Advertisement

Toward an International Mathematics Curriculum

  • Jinfa Cai
  • Geoffrey Howson
Chapter
Part of the Springer International Handbooks of Education book series (SIHE, volume 27)

Abstract

This chapter revisits the notion of an international curriculum, analyzing the various forces that might push countries toward one and reasons why countries should develop their own distinct curricula. We first describe the term curriculum to set the stage for our later discussion. We then discuss, in turn, common influences for curriculum change, common learning goals, common driving forces of public examinations, common emphases and treatments, and common issues for future curriculum development. Although the tendency for countries to include a more-and-more internationally-accepted core selection of topics in their national curricula is to a great extent both to be welcomed and expected, this move has had a potential negative effect on curriculum development. Significant work also remains to be done to explore the way in which new technology (especially digital technology) could affect both the mathematics included in the curriculum and how it could more effectively contribute to the teaching and learning of mathematics in general.

Keywords

Curriculum Development National Curriculum Mathematics Curriculum Public Examination Gifted Student 
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.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The first author would like to acknowledge the support of grants from the National Science Foundation (ESI-0454739 and DRL-1008536). When the first draft of this chapter was written, the first author was invited to serve as a Program Director at the Division of Research on Learning, the US National Science Foundation. The support of the US National Science Foundation is greatly appreciated, but any opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the National Science Foundation. We are grateful for the assistance of Dr Bikai Nie in preparing the reference list. We are also grateful for the insightful comments provided by Jeremy Kilpatrick, Gilah Leder, and Paola Valero on an earlier version of this chapter.

References

  1. Arnold, M. (2008). Schools and universities on the continent (Original work published 1868). Whitefish, MT: Kessinger.Google Scholar
  2. Asian Society. (2006). Math and science education in a global age: What the U.S. can learn from China. New York, NY: Author.Google Scholar
  3. Atkinson, R. D., & Mayo, M. (2010). Refueling the U.S. innovation economy: Fresh approaches to science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education. Washington, DC: The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation.Google Scholar
  4. Atweh, B., Calabrese Barton, A., Borba, M., Gough, N., Keitel, C., Vistro-Yu, C., & Vithal, R. (Eds.). (2007). Internationalisation and globalisation in mathematics and science education. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  5. Atweh, B., Graven, M., Secada, W., & Valero, P. (Eds.). (2011). Mapping equity and quality in mathematics education. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  6. Ball, D. L., & Cohen, D. K. (1996). Reform by the book: What is—or might be—the role of curriculum materials in teacher learning and instructional reform? Educational Researcher, 25(9), 6–8, 14.Google Scholar
  7. Basic Education Curriculum Material Development Center, Chinese Ministry of Education. (2001). National mathematics curriculum standards at the compulsory education level (draft for consultation) [in Chinese]. Beijing, China: Beijing Normal University.Google Scholar
  8. Bharucha, J. (2008, January 25). America can teach Asia a lot about science, technology, and math. Chronicle of Higher Education, 54(20). Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/weekly/v54/i20/20a03301.htm.
  9. Blum, W., Galbraith, P., Henn, H-W., & Niss, M. (Eds.). (2006) Applications and modelling in mathematics education (New ICMI Studies Series No. 10). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  10. Bradburn, M. B., & Gilford, D. M. (1990). A framework and principles for international comparative studies in education. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  11. Britt, M. S., & Irwin, K. C. (2011). Algebraic thinking with and without algebraic representation: A pathway for learning. In J. Cai & E. Knuth (Eds.), Early algebraization: A global dialogue from multiple perspectives (pp. 137–159). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  12. Brown, G. (2006, January 14). The future of Britishness. Speech to the Fabian Society New Year Conference. Retrieved from http://www.fabians.org.uk/events/speeches/the-future-of-britishness.
  13. Burkhardt, H., Fraser, R., & Ridgway, J. (1990). The dynamics of curriculum change. In I. Wirszup & R. Streit (Eds.), Developments in school mathematics education around the world (Vol. 2, pp. 3–30). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  14. Cai, J. (2000). Mathematical thinking involved in U.S. and Chinese students’ solving process-constrained and process-open problems. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 2, 309–340.Google Scholar
  15. Cai, J. (2001). Improving mathematics learning: Lessons from cross-national studies of U.S. and Chinese students. Phi Delta Kappan, 82(5), 400–405.Google Scholar
  16. Cai, J., & Knuth, E. (Eds.). (2011). Early algebraization: A global dialogue from multiple perspectives. New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  17. Cai, J., Moyer, J. C., Wang, N., & Nie, B. (2011). Examining students’ algebraic thinking in a curricular context: A longitudinal study. In J. Cai & E. Knuth (Eds.), Early algebraization: A global dialogue from multiple perspectives (pp. 161–186). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  18. Cai, J., Ng, S. F., & Moyer, J. C. (2011). Developing students’ algebraic thinking in earlier grades: Lessons from China and Singapore. In J. Cai & E. Knuth (Eds.), Early algebraization: A global dialogue from multiple perspectives (pp. 25–42). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  19. Cai, J., & Nie, B. (2007). Problem solving in Chinese mathematics education: Research and practice. ZDM—International Journal on Mathematics Education, 39, 459–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cai, J., Nie, B., & Moyer, J. (2010). The teaching of equation solving: Approaches in Standards-based and traditional curricula in the United States. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 5(3), 170–186.Google Scholar
  21. Christiansen, B., Howson, G., & Otte, M. (Eds.). (1986). Perspectives on mathematics education. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Reidel.Google Scholar
  22. Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (1992). Teacher as curriculum maker. In P. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of research in curriculum (pp. 363–401). New York, NY: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  23. Clarke, B., Clarke, D. M., & Sullivan, P. (1996). The mathematics teacher and curriculum development. In A. J. Bishop, K. Clements, C. Keitel, J. Kilpatrick, & C. Laborde (Eds.), International handbook of mathematics education (pp. 1207–1233). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  24. Clark-Wilson, A., Oldknow, A., & Sutherland, R. (2011). Digital technologies and mathematics education. London, UK: Joint Mathematical Council of the United Kingdom.Google Scholar
  25. Cockroft, W. H. (1982). Mathematics counts: Report of the committee of inquiry into the teaching of mathematics in school. London, UK: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.Google Scholar
  26. Cuban, L. (1992). Curriculum stability and change. In P. W. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook on research on curriculum (pp. 216–247). New York, NY: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  27. Damerow, P., Dunkley, M. E., Nebres, B. F., & Werry, B. (Eds.). (1984). Mathematics for all (Science and Technology Education Document Series No. 20). Paris, France: UNESCO.Google Scholar
  28. Darling-Hammond, L. (1993, June). Reframing the school reform agenda. Phi Delta Kappan, 74(10), 752–761.Google Scholar
  29. Department for Education and Employment and Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (DfEE/QCA). (2000). Curriculum guidance for the foundation stage. London, UK: Author.Google Scholar
  30. Fan, L., Wong, N.-Y., Cai, J., & Li, S. (Eds.). (2004). How Chinese learn mathematics: Perspectives from insiders. Singapore: World Scientific.Google Scholar
  31. Friedman, T. L. (2005). The world is flat: A brief history of the twenty-first century. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus, & Giroux.Google Scholar
  32. Gardner, H. (1989). To open minds. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  33. Hershkowitz, R., Dreyfus, T., Ben-Zvi, D., Friedlander, A., Hadas, N., Resnick, T., Tabach, M., & Schwarz, B. (2002). Mathematics curriculum development for computerized environments. A designer-researcher-teacher-learner activity. In L. D. English, M. Bartolini Bussi, G. A. Jones, R. A. Lesh, & D. Tirosh (Eds.), Handbook of international research in mathematics education: Directions for the 21st century (pp. 657–694). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  34. Howson, A. G. (1991). National curricula in mathematics. Leicester, UK: Mathematical Association.Google Scholar
  35. Howson, A. G. (1995). Mathematics textbooks: A comparative study of Grade-8 texts. Vancouver, Canada: Pacific Educational Press.Google Scholar
  36. Howson, A. G. (2002). Advanced mathematics: Curricula and student performance. In D. E. Robitaille & A. E. Beaton (Eds.), Secondary analysis of the TIMSS data (pp. 113–123). New York, NY: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Howson, A. G., Harries, T., & Sutherland, R. (1999). Primary school mathematics textbooks. London, UK: Qualifications and Curriculum Authority.Google Scholar
  38. Howson, A. G., Keitel, C., & Kilpatrick, J. (1981). Curriculum development in mathematics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Howson, A. G., & Wilson, B. (1986). School mathematics in the 1990s. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Hoyles, C., & Lagrange, J.-B. (Eds.). (2010). Mathematics education and technology—Rethinking the terrain: The 17th ICMI Study. New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  41. Jablonka, E. (2007). The relevance of modelling and applications: Relevant to whom and for what purpose? In W. Blum, P. Galbraith, H.-W. Henn, & M. Niss (Eds.), Modelling and applications in mathematics education: The 14th ICMI Study (pp. 193–200). Berlin, Germany: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Jackson, P. (1992). Handbook of research on curriculum. New York, NY: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  43. Jones, G. A., Langrall, C. W., & Mooney, E. S. (2007). Research in probability: Responding to classroom realities. In F. K. Lester Jr. (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 909–956). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.Google Scholar
  44. Jones, D., & Tarr, J. E. (2010). Recommendations for statistics and probability in school mathematics over the past century. In B. J. Reys, R. E. Reys, & R. Rubenstein (Eds.), K–12 mathematics curriculum: Issues, trends, and future directions (72nd yearbook of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, pp. 65–76). Reston, VA: NCTM.Google Scholar
  45. Kaiser, G., Luna, E., & Huntley, I. (Eds.). (1998). International comparisons in mathematics education. London, UK: Falmer.Google Scholar
  46. Keitel, C., & Kilpatrick, J. (1998). The rationality and irrationality of international comparative studies. In G. Kaiser, E. Luna, & I. Huntley (Eds.), International comparisons in mathematics education (pp. 241–256). London, UK: Falmer.Google Scholar
  47. Kho, T. H. (1987). Mathematical models for solving arithmetic problems. Proceedings of the Fourth Southeast Asian Conference on Mathematical Education (ICMI–SEAMS). Mathematical education in the 1990s (pp. 345–351). Singapore: National Institute of Education.Google Scholar
  48. Kim, S. (2011, August 10). South Korea powers toward an all-digital scholastic network. Education Week, 30(37), 13.Google Scholar
  49. Kloosterman, P., & Walcott, C. (2010). What we teach is what students learn: Evidence from the National Assessment. In B. Reys, R. Reys, & R. Rubenstein (Eds.), K–12 mathematics curriculum: Issues, trends, and future directions (72nd yearbook of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, pp. 89–102). Reston, VA: NCTM.Google Scholar
  50. Leung, F. K. S., Graf, K.-D., & López-Real, F. J. (Eds.). (2006). Mathematics education in different cultural traditions. New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  51. Li, J. (2004). Teaching approach: Theoretical or experimental? In L. Fan, N. Y. Wong, J. Cai, & S. Li (Eds.), How Chinese learn mathematics: Perspectives from insiders (pp. 443–461). Singapore: World Scientific.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Mammana, C., & Villani, V. (Eds.). (1998). Perspectives on the teaching of geometry for the 21st century. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  53. Mathematical Association. (1955). The teaching of mathematics in primary schools. London, UK: Bell.Google Scholar
  54. Mathematical Sciences Education Board. (1993). Measuring what counts: A conceptual guide for mathematics assessment. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  55. Medrich, E. A., & Griffith, J. E. (1992). International math and science assessment: What have we learned? (U.S. Department of Education Report No. NCES92011). Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement and National Center for Education Statistics.Google Scholar
  56. Merle, M. (2003). Defining mathematical literacy in France. In B. L. Madison & L. A. Steen (Eds.), Quantitative literacy: Why numeracy matters for schools and college (pp. 221–223). Princeton, NJ: National Council on Education and the Disciplines.Google Scholar
  57. Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Beaton, A. E., Gonzalez, E. J., Kelly, D. L., & Smith, T. A. (1998). Mathematics and science achievement in the final years of secondary school: IEA’s Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS). Chestnut Hill, MA: Center for the Study of Testing, Evaluation, and Educational Policy, Boston College.Google Scholar
  58. National Academy of Education. (1999). Recommendations regarding research priorities: An advisory report to the National Educational Research Policy and Priorities Board. New York, NY: Author.Google Scholar
  59. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.Google Scholar
  60. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards: Mathematics. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/assets/CCSSI_MathStandards.pdf.
  61. National Research Council. (2004). On evaluating curricular effectiveness: Judging the quality of K–12 mathematics evaluations. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  62. National Science Board (NSB). (2010). Preparing the next generation of STEM innovators: Identifying and developing our nation’s human capital. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.Google Scholar
  63. Ni, Y., Li, Q., Cai, J., & Hau, K.-T. (in press). Has curriculum reform made a difference in classroom? An evaluation of the new mathematics curriculum in Mainland China. In B. Sriraman, J. Cai, K.-H. Lee, L. Fan, Y. Shimuzu, L. C. Sam, & K. Subramanium (Eds.), The first sourcebook on Asian research in mathematics education: China, Korea, Singapore, Japan, Malaysia and India. Information Age: Charlotte, NC.Google Scholar
  64. Ni, Y., Li, Q., Li, X., & Zhang, Z.-H. (2011). Impact of curriculum reform: An analysis of student mathematics achievement in Mainland China. International Journal of Educational Research, 50(2), 100–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Nie, B., Cai, J., & Moyer, J. C. (2009). How a standards-based mathematics curriculum differs from a traditional curriculum: With a focus on intended treatments of the ideas of variable. ZDM—International Journal on Mathematics Education, 41(6), 777–792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (1999). Measuring student knowledge and skills: A new framework for assessment. Paris, France: Author.Google Scholar
  67. Pinar, W. (Ed.). (2003). International handbook of curriculum research. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  68. Postlethwaite, T. N. (Ed.). (1988). The encyclopedia of comparative education and national systems of education. Oxford, UK: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  69. Resnick, L. (1987). Education and learning to think. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  70. Reys, B. J., Reys, R. E., & Rubenstein, R. (Eds.). (2010). Mathematics curriculum: Issues, trends, and future directions (72nd yearbook of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics). Reston, VA: NCTM.Google Scholar
  71. Robitaille, D. F., & Garden, R. A. (1989). The IEA Study of Mathematics II: Contexts and outcomes of school mathematics. New York, NY: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  72. Romberg, T. (2002). Thirty years of mathematics education research. Wisconsin Center for Educational Research Highlights, 14(3), 1–3.Google Scholar
  73. Royal Society. (2001). Teaching and learning geometry (pp. 11–19). London, UK: Author.Google Scholar
  74. Russell, S. J., Schifter, D., & Bastable, V. (2011). Developing algebraic thinking in the context of arithmetic. In J. Cai & E. Knuth (Eds.), Early algebraization: A global dialogue from multiple perspectives (pp. 43–69). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  75. Senk, S. L., & Thompson, D. R. (Eds.). (2003). Standards-based school mathematics curricula: What are they? What do students learn? Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  76. Skovsmose, O. (2003). Uncertainty and responsibility: Notes about aporia. Aalborg, Denmark: Department of Education and Learning, Aalborg University.Google Scholar
  77. Skovsmose, O., & Valero, P. (2008). Democratic access to powerful mathematical ideas. In L. D. English (Ed.), Handbook of international research in mathematical education: Directions for the 21st century (2nd ed., pp. 415–438). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  78. Smith, M. K. (2000). Curriculum theory and practice. Encyclopedia of informal education. (Original work published 1996). Retrieved from http://www.infed.org/biblio/b-curric.htm.
  79. Sriraman, B., & Törner, G. (2008). Political union/mathematical education disunion: Building bridges in European didactic traditions. In L. English, M. Bartolini Bussi, G. A. Jones, R. Lesh, B. Sriraman, & D. Tirosh (Eds.), Handbook of international research in mathematics education (2nd ed., pp. 656–690). New York, NY: Routledge, Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  80. Stacey, K., Chick, H. M., & Kendal, M. (Eds.). (2004). The future of the teaching and learning of algebra. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  81. Subramaniam, K., & Banerjee, R. (2011). The arithmetic-algebra connection: A historical-pedagogical perspective. In J. Cai & E. Knuth (Eds.), Early algebraization: A global dialogue from multiple perspectives (pp. 87–107). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  82. Travers, K. J., & Westbury, I. (Eds.). (1989). The IEA Study of Mathematics I: Analysis of mathematics curricula. Oxford, UK: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  83. Usiskin, Z. (2010). The current state of the school mathematics curriculum. In B. J. Reys, R. E. Reys, & R. Rubenstein (Eds.), K–12 mathematics curriculum: Issues, trends, and future directions (72nd yearbook of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, pp. 25–40). Reston, VA: NCTM.Google Scholar
  84. Usiskin, Z., & Willmore, E. (Eds.). (2008). Mathematics curriculum in Pacific Rim countries: China, Japan, Korea, and Singapore. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  85. van den Akker, J. J. H., Kuiper, W., & Hameyer, U. (Eds.). (2003). Curriculum landscape and trends. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  86. Vithal, R., & Volmink, J. (2005). Mathematics curriculum research: Roots, reforms, reconciliation and relevance. In R. Vithal, J. Adler, & C. Keitel (Eds.), Researching mathematics education in South Africa: Perspectives, practices and possibilities (pp. 3–27). Cape Town, South Africa: Human Sciences Research Council.Google Scholar
  87. Wong, N. Y. (2004). The CHC learner’s phenomenon: Its implications on mathematics education. In L. Fan, N. Y. Wong, J. Cai, & S. Li (Eds.), How Chinese learn mathematics: Perspectives from insiders (pp. 503–534). Singapore: World Scientific.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Zhang, D., Tang, R., & Liu, H. (1991). Pedagogy of mathematics [in Chinese]. Nanchang, China: Jiangxi Educational Press.Google Scholar
  89. Zhao, Y. (2008, February). What knowledge has the most worth? Reconsidering how to cultivate skills in U.S. students to meet the demands of global citizenry. School Administrator, 65(2), 20–27. Retrieved from http://www.aasa.org/SchoolAdministratorArticle.aspx?id=6032&terms=zhao.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of DelawareNewarkUSA
  2. 2.The University of SouthamptonSouthamptonUK

Personalised recommendations