting pupil's behavior, promoting pupil's participation in the dialogue. And we have the socio-mathematical norms, promoting the pupil's participation in the actual mathematics. So I won't go into the results so much. It's just an illustration of our synthesis. But we have concluded that the teacher faced two main challenges when it comes to engaging pupil in exploratory talk. One is to engage the pupils in the dialogue at all. That is, so the pupil contribute to the conversation and also listen to what the other pupil says. The other challenge is to engage pupils in genuine mathematical inquiry so that the conversation not only centers on the surface level, by, for example, concerning procedural issues or on how to go about. And this is what the synthesis is about. They go into these kind of challenges. So we say that we have done a methasynthesis inspired by meta ethnography. And with methasynthesis, we mean that it's a generic term, representative of a collection of methodological approaches which represents rigorous attempts to render what exists within a body of evidence-based qualitative studies into a coherent and synthesized product. And so the methasynthesis is about the actual synthesis, not the whole process of conducting a systematic review. And we are inspired, we say, by meta ethnography. And especially what they call line of argument. And this citation begins with our line of argument recognized that often people study different aspects of a phenomena, and that it might be possible to think through this to offer a fuller account of the phenomenon by arranging the study's metaphors or concepts in some order that allowed us to construct an argument about what the sets of ethnographies says, that is a line of argument. So it's a way of collecting the studies and say what they say, taking together. And how can this knowledge be used then, these qualitative results? How can it be generalized? So we say that this research do not provide quick fixes for teacher about action or activities guaranteed to work regardless of context. Pupils are different, both in terms of abilities and experience, and other contextual factors also vary. However, this result can provide us with useful knowledge of actions that have the potential of engaging pupils in collaborative mathematical reasoning. And maybe more importantly, how and why these actions are of importance. So, and this I will show you some quotations that are in line with our argument about generalization. It's from Larsson, and he says, generalization is about the potential use of a piece of research. It's an act which is completed when someone can make sense of situations or processes or other phenomena with the help of interpretations which emanate from research texts. And we can compare the use of substantial portion of qualitative research with the development of a diagnostic repertoire. It is interpretational tools for identifying patterns in the everyday world and make better sense of the world around us. And here is the literature that I have cited in this presentation. And we have had a lot of help from when we did our analysis.