Educational Studies in Mathematics

, Volume 85, Issue 2, pp 241–263 | Cite as

A comparison of Korean and American secondary school textbooks: the case of quadratic equations

Article

Abstract

This study compares quadratic equations sections of Korean and American textbooks. The number of topics, contents and mathematics items were analyzed. The results show Korean students learn some topics relatively earlier than American students. American textbooks include more problems requiring explanations and various representations and problems requiring higher level cognitive demand. This result could indicate that textbooks might not be the reason for American and Korean students’ performances in international comparative studies. More studies analyzing other standards based textbooks and teaching practice might be needed to have further understanding of mathematics education in two countries.

Keywords

Comparative study Textbook analysis Cognitive demand of mathematics items 

References

  1. Cai, J. (1995). A cognitive analysis of U.S. and Chinese students’ mathematical performance on tasking involving computation, simple problem solving, and complex problem solving. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education (Monograph series 7). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  2. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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, 391–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cai, J., Nie, B., & Moyer, J. C. (2010). The teaching of equation solving: Approaches in standards-based and traditional curricula in the United States. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 5, 170–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Charalambous, C., Delaney, S., Hui-Yu, H., & Mesa, V. (2010). A comparative analysis of the addition and subtraction of fractions in textbooks from three countries. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 12, 117–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2010). Common Core State Standards for Mathematics. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/assets/CCSSI_Math%20Standards.pdf
  7. Fan, L., & Zhu, Y. (2007). Representation of problem-solving procedures: A comparative look at China, Singapore, and US mathematics textbooks. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 66, 61–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ferrini-Mundy, J., & Schmidt, W. H. (2005). Research commentary: International comparative studies in mathematics education: Opportunities for collaboration and challenges for researchers. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 36, 164–175.Google Scholar
  9. Fey, J. T., Schoen, H. L., Watkins, A. E., Hirsh, C. R., & Hart, E. W. (2008). Core-plus mathematics: Contemporary mathematics in context, course 3. Columbus: Glencoe/McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  10. Filloy, E., & Rojano, T. (1989). Solving equations: The transition from arithmetic to algebra. For the Learning of Mathematics, 9(2), 19–25.Google Scholar
  11. Fuson, K. C., Stigler, J. W., & Bartsch, K. B. (1988). Grade placement of addition and subtraction topics in Japan, Mainland China, the Soviet Union, Taiwan, and the United States. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 19, 449–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Garner, R. (1992). Learning from school texts. Educational Psychologist, 27, 43–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Herscovics, N., & Linchevski, L. (1994). A cognitive gap between arithmetic and algebra. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 27, 59–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hiebert, J., Gallimore, R., Garnier, H., Givvin, K. B., Hollingsworth, H., Jacobs, J. K., et al. (2003). Teaching mathematics in seven countries: Results from the TIMSS 1999 video study, (NCES 2003-013 Revised). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.Google Scholar
  15. Hiebert, J., Stigler, J., Jacobs, J., Givvin, K. B., Garnier, H., Smith, M., et al. (2005). Mathematics teaching in the United States today (and tomorrow): Results from the TIMSS 1999 video study. Educational Evaluation and Policy, 27(2), 111–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hiebert, J., & Wearne, D. (1993). Instructional tasks, classroom discourse, and students’ learning in second-grade arithmetic. American Educational Research Journal, 30, 393–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hirsch, C. R., Fey, J. T., Hart, E. W., Schoen, H. L., & Watkins, A. E. (2007). Core-plus mathematics: Contemporary mathematics in context, course 1. Columbus: Glencoe/McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  18. Hirsch, C. R., Schoen, H. L., Fey, J. T., Watkins, A. E., & Hart, E. W. (2007). Core-plus mathematics: Contemporary mathematics in context, course 2. Columbus: Glencoe/McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  19. Judson, T. W., & Nishimori, T. (2005). Concepts and skills in high school calculus: An examination of a special case in Japan and the United States. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 36, 24–43.Google Scholar
  20. Kang, O. K., Jung, S., & Lee, H. (2008). Joonghakyo Soohak 9-Ga [Middle School Mathematics 9-A]. Seoul: Dusan.Google Scholar
  21. Kang, O. K., et al. (2001). Godunghakyo Soohak 10-Ga [High School Mathematics 10-A]. Seoul: Joongang Education.Google Scholar
  22. Kang, H., et al. (2007). Joonghakyo Soohak 9-Ga [Middle School Mathematics 9-A]. Seoul: Joongang Education.Google Scholar
  23. Kieran, C. (1981). Concepts associated with the equality symbol. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 12, 317–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Korean Textbook Research Foundation (KTRF) (1998). A study on making list of all textbooks published in Korea since 1945 and studying how to collect these textbooks. Seoul: KTRF.Google Scholar
  25. Kramer, S. L., & Keller, R. (2008). A brief report: An existence proof: Successful joint implementation of the IMP curriculum and a 4 × 4 block schedule at a suburban U.S. high school. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 39, 2–8.Google Scholar
  26. Leung, F. K. S. (2005). Some characteristics of East Asian mathematics classrooms based on data from the TIMSS 1999 video study. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 60, 199–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Li, Y. (2000). A comparison of problems that follow selected content presentations in American and Chinese mathematics textbooks. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 31, 234–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lins Lessa, M. M. (1995). A balança de dois pratos versus problemas verbais na iniciação à algebra [Two-pan scale versus verbal problems in introductory algebra] (Unpublished master’s thesis). Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Recife, Brazil.Google Scholar
  29. MacGregor, M., & Stacey, K. (1993). Cognitive models underlying students’ formulation of simple linear equations. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 24, 217–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. MacGregor, M., & Stacey, K. (1997). Students’ understanding of algebraic notation: 11-15. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 33, 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mayer, R. E., Sims, V., & Tajika, H. (1995). A comparison of how textbooks teach mathematical problem solving in Japan and the United States. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 443–460.Google Scholar
  32. Ministry of Education (MOE) in Korea. (2007). The seventh national mathematics curriculum. Seoul: MOE.Google Scholar
  33. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM.Google Scholar
  34. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM.Google Scholar
  35. Renkl, A. (2002). Worked-out examples: Instructional explanations support learning by self-explanations. Learning and Instruction, 12, 529–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Reys, B. J., Reys, R. E., & Chavez, O. (2004). Why mathematics textbooks matter. Educational Leadership, 61(5), 61–66.Google Scholar
  37. Riordan, J. E., & Noyce, P. E. (2001). The impact of two standards-based mathematics curricula on student achievement in Massachusetts. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 32, 368–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Schliemann, A. D., Carraher, D. W., Brizuela, B., & Jones, W. (1998). Solving algebra problems before algebra instruction. Paper presented at the Second Meeting of the Early Algebra Research Group, Medford, MA.Google Scholar
  39. Schmidt, W. H. (2005). A vision for mathematics. Educational Leadership, 61(5), 6–11.Google Scholar
  40. Schmidt, W. H., McKnight, C. C., Houang, R. T., Wang, H. C., Wiley, D. E., Cogan, L. S., et al. (2001). Why schools matter: A cross national comparison of curriculum and learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  41. Schoen, H. L., & Hirsch, C. R. (2003a). Responding to calls for change in high school mathematics: Implications for collegiate mathematics. American Mathematical Monthly, 110(2), 109–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Schoen, H. L., & Hirsch, C. R. (2003b). The core-plus mathematics project: Perspectives and student achievement. In S. Senk & D. Thompson (Eds.), Standards-oriented school mathematics curricula: What are they? What do students learn? (pp. 311–344). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  43. Seeley, C., & Schielack, J. F. (2007). A look at the development of algebraic thinking in curriculum focal points. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 13, 266–269.Google Scholar
  44. Son, J., & Senk, S. (2010). How standards curricula in the USA and Korea present multiplication and division of fractions. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 74, 117–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Stein, M. K., Grover, B. W., & Henningsen, M. (1996). Building student capacity for mathematical thinking and reasoning: An analysis of mathematical tasks used in standards classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 33, 455–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Steinberg, R., Sleeman, D., & Ktorza, D. (1990). Algebra students knowledge of equivalence of equations. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 22, 112–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Stevenson, H. W., & Bartsch, K. (1992). An analysis of Japanese and American textbooks in mathematics. In R. Leetsman & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Japanese educational productivih (pp. 103–134). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  48. Stigler, J., Fuson, K., Ham, M., & Kim, M. S. (1986). An analysis of addition and subtraction word problems in American and Soviet elementary mathematics textbooks. Cognition and Instruction, 3, 153–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Stigler, J. W., & Hiebert, J. (2004). Improving mathematics teaching. Educational Leadership, 65(1), 12–16.Google Scholar
  50. Stigler, J. W., Lee, S.-Y., Lucker, G. W., & Stevenson, H. W. (1982). Curriculum and achievement in mathematics: A study of elementary school children in Japan, Taiwan, and the United States. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 315–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Tarr, J. E., Reys, R. E., Reys, B. J., Chavez, O., Shih, J., & Osterlind, S. (2008). The impact of middles grades mathematics curricula and the classroom learning environment on student achievement. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 39, 247–280.Google Scholar
  52. Wagner, S. (1981). Conservation of equation and function under transformations of variable. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 12, 107–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Watson, A., & Mason, J. (2005). Mathematics as a constructive activity: Learners generating examples. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  54. Westbury, I. (1992). Comparing American and Japanese achievement: Is the United States really a low achiever? Educational Researcher, 21(5), 18–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wu, M. (2006). A comparison of mathematics performance between East and West: What PISA and TIMSS can tell us. In F. K. S. Leung, K.-D. Graf, & F. J. Lopez-Real (Eds.), Mathematics education in different cultural traditions: A comparative study of East Asia and the West (pp. 227–238). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  56. Yim, J., et al. (2001). Godunghakyo Soohak 10-Ga [High School Mathematics 10-A]. Seoul: Doosan.Google Scholar
  57. Zhu, Y., & Fan, L. (2006). Focus on the representation of problem types in intended curriculum: A comparison of selected mathematics textbooks from mainland China and the United States. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 4, 609–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of IowaIowa CityUSA

Personalised recommendations