Advertisement

Asia Pacific Education Review

, Volume 3, Issue 2, pp 160–167 | Cite as

Globalized curriculum or global approach to curriculum reform in mathematics education

  • Bill Atweh
  • Philip Clarkson
General Issue

Abstract

The mathematics education community has shown considerable awareness of the international status of their discipline. While internationalization of the discipline is not a new phenomenon, globalization is a relatively recent term in educational discourse. This paper presents a theoretical model towards the study of globalization and internationalization in mathematics education based on previous publication by the authors. Secondly, it identifies some key issues that have been discussed in the literature and that may require further discussion and research in the field. In particular it discusses the issue of similarity of mathematics education curricula around the world. The concept of a global curriculum is rejected in favor for more internationalized approach to curriculum reform based on collaboration between mathematics educators.

Keywords

Mathematics Education International Collaboration National Curriculum Curriculum Reform Mathematics Education Research 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Apple, M. (1993). The politics of official knowledge: Does a national curriculum make sense?Teachers College Record, 95(2), 222–241.Google Scholar
  2. Atweh, & Clarkson, P. (2001). Internationalization and globalization of mathematics education: Towards an agenda for research/action. In B. Atweh, H. Forgasz, & B. Nebres (Eds.).Sociocultural research on mathematics education: An international perspective. New York: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  3. Atweh, Forgasz, H., & Nebres, B. (Eds.). (2001).Sociocultural research on mathematics education: An international perspective. New York: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  4. Bernstein, B. (2000).Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  5. Bishop, A. J. (1992). International perspectives on research in mathematics education. In D. Grouws (Ed.),Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning, (pp. 710–723). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  6. Buenfil-Burgos, R. (2000). Globalization, education and discourse political analysis: Ambiguity and accountability in research.International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 13(1), 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clements, K. (1995). Restructuring mathematics teacher education: Overcoming the barriers of elitism and separatism. In R. Hunting, G. Fitzsimons, P. Clarkson, & A. Bishop (Eds.),Regional collaboration in mathematics education (pp. 1–10). Melbourne: Monash University.Google Scholar
  8. Clements, M.A., & Ellerton, N. (1996).Mathematics education research: Past, present and future. Bangkok: UNESCO.Google Scholar
  9. Davis, S., & Guppy, N. (1997). Globalization and education reform in Anglo-American democracies.Comparative Education Review, 41(4), 435–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hargreaves, A. (1989).Curriculum and assessment reform. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Hargreaves, A. (1994).Changing teachers, changing times: Teachers’ work and culture in the postmodern age. London: Cassell.Google Scholar
  12. Henry, M., &Taylor, S. (1997). Globalization and national schooling policy in Australia. In B. Lingard, & P. Porter, (Eds.) Anational approach to schooling in Australia: Essays on the development of national policies in school education. (pp.46–59). Canberra: Australian College of Education.Google Scholar
  13. Jacobsen, E. (1996). International co-operation in mathematics education. In A. Bishop, et al., (Eds.),International handbook of mathematics education (pp. 1235–1256). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  14. Kuku, A. (1995). Mathematics education in Africa in relation to other countries. In R. Hunting, G. Fitzsimons, P. Clarkson, & A. Bishop (Eds.),Regional collaboration in mathematics education (pp. 403–423). Melbourne: Monash University.Google Scholar
  15. Robitaille, D. F., & Travers, K. J. (1992). International studies of achievement in mathematics. In D. Grouws (Ed.),Randbook of research on mathematics education (pp. 687–709). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  16. Rogers, L. (1992). Then and now.For the learning of mathematics, 12(3), 22–23.Google Scholar
  17. Sawiran, M. (1995). Collaborative efforts in enhancing globalization in mathematics education. In R. Hunting, G. Fitzsimons, P. Clarkson, & A. Bishop (Eds.),Regional collaboration in mathematics education (pp. 603–609). Melbourne: Monash University.Google Scholar
  18. Silver, E., & Kilpatrick, J. (1994). E Pluribus unum: Challenges of diversity in the future of mathematics education research.Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 25, 734–754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Taylor, S., Rizvi, R., Lingard. & Henry, M. (1997).Educational policy and the politics of change. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  20. UNESCO. (1998).World declaration on higher education for the twenty-first century: Vision and action. Retrieved April 20, 1999, from www.unesco.org/education/educprog/wche/ index.html.Google Scholar
  21. Usiskin, Z. (1992). Thoughts of an ICME regular.For the Learning of Mathematics, 12(3), 19–20.Google Scholar
  22. Waters, M. (1995).Globalization. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Education Research Institute 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Science and Technology EducationQueensland University of TechnologyKelvin GroveAustralia

Personalised recommendations