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.”
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Georgia, Hungary, Kosovo, Moldova, Montenegro, Poland, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Ukraine.
References
Adler, I. (1980). Mathematics education under socialism. Science & Society, 44, 357–359.
Aubrey, C., & Godfrey, R. (2003). The development of children’s early numeracy through key stage 1. British Educational Research Journal, 29, 821–840.
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.
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.
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.
Csapó, B., Molnár, G., & Nagy, J. (2014). Computer-based assessment of school readiness and early reasoning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(2), 639–650.
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.
Frank, T. (2012). Teaching and learning science in Hungary, 1867–1945: schools, personalities, influences. Science & Education, 21, 355–380.
Goldin, G. A. (2003). Developing complex understanding: on the relation of mathematics education research to mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 54, 171–202.
Government decree 363/2012. (XII. 17.) on the Core Programme for Kindergartens (effective from 1 September 2013). Budapest, Hungary.
Hawighorst, B. (2005). Parents’ views on mathematics and the learning of mathematics—an intercultural comparative study. ZDM Mathematics Education, 37, 90–100.
Howson, A. G. (1980). Socialist mathematics education: does it exist? Educational Studies in Mathematics, 11, 285–299.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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
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
Marx, G. (1996). The myth of the Martian and the golden age of Hungarian science. Science & Education, 5, 225–234.
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.
Nicu, A. (2016). Romanian education reform between policy and action. Journal Plus Education, 14, 21–33.
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
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
Palló, G. (2006). Encyclopedia as textbook. Science & Education, 15, 779–799.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Shen, A. (Ed.). (2000). Zadachi po matematike [Mathematics problems]. Moscow: MCCME. Retrieved from http://www.mccme.ru/free-books/57/shen.pdf
Skovsmose, O. (1998). Linking mathematics education and democracy: citizenship, mathematical archaeology, mathemacy and deliberative interaction. ZDM Mathematics Education, 30, 195–203.
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.
Stefanich, G., & Dedrick, C. (1985). Addressing concerns in science and mathematics education: an alternative view. The Clearing House, 58, 274–277.
Stoilescu, D. (2014). A critical multicultural analysis of a Romanian textbook taught in elementary international language program. Acta Didactica Napocensia, 7, 33–48.
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
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.
Turnau, S. (1993). Mathematics education research in Poland. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 24, 235–238.
UNESCO. (2015). Education for all national review report: Romania. Bucharest, Romania: Ministerul Educaţiei Naţionale.
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.
Varga, T. (1988). Mathematics education in Hungary today. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 19, 291–298.
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.
Woodrow, D. (1997). Democratic education: does it exist: especially for mathematics education? For the Learning of Mathematics, 17, 11–16.
World Bank. (2010, November). Successful education reform: lessons from Poland. Europe & Central Asia Knowledge Brief: Vol. 34. Washington, DC: World Bank.
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.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by the Content Pedagogy Research Program of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Csíkos, C., András, S., Rausch, A., Shvarts, A. (2019). Mathematical Learning and Its Difficulties in Eastern European Countries. In: Fritz, A., Haase, V.G., Räsänen, P. (eds) International Handbook of Mathematical Learning Difficulties. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-97148-3_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-97148-3_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-97147-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-97148-3
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)