Advertisement

Mathematical Learning and Its Difficulties in Eastern European Countries

  • Csaba CsíkosEmail author
  • Szilárd András
  • Attila Rausch
  • Anna Shvarts
Chapter

Abstract

In this chapter a review of the main features and difficulties of mathematics learning in Eastern European countries is provided. Setting out from historical, geographical, and political considerations about the definition of what Eastern Europe may mean in the context of mathematics education, we provide a general overview of curriculum shaping and the outcomes of these school systems. In Eastern European countries, there are some features of mathematics education that might be labeled as the heritage of “socialist mathematics education.” Among these features (and stereotypes), the role that mathematics plays in the system of school subjects, the characteristics of mathematics teacher education, and the importance of talent development are discussed.

Without discussing individual countries’ school systems, we have tried to capture the very essence of the cultural and educational traditions that still influence what difficulties mathematics educators and students face when teaching or learning mathematics. Albeit that some countries have introduced radical educational reforms recently, becoming successful according to the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) surveys, most countries in the region can still be cited as examples of what people in other regions of the world consider “Eastern European.”

Keywords

Eastern Europe Talent development Low-performing students School reform International Mathematical Olympiad 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the Content Pedagogy Research Program of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences.

References

  1. Adler, I. (1980). Mathematics education under socialism. Science & Society, 44, 357–359.Google Scholar
  2. Aubrey, C., & Godfrey, R. (2003). The development of children’s early numeracy through key stage 1. British Educational Research Journal, 29, 821–840.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bankov, K., Mikova, D., & Smith, T. M. (2006). Assessing between-school variation in educational resources and mathematics and science achievement in Bulgaria. Prospects, 36, 447–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bertomeu-Sánchez, J. R., García-Belmar, A., Lundgren, A., & Patiniotis, M. (2006). Introduction: scientific and technological textbooks in the European periphery. Science & Education, 15, 647–665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blömeke, S., Suhl, U., & Döhrmann, M. (2013). Assessing strengths and weaknesses of teacher knowledge in Asia, Eastern Europe and Western countries: differential item functioning in TEDS-M. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 11, 795–817.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Csapó, B., Molnár, G., & Nagy, J. (2014). Computer-based assessment of school readiness and early reasoning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(2), 639–650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Csíkos, C. (2006). Nemzetközi rendszerszintű felmérések tanulságai az olvasástanítás számára [Lessons for reading education from international system-level surveys]. In K. Józsa (Ed.), Az olvasási képesség fejlődése és fejlesztése (pp. 175–186). Budapest, Hungary: Dinasztia.Google Scholar
  8. Frank, T. (2012). Teaching and learning science in Hungary, 1867–1945: schools, personalities, influences. Science & Education, 21, 355–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Goldin, G. A. (2003). Developing complex understanding: on the relation of mathematics education research to mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 54, 171–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Government decree 363/2012. (XII. 17.) on the Core Programme for Kindergartens (effective from 1 September 2013). Budapest, Hungary.Google Scholar
  11. Hawighorst, B. (2005). Parents’ views on mathematics and the learning of mathematics—an intercultural comparative study. ZDM Mathematics Education, 37, 90–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Howson, A. G. (1980). Socialist mathematics education: does it exist? Educational Studies in Mathematics, 11, 285–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kaiser, G., & Blömeke, S. (2013). Learning from the Eastern and the Western debate: the case of mathematics teacher education. ZDM Mathematics Education, 45, 7–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Karp, A. (2011). Reforms and counter-reforms: schools between 1917 and the 1950s. In A. Karp & B. R. Vogeli (Eds.), Russian mathematics education: history and world significance (pp. 43–87). Singapore: World Scientific.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Karp, A., & Furinghetti, F. (2016). Survey of the state of the art. In History of mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 3–27). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kontorovich, I. (2011). What makes an interesting mathematical problem? A perception analysis of 22 adult participants of the competition movement. In B. Rösken & M. Casper (Eds.), Current state of research on mathematical beliefs XVII. Proceedings of the MAVI-17 conference (pp. 129–139). Bochum, Germany: Professional School of Education, Ruhr-Universität Bochum.Google Scholar
  17. Lees, M. (2016). Estonian education system 1990–2016: reforms and their impact. Available on-line: http://4liberty.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Estonian-Education-System_1990-2016.pdf
  18. Lui, K. W., & Leung, F. K. S. (2013). Curriculum traditions in Berlin and Hong Kong: a comparative case study of the implemented mathematics curriculum. ZDM Mathematics Education, 45, 35–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Maaß, K., & Dorier, J.-L. (2010). PRIMAS WP2—analysis of national contexts: international synthesis report comparing national contexts, pointing out differences, commonalities, and interesting resources and initiatives proper to be adapted to an international use, EUProject PRIMAS, Deliverable No 2.1. Retrieved from http://www.primas-project.eu/servlet/supportBinaryFiles?referenceId=3&supportId=1297
  20. Maaß, K., & Engeln, K. (2016). Report on the large-scale survey about inquiry based learning and teaching in the European partner countries, EUproject mascil, Deliverable No 10.2. Retrieved from http://www.mascil-project.eu/images/pdf/mascilD102FinalVersion.pdf
  21. Malofeev, N. N., Nikol’skaya, O. S., Kukushkina, O. I., & Goncharova, E. L. (2009). Edinaya kontseptsiya spetsial'nogo federal'nogo gosudarstvennogo standarta dlya detei s ogranichennymi vozmozhnostyami zdorov'ya: osnovnye polozheniya [Unified conception of a special federal state standards for children with disabilities: main statements]. Al'manakh Instituta Korrektsionnoi Pedagogiki [Almanac of the Institute of Correctional Pedagogy], 13. Retrieved from http://alldef.ru/ru/articles/almanah-13/edinaja-koncepcija-specialnogo-federalnogo-gosudarstvennogo
  22. Marx, G. (1996). The myth of the Martian and the golden age of Hungarian science. Science & Education, 5, 225–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mikk, J., Krips, H., Säälik, Ü., & Kalk, K. (2016). Relationships between student perception of teacher–student relations and PISA results in mathematics and science. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 14, 1437–1454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Nicu, A. (2016). Romanian education reform between policy and action. Journal Plus Education, 14, 21–33.Google Scholar
  25. OECD. (2013). PISA 2012 assessment and analytical framework: mathematics, reading, science, problem solving and financial literacy. Paris: OECD Publishing.  https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264190511-en CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. OECD. (2016). Low-performing students: why they fall behind and how to help them succeed. Paris: OECD Publishing.  https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264250246-en CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Palló, G. (2006). Encyclopedia as textbook. Science & Education, 15, 779–799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Polyakova, T. (2011). Mathematics education in Russian before the 1917 revolution. In A. Karp & B. R. Vogeli (Eds.), Russian mathematics education: history and world significance (pp. 1–42). Singapore: World Scientific.Google Scholar
  29. Postlethwaite, T. N., & Wiley, D. E. (1992). The IEA study of science II: science achievement in twenty-three countries (Vol. 2). Oxford, UK/Elmsford, NY: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  30. Rausch, A. (2016). Online assessment of early numeracy at school entry. In C. Csíkos, A. Rausch, & J. Szitányi (Eds.), Proceedings of the 40th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, p. 226). Szeged, Hungary: PME.Google Scholar
  31. Rausch, A., & Pásztor, A. (2017). Exploring the possibilities of online assessment of early numeracy in kindergarten. In B. Kaur, W. K. Ho, T. L. Toh, & B. H. Choy (Eds.), Proceedings of the 41st Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 89–96). Singapore: PME.Google Scholar
  32. Rodic, M., Zhou, X., Tikhomirova, T., Wei, W., Malykh, S., Ismatulina, V., et al. (2015). Cross-cultural investigation into cognitive underpinnings of individual differences in early arithmetic. Developmental Science, 18(1), 165–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Schleicher, A. (2014). Developing educational policies in a holistic skills framework. In S. K. Lee, W. O. Lee, & E. L. Low (Eds.), Educational policy innovations (pp. 29–48). Singapore: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Shen, A. (Ed.). (2000). Zadachi po matematike [Mathematics problems]. Moscow: MCCME. Retrieved from http://www.mccme.ru/free-books/57/shen.pdf Google Scholar
  35. Skovsmose, O. (1998). Linking mathematics education and democracy: citizenship, mathematical archaeology, mathemacy and deliberative interaction. ZDM Mathematics Education, 30, 195–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Smoczyńska, A., Górowska-Fells, M., Maluchnik, B., Płatos, B., Chojnacki, M., & Smolik, M. (2014). The system of education in Poland. Warsaw: Publisher Foundation for the Development of the Education System.Google Scholar
  37. Stefanich, G., & Dedrick, C. (1985). Addressing concerns in science and mathematics education: an alternative view. The Clearing House, 58, 274–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Stoilescu, D. (2014). A critical multicultural analysis of a Romanian textbook taught in elementary international language program. Acta Didactica Napocensia, 7, 33–48.Google Scholar
  39. Szalontai, T. (2000). Some facts and tendencies in Hungarian mathematics teaching. International Journal of Mathematics Teaching and Learning. www.cimt.org.uk/journal/tshungmt.pdf
  40. Szram, N. J. (2016). Children schooling achievements in the course of early education and their cognitive development. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 6(12), 927.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Turnau, S. (1993). Mathematics education research in Poland. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 24, 235–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. UNESCO. (2015). Education for all national review report: Romania. Bucharest, Romania: Ministerul Educaţiei Naţionale.Google Scholar
  43. Valero, P., Graven, M., Jurdak, M., Martin, D., Meaney, T., & Penteado, M. (2015). Socioeconomic influence of mathematics achievement: what is visible and what is neglected. In S. J. Cho (Ed.), Proceedings of the 12th International Congress on Mathematics Education (pp. 285–301). Cham/Heidelberg/New York/Dordrecht/London: Springer.Google Scholar
  44. Varga, T. (1988). Mathematics education in Hungary today. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 19, 291–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Westbury, I. (2000). Teaching as a reflective practice: what might Didaktik teach curriculum? In I. Westbury, S. Hopmann, & K. Riquarts (Eds.), Teaching as a reflective practice: the German Didaktik tradition (pp. 15–39). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  46. Woodrow, D. (1997). Democratic education: does it exist: especially for mathematics education? For the Learning of Mathematics, 17, 11–16.Google Scholar
  47. World Bank. (2010, November). Successful education reform: lessons from Poland. Europe & Central Asia Knowledge Brief: Vol. 34. Washington, DC: World Bank.Google Scholar
  48. Yurkevich, V. S., & Davidovich, B. M. (2008). Russian strategies for talent development. In T. Balchin, B. Hymer, & D. J. Matthews (Eds.), The Routledge international companion to gifted education (pp. 101–105). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Csaba Csíkos
    • 1
    Email author
  • Szilárd András
    • 2
  • Attila Rausch
    • 3
  • Anna Shvarts
    • 4
    • 5
  1. 1.Faculty of Primary and Pre-school EducationEötvös Loránd UniversityBudapestHungary
  2. 2.Faculty of Mathematics and Computer ScienceBabeş-Bolyai UniversityCluj-NapocaRomania
  3. 3.Faculty of Education and PsychologyEötvös Loránd UniversityBudapestHungary
  4. 4.Faculty of PsychologyLomonosov Moscow State UniversityMoscowRussia
  5. 5.Utrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations