Abstract
This study examined and compared the intended mathematics curricula according to topic coverage, focus, coherence, and learning progression in grades 1 – 12 within China and the province of Ontario, Canada. The findings show that the overall topics in the two curricula are similar: Chinese curriculum covers 78 topics out of 79 while the Ontario curriculum covers 76. The two curricula also share a similar general sequence such as topics for transfer stages from numbers to functions by starting with constant mathematics, then variable mathematics, and finally functions. However, the detailed topic design of the 2 curricula differs markedly. The Chinese curriculum includes few topics in each year, a short duration or span of each topic, and a fast-paced topic progression. The Ontario curriculum, in contrast, includes more topics each year, longer duration of many topics, and a small pace of topic progression in grades 1 – 8 and a fast pace of topic progression in grades 9 – 12. Because of different curriculum designs in grades 1 – 12, the intended curriculum may influence students’ cognitive structures of mathematics, learning behavior and thinking, learning efficiency and achievement, and teachers’ professional development. This calls for more refined and advanced research on the defined list of topics, topic organization, and terms to study curriculum in order to increase student learning opportunities.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Alajmi, A. (2012). How do elementary textbooks address fraction? A review of mathematics textbooks in the USA, Japan, and Kuwait. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 79, 239–261.
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Bruner, J. S. (1960). The process of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Cai, J. (2014). Searching for evidence of curricular effect on the teaching and learning of mathematics: Some insights from the LieCal project. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 26(4), 811–831.
Cai, J., & Howson, A. G. (2013). Toward an international mathematics curriculum. In M. A. Clements, A. Bishop, C. Keitel, J. Kilpatrick, & K. S. F. Leung (Eds.), Third international handbook of mathematics education research (pp. 949–978). New York, NY: Springer.
Cai, J., Lo, J. J., & Watanabe, T. (2002). Intended treatments of arithmetic average in U.S. and Asian school mathematics. School Science and Mathematics, 102(8), 391–404.
Cao, Y. (Ed.). (2012). Shisanguo shuxue kecheng biaozhun pingjie [Review official curricula of thirteen countries]. Beijing, China: Beijing Normal University Publishing Group.
Chinese Ministry of Education. (2011). Quanrishi yiwu jiaoyu shuxue kecheng biaozhun [Mathematics curriculum standard of compulsory education (2011 version)]. Beijing, China: Beijing Normal University Press.
Fortus, D., & Krajcik, J. S. (2012). Curriculum coherence and learning progressions. In B. J. Fraser, K. G. Tobin, & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (pp. 783–798). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer Verlag.
Harden, R. M., & Stamper, N. (1999). What is a spiral curriculum? Medical Teacher, 21, 141–143.
Hirsch, C., & Reys, B. (2009). Mathematics curriculum: A vehicle for school improvement. ZDM-The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 41, 749–761.
Hong, D. S., & Choi, K. M. (2014). A comparison of korean and american secondary school textbooks: The case of quadratic equations. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 85(2), 241–263.
Husen, T. (1967). International study of achievement in mathematics: A comparison of twelve countries, volume I & II. New York, NY: Wiley.
Karpicke, J. D., & Blunt, J. R. (2011). Retrieval practice produces more learning than elaborative studying with concept mapping. Science, 331, 772–775.
Kilpatrick, J. (2014). Mathematics education in the United States and Canada. In A. Karp & G. Schubring (Eds.), Handbook on the history of mathematics education (pp. 323–333). New York, NY: Springer.
Lloyd, G. M., Cai, J., & Tarr, J. E. (2017). Research issues in curriculum studies: Evidence-based insights and future directions. In J. Cai (Ed.), Compendium for research in mathematics education (pp. 824–852). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Ma, X. (2005). Early acceleration of students in mathematics: Does it promote growth and stability of growth in achievement across mathematical areas? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30, 439–460.
Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., & Hooper, M. (2016). TIMSS 2015 international results in mathematics. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Lynch School of Education, Boston College.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2016). PISA 2015 results (Volume I): Excellence and equity in education. Paris, France: PISA, OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264266490-en.
Ontario Ministry of Education. (2005a). The Ontario mathematics curriculum K-8. Available from http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/elementary/math18curr.pdf.
Ontario Ministry of Education. (2005b). The Ontario mathematics curriculum 9–10. Available from http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/secondary/math910curr.pdf.
Ontario Ministry of Education. (2007). The Ontario mathematics curriculum 11–12. Available from http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/secondary/math1112currb.pdf.
Schmidt, W. H., & Houang, R. T. (2012). Curricular coherence and the Common Core State Standards for mathematics. Educational Researcher, 41(8), 294–308.
Schmidt, W. H., McKnight, C. C., Houang, R. T., Wang, H. A., Wiley, D. E., Cogan, L. S., & Wolfe, R. G. (2001). Why schools matter: Across-national comparison of curriculum and learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Schmidt, W. H., Houang, R. T., & Cogan, L. (2002). A coherent curriculum: The case of mathematics. American Educator, 26(2), 1–18.
Tran, D., Reys, B. J., Teuscher, D., Dingman, S., & Kasmer, L. (2016). Analysis of curriculum standards: An important research area. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 47(2), 118–133.
Tyler, R. W. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Wang, C. (1985). Jiaoxue lun gao [Pedagogy]. Beijing, China: People’s Education Press.
Acknowledgements
We are extremely grateful for Dr. Peter Liljedahl and three anonymous reviewers for their invaluable comments and suggestions. They have improved the paper in many ways.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Wang, Z., McDougall, D. Curriculum Matters: What We Teach and What Students Gain. Int J of Sci and Math Educ 17, 1129–1149 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-018-9915-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-018-9915-x