Examining the Mathematical Emphasis in Five Curriculum Programs

  • Ok-Kyeong Kim
  • Janine T. RemillardEmail author
Part of the Research in Mathematics Education book series (RME)


In this chapter, we examine mathematical treatment and emphasis in the five curriculum programs—what aspects of mathematics are emphasized and the way in which the mathematics is represented and organized for student learning. In doing so, we attend to mathematics content presented for daily instruction, in particular, the scope and sequence of number and operations. In addition, the cognitive demand of instructional activities, the nature of ongoing practice, and the visual and physical representations used are examined in order to discern the mathematical emphasis in the programs. The results show that there are substantial variations in the scope and sequence of number and operations, cognitive demand of tasks and problems, ongoing practice, and representations used across the five programs. Such variations reveal different mathematical treatments and emphasis in the programs. We summarize important findings of the study and discuss implications for teachers and teaching for each of the findings.


Curriculum analysis Mathematics curriculum materials Elementary mathematics Mathematical emphasis Cognitive demand Sequencing Ongoing practice Representations Whole numbers Fractions and decimals Everyday Mathematics Investigations in Number, Data, and Space Math in Focus Math Trailblazers Scott Foresman–Addison Wesley Mathematics 


  1. Barzel, B., Leuders, T., Prediger, S., & Hußmann, S. (2013). Designing tasks for engaging students in active knowledge organization. In A. Watson, M. Ohtani, J. Ainley, J. B. Frant, M. Doorman, C. Kieran, A. Leung, C. Margolinas, P. Sullivan, D. Thompson, & Y. Yang (Eds.), Proceedings of study conference–ICMI study 22 on task design (pp. 285–294). Oxford: Oxford Press.Google Scholar
  2. Boston, M. D., & Candela, A. G. (2018). The instructional quality assessment as a tool for reflecting on instructional practice. ZDM Mathematics Education, 50, 427–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Charles, R. I., Crown, W., Fennell, F., et al. (2008). Scott Foresman–Addison Wesley Mathematics. Glenview, IL: Pearson.Google Scholar
  4. Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2004). Learning trajectories in mathematics education. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 6(2), 81–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Confrey, J., Maloney, A. P., & Corley, A. K. (2014). Learning trajectories: A framework for connecting standards with curriculum. ZDM Mathematics Education, 46, 719–733.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Corcoran, T., Mosher, F. A., & Rogat, A. (2009). Learning progressions in science: An evidence-based approach to reform. Research Report No. 63. Madison, WI: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.Google Scholar
  7. Doyle, W. (1983). Academic work. Review of Education Research, 5, 159–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Doyle, W. (1988). Work in mathematics classes: The context of students’ thinking during instruction. Educational Psychologist, 23(2), 167–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Doyle, W., & Carter, L. (1984). Academic tasks in classroom. Curriculum Inquiry, 14, 129–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gelman, R., & Brenneman, K. (2004). Science learning pathways for young children. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 19, 150–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hiebert, J. (Ed.). (1986). Conceptual and procedural knowledge: The case of mathematics. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  12. Hiebert, J., & Wearne, D. (1993). Instructional tasks, classroom discourse, and students’ learning in second-grade arithmetic. American Educational Research Journal, 30(2), 393–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kim, O. K. (2018). Teacher decisions on lesson sequence and their impact on opportunities for students to learn. In L. Fan, L. Trouche, C. Qi, S. Rezat, & J. Visnovska (Eds.), Research on mathematics textbooks and teachers’ resources (pp. 315–339). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lesh, R., & Jawojewski, J. (2007). Problem solving and modeling. In F. K. Lester Jr. (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 262–804). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.Google Scholar
  15. Marshall Cavendish International. (2010). Math in focus: The Singapore approach by Marshall Cavendish. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.Google Scholar
  16. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.Google Scholar
  17. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards mathematics. Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  18. National Research Council. (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  19. Otten, S., & Soria, V. M. (2014). Relationships between students’ learning and their participation during enactment of middle school algebra tasks. ZDM Mathematics Education, 46, 815–827.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Pepin, B., Gueudet, G., & Trouche, L. (2013). Re-sourcing teachers’ work and interactions: A collective perspective on resources, their use and transformation. ZDM, 45(7), 929–943.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Pepin, B., & Haggarty, L. (2001). Mathematics textbooks and their use in English, French and German classrooms: A way to understand teaching and learning cultures. ZDM, 33(5), 1–20.Google Scholar
  22. Putnam, R. (2003). Commentary on four elementary mathematics curricula. In S. Senk & D. Thompson (Eds.), Standards-based school mathematics curricula: What are they? What do students learn? (pp. 161–178). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  23. Remillard, J. T., Harris, B., & Agodini, R. (2014). The influence of curriculum material design on opportunities for student learning. ZDM Mathematics Education, 46, 375–349.Google Scholar
  24. Remillard, J. T., & Kim, O. K. (2017). Knowledge of curriculum embedded mathematics: Exploring a critical domain of teaching. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 96(1), 65–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational Researcher, 27(2), 4–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Simon, M. A. (1995). Reconstructing mathematics pedagogy from a constructivist perspective. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 26, 114–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sleep, L. (2009). Teaching to the mathematical point: Knowing and using mathematics in teaching. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Michigan, USA.Google Scholar
  28. Sleep, L. (2012). The work of steering instruction toward the mathematical point: A decomposition of teaching practice. American Educational Research Journal, 49(5), 935–970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Smith, M. S., & Stein, M. K. (1998). Selecting and creating mathematical tasks: From research to practice. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 3(5), 344–350.Google Scholar
  30. Son, J.-W., & Kim, O. K. (2015). Teachers’ selection and enactment of mathematical problems from textbooks. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 27(4), 491–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Stein, M. K., Grover, B. W., & Henningsen, M. A. (1996). Building student capacity for mathematical thinking and reasoning: An analysis of mathematical tasks used in reform classroom. American Educational Research Journal, 33(2), 455–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Stein, M. K., & Kim, G. (2009). The role of mathematics curriculum materials in large-scale urban reform: An analysis of demands and opportunities for teacher learning. In J. T. Remillard, B. A. Herbel-Eisenmann, & G. M. Lloyd (Eds.), Mathematics teachers at work: Connecting curriculum materials and classroom instruction (pp. 37–55). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  33. Stein, M. K., & Smith, M. S. (1998). Mathematical tasks as a framework for reflection: From research to practice. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 3(4), 268–275.Google Scholar
  34. Stein, M. K., Smith, M. S., Henningsen, M. A., & Silver, E. A. (2000). Implementing standards-based mathematics instruction: A casebook for professional development. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  35. Stylianou, D. A. (2011). An examination of middle school students’ representation practices in mathematical problem solving through the lens of expert work: Towards an organizing scheme. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 76(3), 265–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sztajn, P., Confrey, J., Wilson, P. H., & Edgington, C. (2012). Learning trajectory based instruction: Toward a theory of teaching. Educational Researcher, 41(5), 147–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. TIMS Project. (2008). Math trailblazers unit resource guide grade 5, unit 4 division and data. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  38. TERC. (2008). Investigations in Number, Data, and Space (2nd edition). Glenview, IL: Pearson Education Inc.Google Scholar
  39. TIMS Project (2008). Math Trailblazers (3rd Edition). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  40. University of Chicago School Mathematics Project. (2008). Everyday Mathematics (3rd Edition). Chicago, IL: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  41. Wittmann, E. C. H. (1995). Mathematics education as a design science. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 29, 355–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wittmann, E. C. H. (2001). Developing mathematics education in a systemic process. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 48, 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of MathematicsWestern Michigan UniversityKalamazooUSA
  2. 2.Graduate School of EducationUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations