Abstract
The aim of this study was to identify challenges in implementing a physics-before- 10 mathematics curriculum. Obviously, students need to learn necessary mathematics skills in order to develop advanced physics knowledge. In the 2010 high school curriculum in Taiwan, however, grade 11 science students study two-dimensional motion in physics without prior learning experiences of trigonometry in mathematics. The perspectives of three curriculum developers, 22 mathematics and physics teachers, two principals, and 45 science students were obtained by interview. The results of qualitative data analysis revealed six challenges and suggested likely solutions. The national level includes political and social challenges, resolved by respecting teachers as professionals; the teacher level includes knowledge and teaching challenges, resolved by increasing teacher trans-literal capacities; and the student level includes learning and justice challenges, resolved by focusing on students’ diverse developments in cross-domain learning.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Angell, C., Guttersrud, Ø., Henriksen, E. K., & Isnes, A. (2004). Physics: frightful, but fun. Pupils’ and teachers’ views of physics and physics teaching. Science Education, 88, 683–706.
Askew, M., Venkat, H., & Mathews, C. (2012). Coherence and consistency in South African primary mathematics lessons. In T. Y. Tso (Ed.), Proceedings of the 36th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, 2 (pp. 27–34). Taipei: PME.
Beswick, K. (2007). Teachers’ beliefs that matter in secondary mathematics classrooms. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 65, 95–120.
Burny, E., Valcke, M., Desoete, A., & Van Luit, J. E. H. (2013). Curriculum sequencing and the acquisition of clock-reading skills among Chinese and Flemish children. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 11, 761–785.
Cai, J., Ding, M., & Wang, T. (2014). How do exemplary Chinese and US mathematics teachers view instructional coherence? Educational Studies in Mathematics, 85(2), 265–280.
Carr, D. (2007). Towards an educationally meaningful curriculum: epistemic holism and knowledge integration revisited. British Journal of Educational Studies, 55(1), 3–20.
Charmaz, K. (2000). Grounded theory: objectivist and constructivist methods. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 509–535). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Chiu, M.-S. (2012). The internal/external frame of reference model, big-fish-little-pond effect, and combined model for mathematics and science. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104, 87–107.
Chiu, M.-S. (2013). Tensions in implementing the “energy-conservation/carbon-reduction” policy in Taiwanese culture. Energy Policy, 55, 415–425.
Chiu, M.-S., & Whitebread, D. (2011). Taiwanese teachers’ implementation of a new ‘constructivist mathematics curriculum’: how cognitive and affective issues are addressed. International Journal of Educational Development, 31, 196–206.
Clark, V. L. P., Garrett, A. L., & Leslie-Pelecky, D. L. (2010). Applying three strategies for integrating quantitative and qualitative databases in a mixed methods study of a nontraditional graduate education program. Field Methods, 22, 154–174.
Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13(1), 3–21.
Davis, K., Christodoulou, J. A., Seider, S., & Gardner, H. (2011). The theory of multiple intelligences. In R. J. Sternberg & S. B. Kaufman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of intelligence (pp. 485–503). Cambridge: Cambridge University.
Deary, I. J., Strand, S., Smith, P., & Fernandes, C. (2007). Intelligence and educational achievement. Intelligence, 35, 13–21.
Deng, Z. (2007). Knowing the subject matter of a secondary‐school science subject. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 39, 503–535.
Fiss, A. (2012). Problems of abstraction: defining an American standard for mathematics education at the turn of the twentieth century. Science & Education, 21(8), 1185–1197.
Geraedts, C., Boersma, K. T., & Eijkelhof, H. M. (2006). Towards coherent science and technology education. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 38, 307–325.
Hart, C. (2001). Examining relations of power in a process of curriculum change: the case of VCE physics. Research in Science Education, 31(4), 525–551.
Hu, B. Y., Fuentes, S. Q., Wang, C. Y., & Ye, F. (2014). A case study of the implementation of Chinese kindergarten mathematics curriculum. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 12, 193–217.
Huang, T. (2012). Agents’ social imagination: the ‘invisible’ hand of neoliberalism in Taiwan’s curriculum reform. International Journal of Educational Development, 32, 39–45.
International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement. (2005). TIMSS 2003 user guide for the international database. Chestnut Hill: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Centre.
Ivankova, N. V., Creswell, J. W., & Stick, S. L. (2006). Using mixed-methods sequential explanatory design: from theory to practice. Field Methods, 18, 3–20.
Jablonka, E., Wagner, D., Walshaw, M., et al. (2013). Theories for studying social, political and cultural dimensions of mathematics education. In M. A. Ken & Clements (Eds.), Third International Handbook of Mathematics Education (pp. 41–67). New York: Springer.
Laird, T. F. N., & Garver, A. K. (2010). The effect of teaching general education courses on deep approaches to learning: how disciplinary context matters. Research in Higher Education, 51(3), 248–265.
Lewis, J., & Ritchie, J. (2003). Generalizing from qualitative research. In J. Ritchie & J. Lewis (Eds.), Qualitative research practice: a guide for social science students and researchers (pp. 263–286). London: Sage.
Li, K.-C. (2010). On the 95 guidelines and the 99 guidelines of high school. Bimonthly Journal of National Institute of Educational Resources and Research, 92, 1–24 (in Chinese).
Lin, T.-J., Tan, A. L., & Tsai, C.-C. (2013). A cross-cultural comparison of Singaporean and Taiwanese eighth graders’ science learning self-efficacy from a multi-dimensional perspective. International Journal of Science Education, 35, 1083–1109.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills: Sage.
Lonning, R. A., & DeFranco, T. C. (2010). Integration of science and mathematics: a theoretical model. School Science and Mathematics, 97, 212–215.
Lützen, J. (2011). The physical origin of physically useful mathematics. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 36(3), 229–243.
Marsh, H. W., & Hau, K. T. (2004). Explaining paradoxical relations between academic self-concepts and achievements: cross-cultural generalizability of the internal/external frame of reference predictions across 26 countries. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 56–67.
Marton, F. (1981). Phenomenography: describing conceptions of the world around us. Instructional Science, 10, 177–200.
Meijer, J., & Riemersma, F. (2002). Teaching and testing mathematical problem solving by offering optional assistance. Instructional Science, 30(3), 187–220.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Murdock, J. (2008). Comparison of curricular breadth, depth, and recurrence and physics achievement of TIMSS population 3 countries. International Journal of Science Education, 30, 1135–1157.
Murphy, P., & Wolfenden, F. (2012). Developing a pedagogy of mutuality in a capability approach—teachers’ experiences of using the open educational resources (OER) of the teacher education in sub-Saharan Africa (TESSA) program. International Journal of Educational Development, 33, 263–271.
Niemi, H. (2008). Advancing research into and during teacher education. In B. Hudso & P. Zgaga (Eds.), Teacher education policy in Europe: a voice of higher education institutions (pp. 183–208). Umeå: University of Umeå, Faculty of Teacher Education.
Park, E. J., & Choi, K. (2013). Analysis of student understanding of science concepts including mathematical representations: pH values and the relative differences of pH values. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 11, 683–706.
Schmidt, W. H., Wang, H. C., & McKnight, C. C. (2005). Curriculum coherence: an examination of US mathematics and science content standards from an international perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37(5), 525–559.
Schwartz, M. S., Sadler, P. M., Sonnert, G., & Tai, R. H. (2009). Depth versus breadth: how content coverage in high school science courses relates to later success in college science coursework. Science Education, 93, 798–826.
Steiner, H., & Carr, M. (2003). Cognitive development in gifted children: toward a more precise understanding of emerging differences in intelligence. Educational Psychology Review, 15, 215–246.
Sternberg, R. J. (2014). Teaching about the nature of intelligence. Intelligence, 42, 176–179.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park: Sage.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Grounded theory methodology: an overview. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Strategies of qualitative inquiry (pp. 158–183). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Szendrei, J. (2007). When the going gets tough, the tough gets going problem solving in Hungary, 1970–2007: research and theory, practice and politics. ZDM Mathematics Education, 39(5), 443–458.
Triantafillou, C., Spiliotopoulou, V., & Potari, D. (2013). Periodicity in textbooks: reasoning and visual representations. In A. M. Lindmeier & A. Heinze (Eds.), Proceedings of the 37th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, 4 (pp. 297–304). Kiel: PME.
Tsai, C. C., & Kuo, P. C. (2008). Cram school students’ conceptions of learning and learning science in Taiwan. International Journal of Science Education, 30, 353–375.
Vahey, P., Rafanan, K., Patton, C., Swan, K., van’t Hooft, M., Kratcoski, A., & Stanford, T. (2012). A cross-disciplinary approach to teaching data literacy and proportionality. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 81(2), 179–205.
Williams, P. J. (2007). Valid knowledge: the economy and the academy. Higher Education, 54, 511–523.
Wood, L. N., Mather, G., Petocz, P., Reid, A., Engelbrecht, J., Harding, A., & Perrett, G. (2012). University students’ views of the role of mathematics in their future. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10(1), 99–119.
Zohar, A. (2013). Challenges in wide scale implementation efforts to foster higher order thinking (HOT) in science education across a whole school system. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 10, 233–249.
Acknowledgments
This study was supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan (NSC 101-2511-S-004 -001; MOST 103-2410-H-004-137).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Chiu, MS. The Challenge of Learning Physics Before Mathematics: A Case Study of Curriculum Change in Taiwan. Res Sci Educ 46, 767–786 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-015-9479-5
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-015-9479-5