Advertisement

Reflections on Curricular Change

Chapter
Part of the Advances in Mathematics Education book series (AME)

Abstract

Within any national perspective, curricular change may be viewed as evolutionary, with curricula evolving in ways responsive to the surrounding political and intellectual environments. There is, however, less global coherence than any intra-national perspective might suggest. Historical and political contexts matter, just as ecological niches do in evolutionary biology. This chapter begins with a meta-level discussion describing the consequential nature of (typically national) values, goals, and cultural context and traditions as shapers of curricula. It then proceeds with a discussion of curricular trends in the United States over the past decades, and thumbnail descriptions of changes in the Netherlands, Great Britain, Germany, France, China, and Japan. A concluding discussion reflects on the diversity of curricular directions worldwide, and suggests some ways in which we can profit from it.

Keywords

Curriculum Curriculum change High stakes assessment International trends 

References

  1. Artigue, M. (2011). Les questions de développement curriculaire à travers un exemple: l’enseignement de l’analyse en France au lycée depuis le début du XXème siècle. Quadrante, XX(1), 7–29 (Issues of curriculum development through an example: the teaching of analysis in school in France from the early twentieth century). Google Scholar
  2. Artigue, M., & Houdement, C. (2007). Problem solving in France: didactic and curricular perspectives. ZDM. Zentralblatt für Didaktik der Mathematik, 39(5–6), 365–382. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brousseau, G. (1997). Theory of didactical situations in mathematics (1970–1990). Dordrecht: Kluwer. Google Scholar
  4. Burkhardt, G. H. (2013). Curriculum design and systemic change. In Y. Li & G. Lappan (Eds.), Mathematics curriculum in school education. Dordrecht: Springer. Google Scholar
  5. Burkhardt, G. H. (May 21, 2012). Personal communication. Google Scholar
  6. Cai, J., & Nie, B. (2007). Problem solving in Chinese mathematics education: research and practice. In G. Törner, A. H. Schoenfeld, & K. Reiss (Eds.), Problem solving around the world—summing up the state of the art. Special issue of the Zentralblatt für Didaktik der Mathematik, 39(5–6), 459–474. Google Scholar
  7. Chevallard, Y. (1992). Concepts fondamentaux de la didactique. Perspectives apportées par une approche anthropologique (Fundamental concepts of teaching. Perspectives brought by an anthropological approach.). Recherches en Didactique des Mathématiques, 12(1), 73–112. Google Scholar
  8. Drijvers, P. (2012). Personal communication. Google Scholar
  9. Fernandez, C., & Yoshida, M. (2004). Lesson study: a Japanese approach to improving mathematics teaching and learning. Mahwah: Erlbaum. Google Scholar
  10. Foresman, S. (2001). California mathematics, grade 6. Glenview: Scott Foresman. Google Scholar
  11. German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (2004). The development of national educational standards: an expertise. Berlin: Federal Ministry of Education and Research. Google Scholar
  12. Hino, K. (2007). Toward the problem-centered classroom: trends in mathematical problem solving in Japan. In G. Törner, A. H. Schoenfeld, & K. Reiss (Eds.), Problem solving around the world—summing up the state of the art. Special issue of the Zentralblatt für Didaktik der Mathematik, 39(5–6), 503–514. Google Scholar
  13. Koyama, M. (2010). Mathematics curriculum in Japan. In F. K. S. Leung & Y. Li (Eds.), Reforms and issues in school mathematics in East Asia: pursuing excellence in mathematics curriculum and teacher education (pp. 59–78). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Google Scholar
  14. Lappan, G., & Phillips, E. (2009). Challenges in U.S. mathematics education through a curriculum developer lens. Educational Designer, 1(3). Downloaded January 10, 2009, from http://www.educationaldesigner.org/ed/volume1/issue3/article11/.
  15. Li, Y., & Huang, R. (2013). How Chinese teach mathematics and improve teaching. New York: Routledge. Google Scholar
  16. Liu, J., & Li, Y. (2010). Mathematics curriculum reform in the Chinese mainland: changes and challenges. In F. K. S. Leung & Y. Li (Eds.), Reforms and issues in school mathematics in East Asia: pursuing excellence in mathematics curriculum and teacher education (pp. 9–31). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Google Scholar
  17. Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher: a sociological study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar
  18. McKnight, C., Travers, K., Crosswhite, J., & Swafford, J. (1985a). Eighth grade mathematics in the secondary schools: a report from the second international mathematics study. Arithmetic Teacher, 32(8), 20–26. Google Scholar
  19. McKnight, C., Travers, K., & Dossey, J. (1985b). Twelfth grade mathematics in U.S. high schools: a report from the second international mathematics study. Mathematics Teacher, 78(4), 292–300. Google Scholar
  20. McKnight, C., Crosswhite, J., Dossey, J., Kifer, E., Swafford, J., Travers, K., & Cooney, T. (1987). The underachieving curriculum: assessing U.S. mathematics from an international perspective. Champaign: Stipes Publishing Company. Google Scholar
  21. Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., & Foy, P. (with Olson, J. F., Preuschoff, C., Erberber, E., Arora, A., & Galia, J.) (2008). TIMSS 2007 international mathematics report: findings from IEA’s trends in international mathematics and science study at the fourth and eighth grades. Chestnut Hill: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College. Google Scholar
  22. National Commission on Excellence in Education (1983). A nation at risk. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office. Google Scholar
  23. National Commission on Excellence in Education (1943). Essential mathematics for minimum army needs. Mathematics Teacher, 6, 243–282. Google Scholar
  24. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston: NCTM. Google Scholar
  25. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (1991). Professional standards for teaching school mathematics. Reston: NCTM. Google Scholar
  26. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (1995). Assessment standards for school mathematics. Reston: NCTM. Google Scholar
  27. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston: NCTM. Google Scholar
  28. National Research Council (1989). Everybody counts: a report to the nation on the future of mathematics education. Washington: National Academy Press. Google Scholar
  29. National Research Council (2001). Adding it up: helping children learn mathematics. J. Kilpatrick, J. Swafford, and B. Findell (Eds.). Mathematics Learning Study Committee, Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington: National Academy Press. Google Scholar
  30. OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) (2010). PISA 2009 results: what students know and can do: student performance in reading, mathematics and science (Vol. I). Paris: OECD. Google Scholar
  31. Park, K., & Leung, F. (2006). Mathematics lessons in Korea: teaching with systematic variation. In D. Clarke, C. Keitel, & Y. Shimizu (Eds.), Mathematics classrooms in twelve countries: the insider’s perspective (pp. 247–262). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Google Scholar
  32. Resek, D. (January 10, 2012) Personal communication. Google Scholar
  33. Sahlberg, P. (2012). Finnish lessons: what can the world learn from educational change in Finland? New York: Teachers College Press. Google Scholar
  34. Schoenfeld, A. H. (2001). Mathematics education in the 20th century. In L. Corno (Ed.), Education across a century: the centennial volume (100th yearbook of the national society for the study of education) (pp. 239–278). Chicago: National Society for the Study of Education. Google Scholar
  35. Schoenfeld, A. H. (2004). The math wars. Educational Policy, 18(1), 253–286. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Schoenfeld, A. H. (2007). Problem solving in the United States, 1970–2008: research and theory, practice and politics. In G. Törner, A. H. Schoenfeld, & K. Reiss (Eds.), Problem solving around the world—summing up the state of the art. Special issue of the Zentralblatt für Didaktik der Mathematik, 39(5–6), 537–551. Google Scholar
  37. Schoenfeld, A. H. (2012). Problematizing the didactic triangle. ZDM—The International Journal of Mathematics Education, 44, 587–599. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Senk, S. L. & Thompson, D. R. (Eds.) (2003). Standards-based school mathematics curricula: what are they? What do students learn? Mahwah: Erlbaum. Google Scholar
  39. Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (2012). Content specifications for the summative assessment of the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics. Can be downloaded from http://www.smarterbalanced.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Math-Content-Specifications.pdf.
  40. Stigler, J., & Hiebert, J. (1999). The teaching gap. New York: The Free Press. Google Scholar
  41. Takahashi, A. (2004). Ideas for establishing lesson study communities. Teaching Children Mathematics, 2004, 436–443. Google Scholar
  42. Törner, G., Schoenfeld, A. H., & Reiss, K. (Eds.) (2007). Problem solving around the world—summing up the state of the art. Special issue of the Zentralblatt für Didaktik der Mathematik, 39(5–6). Google Scholar
  43. University of Chicago School Mathematics Project (2009). UCSMP newsletter #40. Chicago: University of Chicago. Google Scholar
  44. Weinert, F. E. (2001). Vergleichende Leistungsmessung in Schulen—eine umstrittene Selbstverständlichkeit. In F. E. Weinert (Ed.), Leistungsmessungen in Schulen (pp. 17–31). Weinheim and Basel: Beltz Verlag. (Weinert, F. E. Comparative performance measurement in schools—a controversial matter of course. In F. E. Weinert (Ed.), Performance measures in schools (pp. 17–31). Weinheim: Beltz Verlag). Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of CaliforniaBerkeleyUSA

Personalised recommendations